Caught up in a conspiracy theory
| 11:54 UK time, Tuesday, 21 October 2008
I've just been sent a video on the net which accuses me of being "Eurotrash" and of producing a "hit piece" about 9/11.
Almost inevitably I've been enmeshed in the ever growing net of the conspiracy theory. They've added my name to a long list of imagined conspirators - the secret services, police, people who worked in the building, first responders, the fire service, city officials...and also those who they think have deliberately set out to cover up this huge conspiracy - the official investigators, the world's media...
Last month we were in New York to film the seventh anniversary of 9/11 at Ground Zero for a new programme about the allegation of a conspiracy to deliberately destroy the three skyscrapers at the World Trade Centre. "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower" is to be broadcast at 9pm on BBC Two on Sunday 26th October 2008.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
We also filmed self-styled truthers who think 9/11 was an inside job, either carried out or allowed by the US government; and they needed to destroy a third tower at the World Trade Center, Tower 7, which they think contained the plans for the plot.
It is a fact that Tower 7 had some interesting tenants - the CIA, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Office of Emergency Management - the very office which was intended to co-ordinate a response to a disaster or terrorist attack.
When we were filming we were surprised that some of the truthers seemed particularly keen to interview us on camera about the last programme we made about this third tower at 9/11. They think we have deliberately set out to conceal the truth. As one said to me "You already know the truth."
The group who made the video are called "We are change". They claim we misrepresented the chronology involving one important witness who we interviewed in our last programme about 9/11.
The first responder Barry Jennings was trapped inside the building for several hours along with another New York City official. They were crucial witnesses to what was going on inside Tower 7 after everyone had been evacuated shortly after the Twin Towers were hit by the two planes.
As I tried to explain to them at the time, we recorded a long interview with Barry Jennings. We also carefully considered other information and came to our own view based on all of that.
As the two men tried to get out of the skyscraper they were suddenly thrown into darkness. Barry Jennings said he heard explosions. We think it is likely that this was when Tower 1 collapsed, showering debris onto Tower 7.
We have also recently recorded an interview with the other man there, Michael Hess.
Michael Hess was Mayor Rudolf Giuliani's chief lawyer, in charge of 800 New York City lawyers. In his first interview since 9/11 he confirms our timeline. Hess says all the lights went out and he felt the building shake like an earthquake and he adds that he did not hear explosions.
In his mind he thought there might have been an explosion. In the only interview he did on 9/11 he told a reporter he had "walked down to the eighth floor where there was an explosion."
But as our interview with him shows, he is now certain that he did not hear an explosion. He just assumed on the day it could have been an explosion because he had witnessed the lights going out, the staircase filling with smoke and the building shaking vigorously.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
We now know, courtesy of the final official report on 9/11 [pdf link] by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, that the official investigators think that two areas of Tower 7 were badly hit when the 1,350 foot Tower 1 collapsed. Seven columns were severed on the southwest corner and they suggest debris also hit the top centre face of Tower 7.
The lead investigator of NIST told me that "it's likely that all of those huge failures and damage really caused noises that were incredibly loud."
If our timeline is wrong then why didn't Barry Jennings and Michael Hess see and hear the moment of impact when Tower 1 fell. It must have been very loud.
The group also criticizes us for not including one sentence from an interview with the owner Larry Silverstein. Apologies now because this gets very complicated. However, some people think hidden in this is a vital clue that can unravel the biggest conspiracy in modern times.
The theory is that the owner Larry Silverstein is meant to have implicated himself in a conspiracy to destroy the buildings he owned and leased at the World Trade Center. And what exactly did he say that supposedly gave it all away?
He said "pull it" which some people interpret as an order to demolish the building.
The interview was conducted the year after 9/11 and Larry Silverstein said:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."
"We are change" activists think there is something sinister in the fact that we did not include an extra sentence when Larry Silverstein said:
"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
I don't have a problem talking about it. And just for the avoidance of any doubt we included it in the Worldwide version and we will include it in the new programme for BBC Two.
However, I do not understand how that implicates the owner in any wrongdoing. Interestingly one prominent website, 9/11 Research which is highly critical of the official explanation, is not convinced either and thinks it might even be "bait" to discredit the truth movement.
The crucial words seem to be "pull it" and Larry Silverstein's spokesman provides an explanation:
"Mr Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those fire fighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
I talked to the man who assumed command of the New York Fire Department that day. Chief Daniel Nigro told me that it was his decision to decide what to do about Tower 7.
In other words there is no way Larry Silverstein could have ordered the fire department to leave the building and wait for it to be demolished. As Chief Nigro told me the fire service was not part of conspiracy, they were doing their job:
"When we are in charge of a building, we are in charge and that decision will be the fire chiefs and his alone...That's why I know there is no conspiracy, because for me to be part of that would be obscene and it disgusts me to even think of it."
For good measure the truthers at Ground Zero added one final criticism, saying that the BBC is funded by General Electric. I'm not sure what that's based on, but I can say with absolute, yes absolute certainty, it isn't...nor have I ever been part of a conspiracy to cover up what really went on 9/11.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The BBC is funded by general electric ????
Makes you wonder who is behnd these 'truth' campaigners.
It's seems very convenient that this campaign of theirs is coming to a head just at the time of the US elections.
How are these people funded?
Complain about this comment
Mike,
I've throughly enjoyed watching these conspiracy programmes, as they treat the theories with the respect they deserve - the sensible, well-thought out theories get treated with respect (even if you don't agree with them).
But you have one major problem. You say that you have never been part of a conspiracy to cover up 9/11. However - and I'm sure if I don't point this out, someone else will - if you WERE involved with a conspiracy, that's what you would say too.
Unless you were a particularly bad conspiracist, of course!
"Was there a conspiracy to cover up 9/11?"
"No"
"What makes you so sure?"
"Well I was a member of it...er..."
General Electric? Where does that come from? And more importantly, if you're getting your funding from there, can I have a TV licence refund?
Complain about this comment
I find the 9/11 conspiracy very intriguing, I saw this free for profit film which has some very interesting insight into what happened on that awful day.
Enter ‘zeitgeist’ into your browser and see for your self.
Complain about this comment
I can't understand how anyone can just blindly accept the version of events resulting from any official enquiry.
I'm not a rabid conspiracist but there are so many holes in the official line to make anyone question the validity of it.
Why for example can we not be shown video footage of the plane crashing into the pentagon when so many cameras captured that moment? It's almost as if the us administration wants to perpetuate the conspiracy theories.
Complain about this comment
I think these conspiracy theories are part of human nature. Look what we went through, and still do, with the Kennedy conspiracy. Agatha Christie couldn't have done it better.
Complain about this comment
Oh mike, poor you.
you don't quite get it do you.
Us, "self style truthers", dont believe you, "state sponsored journalists".
You couldn't answer a straight question asked of you in your confrontation with 'we are change'. It was your Michael Howard moment. you avoided it and danced around it but couldn't give a straight answer.
I think it was the smirk on your face that most of us, self styled truthers, found really offensive. when one considers the net effect of 9/11 and then sees your smiling disdain to any questions about it, It's not pleasant. I can only speak for myself here.
There is no single conspiricy theory but there is a general acceptance amongst us, "self styled truthers", that the report made by the Kean Commission doesn't add up. (including members of the Kean Commission). "the order still stands", and such.
Many names are theorised about who are responsible, Guilliani, Hess and Silverstiens names are often mentioned. So you back up your claims by saying they told you how it is all ok, there is nothing sinister to worry about and please believe our 'man in a cave' coincidence theory, and you take this at face value. That was some great investigative journalism you did there.
You asked the accused if they did it, they said no, case closed no mystery here.
If you spent the same amount of time trying to disprove the 'man in a cave' theory as you have done the 'inside job' theory maybe folks like me would have more faith in your words.
But you don't. The only interest you have in is disproving any other theory other than the official theory.
I also notice that you didn't mention that Barry Jennings can no longer add to his testimony as he is now dead. As if we needed more fuel for our doubting minds.
Your coverage and misdirection just gets worse and worse. Tower 7 is only one piece of the case against the 'man in a cave' theory. The list of smoking guns is well into the hundreds.
The more you avoid a straight investigation or a striaght open debate about 9/11, and 7/7 for that matter (I see the 7/7 documentary has been shelved) then the more, I for one, will doubt what you say.
Oh then again you have lost so much credibility in the eyes of us 'self styled truthers' that they/we/I don't need your endorsement.
I think you lost any trust with Dr. Kelly for most of us
Complain about this comment
I watched the program when broadcast. My thoughts at the time were:
Ever heard a slab of concrete dropped onto another slab of concrete, particularly where there are enclosed spaces. It sounds like a very loud explosion and causes vibrations etc. As part of the third tower was being hit with debris and partially collapsed, it was both being struck with considerable force and having internal collapses of its own. That would account for the loud bangs.
If you want to do a small experiment drop a paving slab down a stairwell. (I had a misspent youth.)
Silverstein said: `And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
` I`d interpert that as meaning `pull out` or `pull back to safety`. If he wanted to blow it up then he`d have said `blow it` or `hit it`. He didn`t. This also makes sense when following a statement such as `We`ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.` As in `pull the resuce operation` until we think things are safer etc.
Blowing up a building won`t destroy documents? It`ll bury them or scatter them; making it even harder to ensure they won`t be discovered.
Bin Laden was interviewed on October 20, 2001 by Al-Jazeera Bureaux chief Taysir Alluni in Kabul. In his first interview after 9/11 Osama bin Laden said `that the events that happened on Tuesday September 11 in New York and Washington are truly great events by any measure. ` They were `successful and blessed attacks… We implore God to accept those brothers (who carried them out) within the ranks of the martyrs, and to admit them to the highest levels of Paradise.`
Bin Laden has many times since claimed responsibility for 9/11 the attacks.
I`m not naive. Not all conspiracy theories are without foundation: I myself believe, based on the evidence, that the CIA assassinated Luther King and allowed crack cocaine to be introduced in the USA by contras to fund wars in S. America. But this one is frankly implausible.
Complain about this comment
If our timeline is wrong.
Why did nt Barry Jennings and Micheal Hess see and hear the moment of impact when Tower 1 fell.
Your timeline is wrong and i will tell you why Mike,by the way i dont think you are part of a cover up just too much in your box.
Barry Jennings R.I.P quite clearly states in his interview with Loose Change which i doubt you have seen that Hess and himself were back on the 19th floor coordinating there rescue with fireman out of a window when the first tower collapsed.The fireman left the area for safety reasons returning when it was deemed safe only to leave again when the second tower collapsed this is crystal clear.
So it is without any doubt there were explosions in Tower 7 prior to either towers collapsing.Go check it out yourself.
Complain about this comment
You've missed the point with the Larry Silverstein quote.
It's not whether or not he said "pull it" that's the problem, it's the fact that it was originally reported that the building collapsed on it's own. If it later transpires that it was deliberately pulled down (even if it was done to preempt a collapse), it looks like they were trying to hide their actions.
If someone just came out and said "we got it wrong in all the confusion" then half the conspiracy theories would never have started.
It also doesn't help that the official story is itself a conspiracy theory. Of the 19 people that the FBI claim were the hijackers, half a dozen have come forward protesting their innocence. The fact that they are still alive to do so lends their story a certain credence.
Complain about this comment
Mike,
Thanks for including the extended Larry Silverstein quote.
Since Chief Daniel Nigro didn't tell you he was in communication with Larry Silverstein on 9-11 (or I assume you'd have highlighted that by now?), and as the Chief says, he doesn't need anyone's permission to direct his team, isn't it unlikely Silverstein was referring to the fire crew?
If Silverstein was referring to the fire crew, then why hasn't Chief Nigro confirmed that they spoke together about this?
And according to Rudy's lawyer, on the day, when it was still fresh in his mind, he recalls explosions. Now, 7 years later, he's sure it wasn't explosions...maybe his statements have changed because the other guy who was with him, who says he heard explosions has recently turned up dead? Anyway, I'm pretty sure that witness testimony on the day of the event, is more generally more credible than recollections 7 years later.
You claim you are not part of the coverup...so why did the BBC refuse to air video footage of the collapse of WTC7 for over 5 years?
Why did your organisation, and all other mainstream media, cover up this news event?
And you reported the collapse of the building about 20 minutes before it happened. By your own admission.
You want people to think your timeline of events is accurate, but you haven't bothered to report on 9-11 hero William Rodriguez saying there was a huge explosion in the basement of the twin towers, BEFORE the first plane hit.
For those who still haven't seen video of WTC7 collapsing, have a look for yourself, and then make your own conclusions. Don't dismiss the "conspiracy theorists" until you've had a look at the facts.
Complain about this comment
7. At 2:11pm on 21 Oct 2008, SheffTim wrote:
"Bin Laden has many times since claimed responsibility for 9/11 the attacks."
Out of curiosity, which OBL are we talking about here? Is it the thin, left-handed guy who doesn't wear jewelry and sends his taped messages to news agencies or is it the chubbier, sovreign-wearing, right-handed guy who accidently leaves tapes lying around Afghanistan for the CIA to find?
Complain about this comment
with all the conspiricies they cloud the truth, well just to simplify matters firstly there is no puzzle to solve over 9/11.
the basic facts are these,
1) jet liners hit the twin towers, fact as well reported.
2) the towers fell, yet again fact.
3) other events like a jet hitting the pentagon and tower 3 falling, again well reported facts.
but the truth is rather stranger,
the planes that hit the twin towers were infact under alien control.
the aliens were and are in league with the government.
the same government is also behind the fake moon landings,the loss of the titanic, several killings inclouding the kennedy ones and recent financial problems.
this government having sold out to aliens expects other governments to join them in there alien run wars of conquest.
but if this truth is believable then i am not as mad as i thought i was.
Complain about this comment
Oh noes, truthers not getting their own way again? Quick, to the blogs and forums!
Journalists never learn that unless you say what conspiracy theorists want to hear then you're "part of the system".
After 9/11, demolition crews spent a lot of time knocking over buildings that were heavily damaged in full view of the public. One wonders why there was a need to knock over an obscure building in secret, thus increasing the risk of exposing the "plot" to knock over the twin towers. It would have been far easier and less attention-grabbing to have taken it down the next day (giving a chance for goverment agents to clear the area of any conspiracy information) ;)
I should have planned this, I could have done it better than Bush!
Complain about this comment
deryk pooley, you can watch video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (the BBC have it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm).
Why can't you see the plane clearly, simple mathematics:
A 757 at cruising speed covers roughly 236 metres every second; this plane, as it was diving, would probably have been travelling faster.
A 757 is approximately 50m long.
At 30 frames per second, a 757 at cruising speed would cover 8m per frame. The Pentagon CCTV system appears to use time-lapse cameras (in common with lots of CCTV systems) running slower than 30fps.
If the video showed anything more than a blurred image of part of the plane, it would be more likely to be faked than real.
Of course nothing will satisfy the conspiracy theorists except official acceptance of their version of "the truth"; although I doubt they would be convinced even then.
Complain about this comment
Mike,
Reading over your blog again, I've just grasped that Nigro is the guys who apparently called Silverstein and said they weren't sure they were going to be able to save the building.
Does Nigro corroborate this statement by Silverstein?
What efforts was Nigro making to save the building at this stage?
Why, given that the building looks to be structurally sound, aside from fires on a handful of floors, would Nigro have the feeling the building was going to be totalled?
Can Nigro confirm damage to the rear side of WTC7?
Was Nigro interviewed by NIST, or the 9-11 commission? His names does not appear in either final report?
Is there any chance of you posting a pdf of the full interview you did with Chief Nigro, (and all the other interviews done for your program) so readers can see how thoroughly and professionally you conducted the interviews?
Complain about this comment
I don't normally pay attention to conspiracy theorists - after reading some of the comments in here I can see I have missed out on hours of fun!!
Complain about this comment
#5. The problem with the Kennedy shooting was that the congressional report & warren report fundamentally disagreed.
Personally I think there WAS a cover up there: Lee Harvey Oswald, possibly with someone else probably shot Kennedy on the orders of Castro (which is self defence given how many times JFK tried to kill Castro). Johnson wisely covered this up because it would be WW3 if revealed.
Not all cover ups are evil.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Rudin, I am curious why you haven't interviewed David Ray Griffin. It appears you have passed over his research on Hess and Jennings.
And not to imply that Hess is lying, but his initial interview, when the events were fresh in memory, might be more reliable than an opinion he has arrived at potentially from a political motive as much as anything else. I'm sure (or hope) you took that into account. He must still operate in the NYC political environment, and given his connection to Guiliani, and all that that relationship could entail, it comes as no surprise to me that he would change his story from what he originally said when the politics of his statement were arguably less in play.
I am also concerned on your reliance on NIST and its NCSTAR 1 report. It was a massive effort, but as James Quintiere, former Director of NIST's Fire research division, said to the 2007 World Fire Safety symposium, he has problems with NIST not allowing independent evaluation of the data, methods, and parameters NIST used to generate its report. He publicly called for that data to be released for independent evaluation.
Particularly troubling are the "black box" computer simulations that when fed empirical data from actual experiments, the simulations failed to produce the collapse. Data was then entered to create more extreme conditions, with no factual basis for doing so other than to force a simulated collapse. That method is highly suspect, especially if the data and parameters are not transparent.
Personally, I have looked carefully at the blueprints for WTC 1, and find no logical basis for the claim NIST makes that jet fuel fireballs collapsed walls, and created extreme heat in subbasement levels in the first 5 to 8 minutes after the plane struck the building. There was only ONE elevator shaft that ran from the strike zone to subbasement level 6 where this damage was reported by at least one of those 225 that NIST interviewed. NO utility shafts directly connected the strike zone with this level. That shaft contained Car 50, and Car 50 held two occupants that survived and did not describe a destructive fireball after the plane impact.
I have found NO explanation in any part of the NCSTAR 1 report -- diagrammatic, computer simulated, schematic -- that hypothesizes how this could have happened. The occupants of Car 50 were injured after the car fell several floors, were rescued, and lay in the vicinity of that shaft for up to 40 minutes before being evacuated. Neither they, nor their rescuers reported a destructive fireball. With the car stuck in the shaft around subbasement level 2 or 3, a fireball descending the shaft could not have reached sublevels 4, 5, or 6 where extensive damage has been reported by several eyewitnesses. Something else took place which NIST left completely unexplained.
Deaths and injuries appeared in front of the elevator banks that ran to the thirtieth floors in the West Street lobby, with the doors blown off and the shafts exposed. The express elevators in the lobby to the fortieth floors, on the south side of the lobby, and those to the 78th floor, on the north side of the lobby were reported by Lt. William Walsh as undamaged. Elevators further into the building to the twentieth floors were still operative. None of this is explained with a plausible route jet fuel fireballs may have taken through shafts for elevators or utilities.
And the fact that jet fuel must be aerosolized to a relatively high range of concentrations for it to explode, as opposed to simply burning on ignition, leaves me wondering why NIST failed to make any sort of conjecture as to the route fuel might have taken, the concentrations evaporating fuel could have reached in the first ten minutes 1000 feet below the strike zone.
Observations of building damage after initial awareness but before beginning evacuation of WTC 1, in the first 5 to 8 minutes showed:
Smoke observed on floors: sub-level 6, floors 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, 19-35, 37-40, 43-47, 50-54, 58, 61-69, 71-72, 74, 77-95, 97, 100, 102-106
Fatally injured people: 24-25, 29, 38-40, 43-44, 51, 53,60, 62, 67, 72, 77, 81, 83, 88, 91, 100
Jet fuel: 10, 12-14, 17, 19-20, 22-27, 29-31, 35-36, 38-40, 44, 46-47, 50-53, 57, 62-63, 65, 67, 69, 72, 74, 78, 81-82, 85, 87-90
Collapsed walls: sub-level 6, floors 17, 19-20, 22-23, 25-26, 28, 32, 34,37, 43, 50,54, 64, 71-73, 77-92,
Extreme Heat: sub-level 6, floors 31, 43-45, 68, 77-78, 80-83, 85, 87-91, 95, 103-106
Fireballs: sub-level 6, floors 44, 78, 81-83, 88
And NO explanation for these reports other than to say "it is plausible" jet fuel fireballs were the cause. Within the first 5 to 8 minutes...
Your reliance on NIST's report is understandable, but if there is in fact a coverup, by not considering alternatives you support that effort. In some of your documentary work on this you allow contrary opinions to be heard, but not in great depth, while placing great weight on those backing the official conspiracy theory.
Complain about this comment
Mike - while it's useful to get all these theories involving physical evidence 'out the way' so to speak (I can see Hank rolling his eyes at me already), I do wish you'd hurry up and do a programme on Omar Saeed Sheikh.
Specifically, to explore the 'alleged' connections between him and the ISI, his 'alleged' funding of the 9/11 attacks, and his 'alleged' involvement in the awful capture and beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl.
If I honestly believed 9/11 was an inside job, then this is where I'd be looking - the top level funding and planning of what actually took place.
Complain about this comment
Another voice, #14.
According to the press reports about the Pentagon, and my own research, the Pentagons cameras recorded at a frame rate of 100 FPS, not 30FPS . This is over 3 times slower motion than a normal video camera.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/mar/08/news/mn-31786
Many of the original press links have been removed, but the Latimes link above is still working (at 21st Oct 2008).
Complain about this comment
As Bill Maher pointed out, the proof it wasn't an inside job by the Bush administration is this: It worked!
Complain about this comment
Conspiracy theorists often cite inconsistencies in witness accounts as evidence of foul-play or a cover-up, but memory is fallible, witnesses change their minds for a whole variety of reasons, official reports always contain errors and forensic scientists have differences of opinion. The truth is often ragged, with loose ends that never get tied. Only conspiracy theories are neat.
Complain about this comment
If you still haven't seen the video of the third tower coming down, watch the link below. It will take 9 seconds.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
This is what we're talking about. Does this look like a building destroyed by fire to you?
This is the news event that the 9-11 commission did not mention once in it's report.
This is the event the BBC refused to air video of for over 5 years.
This is the event most people never knew happened on 9-11, and millions have still never heard of.
#22. Only the collapse of WTC7 looks neat.
Complain about this comment
As a Climate Change scientist, I find ths blog very refreshing.
The vast majority of people in the world undersand that man made climate change is real, and that here isn't vast, worldwide conspiricy of scientists (?) who made it all up to [delete as appropriate : promote socialism/starve Africa/raise taxes].
Yet, if you looked at the blogs, you would come to the conclusion that it was a conspiricy.
Basically conspiricy people are very loud. But I /saw/ the 2nd plane hit the WTO, so I don't need an alternative explanation.
Likewise, climate change is real, no matter what a few loud shrill deniers would have you believe.
Complain about this comment
#22, true enough, but one doesn't throw out eyewitness testimony ad hoc. You look for ways to analyze it, verify it and determine its validity or shortcomings. If it is thrown out wholesale, the courts that rely heavily on human testimony could get nowhere.
And there is nothing neat about the events of 9/11, or attempts to understand the sanitized, and very "neat" official conspiracy that 19 rank amateurs flew the some of the most sophisticated aviation technology in existence with the precision of highly trained professionals.
Hani Hanjour was said to have dropped from 7000 ft in a tight 270 degree spiral at speeds around 400 to 500 mph, pulling 4, 5, 6 G's in doing so, and yet his flight instructor refused to fly in a single engine Cessna because he was so bad a pilot. And the Kean Report, the 9/11 Commission report, said he was "one of the best pilots they had." What is "neat" about that?
Complain about this comment
Whether it was Islamic fundamentalists seeking to strike at the heart of Western Capitalism, covert US Governmental agencies conspiring to control the world's oil supplies, covert Israeli operatives using a group of Islamic patsies to turn the West against the Arab World, or little green spacemen from Planet Chug-A-Lug 5 seeking to take over the planet - it remains the case, one way or another, there WAS a conspiracy.
It'd be nice, though, if the tone of the debate could be raised a little on all sides: yes, their shrieks against you are on the shrill side, but you're hardly better referring to them as 'truthers' - as derogatory and provocative a term as one can get, from someone supposedly a journalist on the lookout for cool-headed truth.
At least you didn't call them deniers, a seemingly deliberately planted term which some people now understand as meaning that such individuals claim the whole 9-11 episode never happened at all.
Complain about this comment
I watched the Youtube clip. The tower collapsed vertically on to its own footprint. That proves nothing, one way or the other. What were you expecting? A pirouette?
Complain about this comment
And Mr. Rudin, We Are Change NY, does not speak for the entire "truth" community. Please don't conflate their opinions with those of everyone else who question the official conspiracy theory as to what happened on 9/11.
Complain about this comment
Good to see the usual level of debate here.
Delminster provides the usual mocking, Peter talks about the Kennedy killing. Glasgow gooner pitches in with more derision, Silk seems to think the environmental debate has something to add to the issues involved. Others rattle on about Bush being an idiot as all the proof they need.
All very interesting but none of it anything to do with 9/11.
Silk even tells us he saw the 2nd plane hit, so he must know who was behind it. Don't quite follow his logic unless he could see attwa and co through the cockpit window.
Poor old sdemetri writes a massive amount on the technicalities of the nist collapse theories, best ignored by those who don't believe. Call him an alien or tell him you once built a sandcastle and it fell over. But whatever you do never actually argue about the facts or treat the subject with anything approaching logic.
Bring on the mockery, I feel it says more about those who say it, than those it is directed at.
The 'Trumans', who no doubt also believe that WWE Wrestling is a real sport along with the 'man in a cave' coincidence theory, will believe whatever they are told as long as they don't have to give up there I-pods or have it intefere with their safe lifes. You can even steal their savings and they will say thank-you without even investigating what went/is going on.
So when bombers attack the london underground and have to pass by hundreds of CCTV cameras, they only need 1 dodgy old picture from luton station and they are happy. When the pentagon, possible the most heavily defended building in the world gets hit by a plane, they just have to say, "we didn't see that coming" and they will believe them. Ignore the photos of Condi and pals standing round a model of the pentagon with a crashed plane in it from a few years before. Ignore the Kean Commission testimony of stand down orders, Ignore anything that means you might have to take the ego hit that you have been lied to.
As long as you get your x-factor or your cricket to watch then you will let our governments go ahead and murder by the millions based on some distinctly dodgy terrorist attacks.
Complain about this comment
#26 Thanks for watching the clip.
Yes, the tower does appear to collapse vertically. I agree.
Onto it's own footprint, pretty much. Agreed.
I expected the steel frame to offer more resistance than is shown.
I expected the collapse to happen more gradually, if at all.
Frankly, I wouldn't expect it to collapse at all, considering a steel frame highrise has never fallen from fire in the history of steel framed buildings, until building 7.
It looks like someone has pulled the rug out from under it. Just like a controlled demolition.
Why did the media and the 9-11 commission not want people to know about this?
Complain about this comment
Mike, If I turn on BBC 2 at 9pm on Sunday and watch "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower" will I get the truth or the truth according to the BBC?
Does the documentary give a satisfactory explanation as to why BBC News 24 reported live the collapse of Building 7, I quote "The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed", yet there it is was in shot for several minutes before the 'line' went down?
Complain about this comment
NIST omitted from the Report information relating to foreknowledge by several groups of people that WTC 7 was going to collapse.
What we mean by foreknowledge is a quality of detail and a strength of conviction that allow us to say, in light of the building’s collapse at approximately 5:21 p.m., that they knew in advance that it was coming down.
Such knowledge is highly significant in light of the facts that (a) no steel framed skyscraper in history (indeed, NIST says, “no tall building” in history) had ever before collapsed from fire alone; and (b) the collapse, according to NIST, was the result of a series of accidental and unpredictable factors, which did not come together in such a way as to determine the fate of the building until minutes, or possibly even seconds, before the collapse took place.
In any situation where someone demonstrates foreknowledge of an extremely unusual event, the possibility must be considered that the knowledge derived from those who had control over the event. In other words, foreknowledge of WTC 7’s collapse greatly strengthens our suspicions that the building was subjected to controlled demolition and that the knowledge of its demise derived ultimately from those who intended to bring it down.
Complain about this comment
Re: Mike Rudin and the 9/11 third tower documentary -
That documentary, being titled "The Conspiracy Files" suggested from the outset that we already have a credible explanation and some others, less credible, were about to be presented. What I'd rather see though, is a police style investigation that looks for evidence and assesses it, from a starting point of no assumption.
It did cover quite a lot, but since it started with a very strong suggestion in the title not to take the whole thing seriously, it wasn't an impartial investigation.
It's interesting to note that these programmes often end with something like " don't rake over this, it is upsetting and insulting to the families of those who died", which is pretty strong emotional suggestion.
What they don't say is that many of those families do not believe the official line either and want further investigation.
So, we have the suggestion in the title - "don't take this seriously" and at the end we have "think no more about this, you are insulting the dead". Like I said, hardly balanced.
If it was a true investigation it would have been called something like "Panorama". Imagine the difference. It may still have concluded the alternative viewpoints don't add up (or maybe some do), but it wouldn't have been biased from the outset.
Anyway, whether terrorism or inside job, 9/11 has certainly been used to galvanise support for unjust wars and to remove personal freedoms - both here and in America - to a shocking extent.
Complain about this comment
I think there is something very worrying about the lengths people go to in order to argue that this series of tragedies was some form of consipiracy.
Many of these theorists seem to be based on denying every major fact that is presented to them, boiling down to the fact that anything less than eye witness accounts of the terrorists boarding the plane and carrying out their atrocities is suspect evidence - "that's the official line, that evidence could have been easily forged by the authorities." Merely denying the official line and raising speculative questions is a country mile away from actually coming up with any kind of alternative theory.
In instances such as these, whilst people agonise over the details (did people in Tower 7 hear explosions, or was it falling debris? - impossible to ever know for certain), why not take a step back to consider the motivation. Was this committed by international terrorists who have declared war on America, or it was it done by the American Government for, well, unspecified reasons?
I'm sure the main motivation for the conspiracists is a keenness to be "one step ahead" of everyone else, show how they're cleverer than the rest of us who just taking up the official line. The other motivation is of course the instinctive and extremist anti-Government position - "not only do I not like the Government, I'm going to accuse them of actively trying to kill their own citizens."
But in reality, people putting around theories like this are providing further pain to those involved. Implying that building owners, elected officials, and politicians are actively murdering innocent citizens is in such poor taste I really have to wonder why such people persist in putting this kind of view across in public.
Finally, maybe some of the conspiracy theorists could remind me who was behind the Kennedy assassination? Cubans, the FBI, the mafia, combinations of these? This was over 40 years ago, and still the conspiracy theorists have yet to even unite around a common theory, let alone come up with any proof. The scale of the operation needed to achieve this would have been vast, yet not one single person has come forward, even on their death bed, to confess or shed any light on it.
The victims of these events deserve the truth. And until any of these fantasists can come up with any substantive proof, they should keep their views to themselves.
Complain about this comment
Mmmm....a fair and biased press is necessary for a true democracy eh? A message for all you people passing by rather than the author of this blog.
First ask yourself this- do you think this man may have made his mind up already?
Then consider whether this programme will be fair and unbiased, or not.
Then think that if what is being debated (irrelevant of how extreme it is considered to be), is important (think initial 3000 dead, then think about the leverage for iraq and afghanistan, the creation of an existence based around fear and terror, amongst other things), then ask yourself, do you think this has a right to be pushed forward and actively promoted as 'the answers' to questions that many millions are asking and acting upon despite the blanket oppression and propaganda against facts that contradict this tv producers point of view.
Don't think that there are only two points of evidence that point towards a cover up regarding this issue (as he implies). There are hundreds of documented cases provided by valid (read mainstream) sources that imply that there was not one, but several explosions in all the buildings, amongst many thousands of bits of evidence that point towards this being one of the biggest manipulations of peoples of all time.
To wit- something which is not just not mentioned, but has been hidden/ removed from the internet, and hidden by co. hidding behind. co. is the fact that this program was originally produced by zdf.enterprises in Germany. The head of this co.? Alexander coridass. Who? Good question because over the past 18 months since the original 911 conspiracy files program was made, all trace of the fact that this man was employed and worked very high up for fox broadcasting as a consultant on legal affairs ( information that was freely available via a quick google search before) has disappeared. Why? Hey I dunno. Maybe it has something to do with the fact the man has ties to a certain Mr Murdoch- someone who influences via their information channels some est. 4.5 billion people everyday. Why deny the connection? Well, a program selling itself as factual regarding something very controversial, no longer seems quite so non-biased as it seems, despite how 'intelligent' they dress it up as (read:this next program, even though i've not yet seen it!)
As for the comment about General Electrical. Hey- why don't I find a stupid quote to discredit a bunch of people I don't like or believe in, or who threaten me....mmmm...
I know- what about the possible next vice president thinks the earth is only 12,000 years old and dinosaurs didn't exist!!!!!
See it's easy really. you don't have to go very far which sort of makes it lazzzyy really.
To all of you who read this. There are now other sources of information. They don't want you to utilise them, but if you want to know what is as close to a truth as possible about what happens everyday, then arm yourself with as much information and different views as possible. This is the internet. And this is only the bbc. Use everything, but above all use your mind.
x
Complain about this comment
I'm more concerned about the space aliens who are lurking under area 51.
I find it very suspicious that the 'truth' campaigners are making so much fuss about 9/11 but never mention the aliens.
Why are the 'truth' campaigners trying to keep the aliens secret?
Is it coincidence that this is all coming up just at the same time as the US presidential elections? Certain special interests would pay big money to discredit the republicans on 9/11.
Who is funding these 'truth' campaigns and why?
(Hey - everyone else is throwing about random and ill defined allegations so I thought I would join in)
Complain about this comment
OK hands up who believes OBL was behind 9/11? The FBI respectfully disagree.
The FBI website has OBL listed under their 'most wanted terrorists' section , but NOT for 9/11! that's right NOT FOR 9/11 why? they say: "we simply don't have the evidence.."
So the FBI are now 'truthers'. don't believe it? look: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
so now we know the official story has holes. all 'truthers' want is the truth. is that too much to ask?
i think we all deserve it. Especially those more directly affected.
Also, who said what about pulling WTC 7 is largely irrelevant, to be pulled the building AT ALL it had to have had the explosives to do the job installed prior to the event, obviously. these types of demolitions take 3-4 weeks to set up. So, no matter what, we know that the building was ready for pulling the day before sept 11 2001 as it cannot be done in a day, especially THAT day.
therefore those who planned WTC 7 to be fitted with the explosives had prior knowledge of that days events. or do they have these explosives fitted just in case the building might need a tug one day? PS: anyone who still insists it was not a demolition needs to use the WWW to look up physics for 1st year high school. in particular 'the path of least resistance',and 'gravity' (22mph per sec).
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
Complain about this comment
A while back a friend of mine said he had seen one of the key conspiracy films, "Loose Change", and found it very convincing. Since I hadn't seen it, and as a scientist, I decided to watch the whole thing. I remember laughing hard and in a little disbelief through the whole thing. What makes me laugh the most about the 9/11 conspiracy theory nuts is that they look for tiny inconsistencies and then try to explain them with a story that has hundreds or thousands of major inconsistencies. They then wonder why no sane person actually believes a word they say. Having watched the film and assured myself it was a load of bunk, I then searched for one of the main rebuttals to the film and directed my friend to it. He watched it and agreed that he had been suckered by "Loose Change".
Let me give a brief example of some of the rubbish the conspiracy theorists push out. They spend a fair amount of time in the "Loose Change" film trying to say that the towers fell faster than gravity alone and that they therefore had to be the result of explosives. What they miss is twofold. Firstly, the huge dust cloud that was generated by the collapse makes the margin of error in measuring the speed of collapse so wide as to allow gravity to be anywhere between about 8 and 12 ms-2. Secondly, even under the action of explosives, a building will still fall at the same rate. The top of the building will accelerate at just the same speed regardless of where the damage to the building is, and how that damage was caused.
Another example I recall concerned the type of aero-engine components found at the Pentagon. They claimed that it was the wrong type of component, but compared it to an engine type that wasn't even fitted to the jet that crashed.
Routinely in the conspiracy theory movies and blogs basic laws of physics are adjusted to support their views, and basic facts manipulated and evidence selectively chosen to try and support far-fetched theories.
Complain about this comment
The trouble with people like Chris W78 is that they do not do any research before pronouncing on things like 9/11. I was personally completely accepting of the solution as presented by the media, even before the 9/11 commission had supposedly investigated. But the problem with the shall we say "accepted" theory is that it is a conspiracy theory. There is no more proof of it than of any other theory. If you really do your research what you actually find is that there are more holes in it than a colander. Somebody murdered nearly 3000 people, and we need a proper investigation to find out who. Even the FBI admit there is no evidence to convict Bin Laden. Does this not make you even wonder? If there is no proof for Bin Laden being responsible, don't you even feel a bit bothered, given the fact that the US administration were the main beneficiaries? How did it benefit Bin Laden? He is either dead or holed up somewhere in a cave, and muslims are hated across the world. Go and do the research, then come back and tell me what you think. Oh, and on JFK, try googling E Howard Hunt and deathbed confession. But you won't hear anything about it on your BBC.
Mr Rudin, I'm surprised you have the nerve to hang onto your conspiracy theories, but I suppose it's your job.
Complain about this comment
I do believe, regrettably, that not including the second statement by Mr. Silverstein was misleading. I can see little reason that you chose to omit it, unless to support your own conviction that Mr. Silverstein was not using the term 'pull it' to refer to the demolition of the building. Within the dialogue of the PBS documentary it does appear to infer that he was.
Complain about this comment
One question that remains unanswered is why, if Mr. Silverstein had no jurisdiction over the towers, and the responsibility for any alleged demolition would rest with the fire chief alone, he would say on a documentary video that he ordered anything to be 'pulled', whether the building or the firefighters.
He would have to be something of a fantastist to do that.
I do NOT believe the BBC is especially interested in digging up any untoward truths. They are not programmed that way.
Except you, Mr. moderator. You're a grand chap.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mike,
If you ever look at your blog comments, you may have noticed I didn't really like the exchange between you and WeAreChange on the street.
This is such a serious matter.
Anyhow, Mike, the discussion was about what Barry Jennings did and did not say in various interviews. The strange thing is that Barry Jennings is now DEAD! He mysteriously died a few days before the release of the NIST report. Compare this to all the Anthrax specialists dying mysteriously too, and there is a pattern of people dying in very funny circumstances where 9/11 is concerned.
By the way I hope you also have reported on the criticisms of NIST's WTC7 report not only from 9/11 Truth but also from "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics" and the CTBHU.
And every day, as I describe in comments to your blogs, there is another 9/11 official story anomaly or new coincidence...
Complain about this comment
At 34, ChrisW78 said
"The victims of these events deserve the truth. And until any of these fantasists can come up with any substantive proof, they should keep their views to themselves."
I agree. The 9/11 families are calling for a new investigation into 9/11. They deserve the truth.
Bush almost immediately announced it was 19 hijackers and where is the substantive proof for that? Barbara Olsen never made a telephone call so how do we know about the hijackers? Why those 19? Where is the proof of that. The BBC noted that some the supposed hijackers may be still alive. There was not a proper fire investigation and still no air crash investigation for any of the 4 flights. The Bush Administration should have said nothing until a proper, independent investigation had been conducted and concluded.
Complain about this comment
If you do have a mind to actually hear what Jennings said in the midst of all the hubbub, then go do it. I can assure you that the unedited interview with Dylan Avery is very specific indeed. Jennings states and reiterates the point after urging from Avery to clarify.
Here is a link to the unedited footage:
http://blip.tv/file/1064938/
It is 20 minutes long but the critical conversation points are throughout, bear with it.
Jennings specifically states (twice) that both towers were standing when he climbed back up from the 6th floor after explosions blew him from his feet and prevented him from descending further.
This of course renders the "timeline" faux argument irrelevant. Those are certainly less credibile than a man who can clearly remember being trapped in building seven and seeing fire-fighters run from his location towards the collapse of the first tower.
Jennings said they told him not to use the firehose to descend the side of the building and that they would be back.
They (fire-fighters) returned some time later to help affect Jennings' escape only to be pulled away yet again at the collapse of the second tower. This is incontrovertible eye-witness evidence from a man who has no motive for deception.
Sadly of course we will never be 100% sure by way of any kind of criminal or lawful testimony as he died in August 2008 and we still await information regarding the cause of his death.
For those with the sorely misguided impression of Mass Media impartiality with regard to, well, anything of newsworthy proportions where corporate or government issues get too close to the bone; I refer you to another splendid article involving the late Dr. Martin Luther King.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7329763.stm
Posted on the 4th April 2008 according to the header, I quote:
"The official line, never tested in court, remains that Ray was solely responsible for the murder - and initially Ray admitted to that. "
The "Journalist" (if we are to believe that is what he is and not a blogger who has somehow infiltrated the BBC) Vincent Dowd, is apparently unaware that James Earl Ray was completely exonerated in 1999 following a lawsuit by members of the King family led by the distinguished William Pepper in a Memphis Court. Pepper is a practicing UK barrister aswell as a US lawyer for several decades. He has also represented governments in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Asia.
....................
In November of 1999. 70 witnesses testified under oath, 4,000 pages of transcripts described that evidence, much of it new. It took the jury 59 minutes to come back with their decision that exonerated James Earl Ray, who had already died in prison the previous year. The jury found that Lloyd Jowers, owner of Jim’s Grill, had participated in a conspiracy to kill King. The evidence showed that the conspiracy included J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, Richard Helms and the CIA, the military, the Memphis police department, and organized crime."
....................
The King family have a website, the appropriately named www.actofstate.org where you should direct any further inquiry.
Mr Dowd apparently is unable to view this information. Perhaps he is kept in a cupboard in the BBC offices. Perhaps he is unable to travel to Memphis due to air sickness of some kind? Perhaps he could at least have made a phonecall to the King family on the 40th anniversary of the crime perpetrated on their family by the mafia, clivillian law enforcement, along with myriad alphabet agencies and not least of which a United States President?
Mr Dowd was only NINE years out of touch with a development in one of the most important historical assassinations of the last century which has direct and obvious implications on our lives today. Of course this is merely information deemed unsuitable for the collective consciousness and is simply but effectively ignored. If this is news to you dear comments reader, ask yourself why, then start digging. You may feel a slight twinge in your cerebrum as you pass beyond the "safe zone" of accredited news sites and publications. Fear not, this is simply a part of your brain that you have never used before called critical thinking. This is where you will take your first shocking and frowned-on step towards finding, disseminating and analysing news information for yourself.
Look at it this way, you cant possibly do any worse than "ABCNNBBCBS".
Or just maybe, it isn't newsworthy? Who am I to judge?! Lowly pedestrian commentator that I am, screaming up at a gigantic black hole of public apathy and daring to rant and rave at the feet of such unrivalled journalistic integrity.
Complain about this comment
This is great dave_h,
Your another who has put forth the great line, 'as a scientist', the last guy who did that went on to say that ted turners wife was amongst the victims of 9/11. He turned out to be a cancer scientist, a very noble cause but not one that really adds any weight to the whole 9/11 debate. He even misunderstood the concept of occams razor.
So excuse me if i am not impressed by your 'as a scientist' claim.
And then you have the genius to claim that the basic laws of physics have to be fiddled with.
Hmm
Please explain the whole, newtons third law, aluminium plane vs steel building conundrum for us non scientists.
If the extent of your research into 9/11 was watching 'loose change' before you decided to give your 'scientific' opinion on it, then i am genuinely worried about whatever branch of science you practise in.
Its a bit like these guys who play Champ manager on their computer then apply for real manager jobs. I would suggest you do a few extra hours of research beyond 'loose change'
And ChrisW78, (another who seems to randomly type things without actually checking whaty he is saying) regarding Kennedy, your notion that nobody came forward, even on their deathbed is not entirely true. E. Howard Hunt confessed. on his deathbed, you can listen to an extract of it on youtube, or read about it in Rolling Stone. He names names and yes before you ask, it is the very same E. Howard Hunt who was involved in Watergate.
It doesnt prove that kennedy was assassinated by anyone other than LHO and it also doesn't prove that 9/11 was an inside job, but it does prove that you don't check out what you are saying before you say it.
You 'Trumans' with your coincidence theories will have to do much better than this.
Complain about this comment
ChrisW78, it took nearly thirty years for the evidence that Martin Luther King was assassinated with cooperation of military sharpshooters, and the Memphis police. Those facts are no longer in any dispute. That a conspiracy involving murder is well covered, does not make it any less a crime. The 9/11 crime, in fact, is not particularly well covered. It simply is not palatable to a lot of people, especially in the midst of two wars (both of which resulted from the attacks), a highly polarized public in both the US and the UK, and the conservative drumbeat for Bush's war on terror.
In Sept 2000, neo-conservatives at the American Enterprise Institute published a report for the Project for a New American Century called, Rebuilding America's Defenses. This neo-conservative think tank described in quite startling detail then the course the Bush admin has taken these past 8 yrs: greatly increased military spending, creation of long term lily pad bases in strategic locations for constabulary troops that would "keep the peace," changes in nuclear weapons policy, movements toward greater weaponization of space, pre-emptive war policy, a doctrinal position that no country would be allowed to challenge the military might of the US. It hasn't all been a bed of roses for Bush attempting to implement this but this plan existed among his chief foreign policy advisors, some of whom advise him to this day. This same group urged Clinton to invade Iraq, and remove Saddam Hussein in 1998.
It said in this report that the changes it proposed would be difficult to implement absent a galvanizing event, an event it termed "a new Pearl Harbor." One year later, after a year of multiple warnings that a major terrorist attack was about to occur, the new Pearl Harbor event DID occur. Co-incidence? Maybe, but maybe not. Especially when you start looking at the specificity of some of the warnings, and the actions that were taken at the time of those warnings.
Around 1962, in the midst of the communist scare and communist Cuba 90 miles from the US coast, the Joint Chiefs of Staff formulated a plan called Operation Northwoods. It envisioned terror attacks in Miami and DC, with possible injuries or deaths, blowing up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay, shooting down an aircraft... all blamed on Castro, with the intention of gaining support for military action against Cuba. This is documented history. Pres. Kennedy declined.
Governments do this. It is possible, even likely the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal which Lawrence Wilkerson, Collin Powell's former chief of staff, so aptly described, had some hand in taking advantage of a terrorist plan they knew was coming. All that has followed from the increased military budget that has made many, many contractors extremely wealthy, to domestic surveillance with unchecked ability to monitor your opponents, to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is eminently arguable that without 9/11, the public simply wouldn't have supported much if any of this.
They had motive, means, and opportunity. The cover up investigations that have followed have done nothing but exonerate those who should have been taken to task for their actions, several of whom were promoted for their roles in not preventing the attacks.
The victims of these attacks do deserve the truth. That is why many of the 9/11 families are supporting the NY Ballot initiative that is seeking to establish a new, independent investigation. Former Senator Lincoln Chaffee is reported to have been interested in being a commissioner on this panel.
Complain about this comment
Caught in conspiracy Mike?
Yes you are and on so many levels.
Complain about this comment
NOIDCHIP, very well said.
Complain about this comment
This is a first for me. I have never posted to a blog b4 so if i get anything wrong in regards to manners i apoligise.
I will never forget sitting in front of my TV ater coming home from a great round of golf and seeing that plane hitting that building. I think if i live till im a 100 it will be with me.
The thing i find hard to understand, and maybe its because im more lower class than some, is why people will not accept that islamic fundamentalists hate the western world so much that they will anything they can to hurt it.
Osmara and his croonies DID this terrible deed.
Maybe thats the prob with americans that they just dont realise that there is a whole chunk of the world who wish them gone.
Untill they do they will be fodder for nutcases all around the world.
Please let the dead rest in peace and make those who carried out this atriocity pay
Complain about this comment
People who may be just introduced to this debate should note that it has been going on here since at least February 2007. Many threads have been created and the record of debate fractured with many sensible observations sent into the BBC abyss.
Would the BBC please index the topics/threads in a noticeable place on the web page rather than just under the "being discussed" section.
Many of us really do not have the time to repeat everything for the benefit of the seemingly unitiated, such as the; "as a scientist.." (dave h) person. If that person had done a little reserach he/she would have not stuck their chin out so much and enabled Hank at 45 to do the obvious. Regretebly, Mr/Ms 'scientist', you appear to have merely observed the 'front cover' of the 9/11 conspircay book/record. Mr Scientist:; may I suggest that you go to 911blogger.com and look at the first group referenced down the left of the web page. There you will find the scholars for 9/11 truth and also the architects. I am sure that your examination of the reports of the "scientists" such as the physicist, (prof)Dr Steven Jones, rather illuminating. He aslo turns up on the comments section of the bloggers site. We look forward to your discussion with him and his comments.
You should also track down Dr David Liefer form the University of Sydney, perhaps, "as a scienist" you could do a critique on his paper, that concludes that a gravitational free fall of concrete alone, cannot pulverise concrete into dust as shown with the 2 towers collapse. So much work involved in being a SCIENTIST, is there not? I suggest you get cracking on it.
For the other unitiated, have a look at the Patriots question 911.com site and in one section note all those "crazy conspircay types," who also happen (or must be) 'crazy professors'. Dam, I thought a PHD meant something!
Mike: I love your hole, just keep digging, soon you will be just an echo.
(have a heart Mr/Ms moderator)
Complain about this comment
Mike,
At the end of your documentary you try to get the sympathy vote by showing clips of people who have been emotionally hurt by conspiracy theories/theorists. Since when has the BBC been so blatantly biased?
I hope you realise Mike that the majority of the 9/11 families do not believe the official story and want a full, independent investigation in order to determine who murdered their loved ones. By propping up the official story and hiding the opinion of the majority of the victims' families you are being incredibly biased, disrespectful and highly dishonourable.
I suspect that your new documentary will employ the same tactics in order to win over the hearts of your audience.
Complain about this comment
49 becksdrinker
"Osmara and his croonies DID this terrible deed."
Interesting claim. Perhaps you should mention this 'fact' of yours to Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI who has stated on the record that "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11".
(http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html)
It would probably be a great service if you presented the FBI with the dossier of evidence that you must have compiled in order to make your unequivocal assertion.
Well, either that or you're just parroting what the mainsteam news have told you and you don't actually have a clue...
Complain about this comment
Poor deluded little "truthers". You seem to think that Mr. Rudin and the rest of us actually care what goes on in your little fantasy world.
Mr. Rudin has created some mildly interesting documentaries with the intention of filling some airtime and entertaining some viewers. Sadly you lot are so up yourselves that you think this is proof that he, or anyone else, cares about your fruitcake theories.
Hey guys, just because you read something on a website doesn't make it true. Get a life.
Complain about this comment
21. "As Bill Maher pointed out, the proof it wasn't an inside job by the Bush administration is this: It worked! "
Precisely. We're meant to believe the Bush administartion pulled this off almost perfectly but then 'forgot' to take some of the 40,000 tons of chemical weapons awaiting destruction in the US and plant some in Iraq? Please.
Equally why would General Electric be involved in this too? They make aircraft engines and were badly hit by the airline slump post 9/11.
Complain about this comment
53. "just because you read something on a website doesn't make it true."
I rest my case!
Complain about this comment
Orc, you have wounded my feelings. You really have! Where are the moderators when you want them.
Ok, Mike...
What about the holes in your documentary? Are you going to correct any of them?
"Can't be explosives because someone would have heard them" - this can be thoroughly debunked. Thermite ignition in any case is practically silent anyway.
"Dr Jones dust samples contaminated by cutting tools" - highly localised and also would not have occured on the day cf Jones' samples were taken on the day and were widespread. Shows weakness of official story.
Mention of the molten steel pools under WTC 1, 2 and 7?
Freefall speed: NIST didn't even apply high school maths to show rate of accleration of building collapse really was Free Fall!!! (9.81mss)
Mention of Richard Gage's ae911truth: thousands of NAMED professionals registering distrust of official explanation vs un-named debunkers (or people with vested interests (such as Whitehouse insiders or CO of Controlled Demolition Inc)).
Barry Jennings timeline: Please mention Jennings has since mysteriously died (just like the Anthrax suspects!!!). Cf weaponised thermite and weaponised anthrax.
Context of WTC7 with other yet-to-be-cleared-up coincidences and anomalies. Lack of investigation and follow-up, unexplained M1 money surge in August 2001, indeed any financial analysis of who paid what to whom, Hijacker identities, No Barbara Olsen call, Lee Hamiltion's "super heated jet fuel" nonsense, 9/11 families part in 9/11 commission, fake evidence, PyOps, no jet intercepts, concurrent war games and PRE-KNOWLEDGE of the event. etc etc etc (There's loads of coincidences).
It would be oh so easy to explain any or all of this with some simple investigations. Instead we get the NIST WTC7 report which invents new mechanisms for building collapses (never seen before (oh except at WTC1 and 2) or since)! And doesn't even apply high school maths to determine rate of acceleration of the fall!
Complain about this comment
Would this respected physics professor Stephen E Jones be the same guy who is still publishing on cold fusion? Enough said!
Complain about this comment
56. ynda20
"Freefall speed: NIST didn't even apply high school maths to show rate of accleration of building collapse really was Free Fall!!! (9.81mss)"
Lets just look at that one specific 'fact'
9.8 m/s/s is an object accelerating freely in a vacuum.
Not the acceleration of a building collapsing like a pack of cards in an atmosphere.
Thats the difference between high school physics (not maths) and real world physics - real world physics has to include multiple factors.
This is a lovely example of quality of the 'truth' campaign. They give a fact that 'proves' something (not exactly stated what it proves) then every 'fact' anyone looks at closely crumbles, one by one.
No problem - just invent another 'fact'
Complain about this comment
The 9/11 "truth" movement came to the conclusion that I might be an artificial intelligence bot posting on their forum, because I disagreed with them.
Complain about this comment
At #58 Jon112uk states “9.8 m/s/s is an object accelerating freely in a vacuum. Not the acceleration of a building collapsing like a pack of cards in an atmosphere”
Well, precisely, I couldn’t agree with you more. So time yourself this collapse of a building http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
47 stories high, around 174 metres tall, collapsed in around 6.5 seconds? As you state “not the acceleration of a building collapsing like a pack of cards in an atmosphere”, so what is it.
I couldn’t explain it better than this link [Unsuitable URL to PDF file removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#56 "Can't be explosives because someone would have heard them" - this can be thoroughly debunked. Thermite ignition in any case is practically silent anyway."
However the workmen spending weeks smashing down the walls to get to the supporting girders to plant enough thermite to bring down the building would have made just a little noise! You don't just plant the stuff in a filing cabinet with an alarm clock running
Neither has Jennings 'mysteriously died'. He had a heart attack. I rather think that if he had anything to say that would have worried the death squads he'd have vanished long ago. All this shows is that 'truthists' are just as mortal as the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
@jon112uk, Peter_Sym etc
Let's look at the molten metal found under WTC 1, 2 and 7.
Sources for the molten metal mystery include eyewitnesses, mainstream newspaper articles, NASA thermal images, videos and even the first official report into WTC7 by FEMA.
Sources ignoring the molten metal are the 9/11 commission report and the NIST investigation into WTC7.
So which do you believe?
For those of you who so desperately cling to the official story this means that you agree with the NIST investigation, an investigation so thorough that it totally ignores the molten metal found in the basement and offers no explanation for it.
Complain about this comment
Peter,
as far as i can see your the only one who thinks Old GWB was the man behind 9/11.
What us truthers really point out is that the official story is not correct, many a hypothesis maybe made about what did happen, but that is of little relevance. We first have to get others to read the Kean commission report. If you would only apply the same critical thinking to that as you attempt to do to any random alternative theory then maybe we would get somewhere.
I can't find one comment that says "it was GWB that orchestrated the whole thing", But your wonderful rebuttle to any notion that the 'man in a cave" theory is to say that bush couldn't organise the WMD in Iraq so how could he have pulled off 9/11.
It is a great way top avoid having to actually analyse the kean commission report and the official story.
Your logic seems to be that your going to believe the official story without checking it and your not going to believe any other theory but will pick and mix only the most far out ones to attack. (maybe you should go for a job with Mike, he has a similar tactic.
Orc, i am guessing you care enough to register, read and then comment on these blogs, so thats confusing saying that you don't care what we think or say. You clearly do. For example I could care less about the english cricket selection process so i never read about it or comment on it. You poor little fella.
Good to see jon112 still doing his best to hold his own with the physics argument.
Best you stick to the whole speed of collapse argument as it is one that neither side will ever win. Just make sure you avoid any of the ones you can't argue with. The salvage contracts signed before 9/11, the lack of anti-aircraft missile defense at the pentagon, the black boxes that have planes flying underground, the fireproof passports, the barry jennings testimony (i suppose you can argue about that one seeing as he is now dead), the william rodriguez testimony, the firefighters, the aluminium through steel conundrum, the barbara olsen phonecall that was then wasn't etc, etc, etc.
And becksdrinker, You seem so far behind in this whole debate, best you go back to your golf and your beer.
I have to say i am very disappointed at the poor attempts to prove any of the official theory is true. C'mon guys you can do a lot better.
Complain about this comment
I HOPE EVERYBODY HAS NOTICED THAT THE WORD "consPRIACY" IS NOW LINKED WITH THE WORD "THEROY"....
THIS HAPPEN MANY YEARS AGO TO MAKE THE WORD "consPRIACY" HAVE LESS IMPORTANCE, SO ANYBODY USING IT IS LABLED AS SOME SORT OF WACO JACKO!
ANYWAY, WITHOUT 9/11 HAPPENING ALL THE TERROR LAWS (CONTROL OF POPULATIONS) AROUND THE WORLD COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN.
ALSO AMERICA COULD FREELY GO INTO THE MIDDLE EAST TO BRING THOSE COUNTRIES INTO OUR SYSTEM(IMF BANKING ETC..), WE HAVE IRAN AND SYRIA TO GO ,ALL PART OF A MASSIVE CONSPIRACY, DON'T FORGET WE HAVE THE AMERICAN UNION COMING SOON CANADA,USA, MEXICO JOIN WITH A NEW CURRENCY THE ..AMERO.. consPIRACY!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Don't worry johnny pixels, many here think i wear a tin foil hat, Sadly you have to put up with idiots on both sides
Complain about this comment
55. "I rest my case"
The difference between those in the "truth community" (how sad is that?) and those of us who have a life is this:
We don't need to believe a thousand trashy websites. We saw the news footage of planes crashing into buildings, and the many, many eyewitness accounts. Nothing else is needed. Or, as someone mentioned above, Occam's Razor.
Complain about this comment
Has no-one read or seen The Winslow Boy? You can only be sure that the truth is being told if there are ambiguities, inconsistencies, even incoherency in the story. These are what conspiracy theorists thrive on, thereby demonstrating that their understanding of human nature is risible. If they want things neat they should spend their time reading crime novels. The real world's a mess.
Complain about this comment
Peter,
If i recall i have already pointed you in the direction of testimony from wtc workers who worked both above and below a closed off floor who said they heard and felt heavy work going on on one floor. Can't remember which floor it was off the top of my head. But the workers told that the work was loud and to a level that their office would shake and dust would come through their air-vents. The janitor even said that he was told not to go to that floor, but he had a look anyway and saw that the whole level had been stripped of every fixture and fitting and was down to the basics of the building.
I have already mentioned this to you yet you bring up the same point. As a scientist i would have thought you would have done some research, or are you the kind of scientist who needs others to hold your hand through your research.
I expect more from you Peter
Here i will help you start, the work was going on on the 34th floor.
Complain about this comment
Orc your another who has missunderstood the concept of occams razor.
Occams razor does not apply to human affairs, all things being equal is the important part, it is good for understanding things in nature but not so good when dealing with human affairs. but again this is 14th centuary concept that has been argued about for the last 600 years by very clever people who have both agreed and disagreed with it. I think einstien was one of the many who disagreed with it. All in all though it has nothing to do with 9/11 though.
and again if you don't care, why are you here reading and commenting like the bad debunker you are. The BBC told you was Osama, your happy with that. Go back to your life.
Complain about this comment
WE LIVE IN A SCRIPTED AGENDA, MAY I SUGGEST " THE OPEN CONSPRIACY" BOOK BY PROPAGANIST H G WELLS (OR WRIITEN FOR HIM) ITS ONLY 129 PAGES ...IT CLEARLY STATES,
"PEOPLE WILL DIE FIGHTING THE NEW WORLD ORDER"
READ THE BOOK FROM THE PROSPECTIVE THAT IT IS A PLAN, A BLUEPRINT, THEN IT WILL MAKE SENSE....THAT THERE IS A SMALL ELITE WHO RUN THE WORLD....
I WON'T HARP ON ABOUT THE WEATHER, ALL I WILL SAY IS THAT WE HAVE THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION TAKING PLACE IN A FEW YEARS TIME ....CANADA,USA AND MEXICO JOIN TOGETHER IN A UNION WITH A NEW CURRENCY...THE AMERO....FOLLOWED BY ONE IN THE FAR EAST INCLUDING THE AUSSIES...
NOW THATS A REAL consPIRACY, CRASH THE MONEY SYSTEM TO BRING IN A NEW CURRENCY AND CONTROL.......
....ITS ALL ABOUT C O N T R O L OF PEOPLE AND POPULATIONS.....".NEW WORLD ORDER" GEORGE BUSH SN, GORDON BROWN SAY IT,EVEN MAGGIE THATCHER WENT ON A TOUR OF THE WORLD OF THE WORLD SPEAKING TO PEOPLE CALLED....YOU GUEST IT..."NEW WORD ORDER"
Complain about this comment
How can any conspiracy exist unless you believe that the thousands of Americans who would have to be involved were
1; Murderers without conscience
2; not decent people with families and
neighbours
3 (and this is the most unbelievable for Americans) Able to keep their mouths shut.
The truth about most government agencies worldwide is that they have a large chunk of incompetents among their staff.
Not so much conspiracy theory as cock - up theory.
The real theory is SNAFU
Complain about this comment
There's an episode by Penn & Teller online on 9/11 which seems to sum up the 'conspiracy theorists' quite well. Those who say "nobody can convince me" aren't sceptics.
Complain about this comment
Hi Jon112uk
thanks for the reply. sorry my message was a short of shorthand for a discussion that has come up previously.
we were discussing:
snip:
""Freefall speed: NIST didn't even apply high school maths to show rate of accleration of building collapse really was Free Fall!!! (9.81mss)"
Lets just look at that one specific 'fact'
9.8 m/s/s is an object accelerating freely in a vacuum.
Not the acceleration of a building collapsing like a pack of cards in an atmosphere. "
Indeed exactly my point. If you check out 911blogger there is a diagram with a simple graph of the collapse speed of WTC7 and the acceleration for the majority of the duration of the collapse was calculated at near enough 9.8 m/s/s or 32feet/s/s - free fall. This is high school applied mathematics. If you apply physics to this, it shows that there was no internal resistance within the structure as it fell. This is seen within Controlled Demolition but not within usual building collpases due to fire.
This about as factual as you can get.
The NIST WTC7 report does not explain the collapse acceleration at all. Nor the molten steel, melting on steel beams, dust analysis. The only explosion simulation assumes dynamite-like explosives and not, for example nano-thermite, an explosive which appears to fit the dust analysis samples and upon which NIST themselves have expertise.
Providing you have no axe to grind in supporting the official 9/11 story, I am happy to discuss this further with you.
Complain about this comment
The wimslow boy.
thats a great reference virginia.
A boy steals a postal order, is found guilty after a quick internal inquiry then after months of fighting for the the truth, and with detrimental effect to allthose concerned, eventually they get there day in court and the boy is found innocent.
your right that more should be aware of this it amlost mirrors what is happening with the debate of 9/11. A dodgy inquiry says it was a 'man in a cave' yet some us fight fo the truth, suffering abuse and detriment for even daring to question. I wonder if we will get our day in court.
Both stories even have a solicitor general in them, Although one fought for truth and the other lied about recieving a phonecall from his wife.
but all the same thanks for the encouraging words virginia
Complain about this comment
hi virginiatroy,
"67. At 10:24am on 22 Oct 2008, virginiatroy wrote:
Has no-one read or seen The Winslow Boy? You can only be sure that the truth is being told if there are ambiguities, inconsistencies, even incoherency in the story. These are what conspiracy theorists thrive on, thereby demonstrating that their understanding of human nature is risible. If they want things neat they should spend their time reading crime novels. The real world's a mess."
I can stand for a certain level of coincidence and ambiguity. But for 9/11 there is just sooooo much. And what's worse, there has been NO attempt to clear up.
No standard forsenic analysis of the fires.
No air crash investigations.
and NIST's explantions of the WTC collapses has been wordy, but woefully inadequate. All three collapses basically say fires hotter than anything previously seen before in an office fire, poor design of buildings and unique, spontaneously collapses.
If you get a magician to conjure this event you would believe fakery but somehow if politicans do, then that is all right for some reason? Sorry does not compute.
Complain about this comment
56. ynda2
"Thermite ignition in any case is practically silent anyway."
Another 'fact' for us to look at - the building was brought down by thermite.
Thermite is a high temperature incendiary which produces molten iron at extreme temperature
To reliably cut steel girders the molten iron it produces has to be (a) directly against the metal (b) in significant quantity (c) contained or controlled in some way to ensure it reliably cuts through rather than just flows away.
As Peter_Sym notes how could this possibly be prepared on all the (vertical?) steel supports on even one floor of a large building without anyone in an occupied office block noticing?
How does anyone ignite multiple thermite charges all round a building and have them melt through all the steel supports at exaclty the same time? Controlled demolitions topple buildings to one side using delays of a second or so on one side, vertical collapse needs coordination to a fraction of a second using things like detonating cord - how do you time thermite to that precision???
Frankly the idea of a covert, controlled demolition using thermite is ludicrous.
Once again we look at a 'fact' and it all comes tumbling down.
Complain about this comment
Hi brianab, 71,
The SNAFU argument would almost work except for:
a) why standard procedures for hijacked jets were not followed (and so they would get intercepted)
b) why so much fake evidence turned up (and no investigated)
c) No proper forsenics of the fires or deaths. Those building collapses sure look like explosions to me!
d) no air crash investigations - the only 4 crashes on the US mainland that have not been investigated!!!
e) 9/11 Commission "set up to fail"
f) Instant finger pointing and policies ready to follow from a "New Pearl Harbour" such as the patriot act
g) The Anthrax attacks immediately afterwards - sourced from a US lab.
h) The pre-knowledge of the event: shares, intelligence, M1 money supply, individuals, low occupancy on those 4 aircraft.
This is not right. And if anybody asks a question about any of this we are branded a loon!!!
Indeed how could anybody do it!!?
However, remote controlled aircraft and explosives are not exotic technology and does not require that many people to set up. We are only talking about a hundred people or so. The huge PyOps thereafter to suppress investigation? Now that does require huge effort... I suggest you google "The Department of Homeland Security" and see what they get up to...
Complain about this comment
"Peter,
as far as i can see your the only one who thinks Old GWB was the man behind 9/11."
No I think that 20 muslims were behind it.
As for 'someone remembers some heavy work going on on a floor that you can't quite remember'
Prove it. Photos, receipts, CCTV footage.
Its the same for these 'puddles of molten steel' (which oddly seem to have remained puddles as a million tons of building and concrete dust fell down around them). Show me a photo of them.
The 'truthers' entire case seems to revolve about some apocraphal eye witness testimony. As for me being a scientist. I'm a biochemist. Do you seriously think I'm going to fly to New York and conduct my own meterlugrical tests on the ruins? THAT is what 'investigating properly' is. Not reading alt news sites.
#76 is spot on. Thermite does not cut in the split second way that explosive charges do. There would be a better than 50:50 chance of toppling the tower across manhattan. Thats why no controlled dem EVER uses thermite.
Complain about this comment
"However, remote controlled aircraft and explosives are not exotic technology"
AHHH! Remote controlled aircraft. Controlled from where exactly? Presumably another plane as the radio signal would be line of sight and the aircraft would have to be steered visually into the towers.
Perhaps you can show me some video or radar footage of the 'chase' plane or some eyewitness accounts from ground crew at JFK who towed pilotless planes to the runway.
Its precisely for these reasons people like you get branded a loony. There are more holes in the theory than theory itself. If you wanted to bring down the WTC wouldn't a huge truck bomb (coupled with thermite or whatever if you thought it was needed) just be SO much simpler to pull off?
Complain about this comment
While conspiracy theories are fun, in the case of WTC-7 they are pure fiction. Not only was the timing absurd on the face of it, (WTC-7 would have been destroyed much earlier in the day had it been the result of a conspiracy because the conspirators would have wanted take advantage of the confusion during the attacks on WTC-1 and WTC-2 and to vacate the area ASAP) but the fact of damage resulting from the collapse of WTC-1 severing seven columns of WTC-7 only adds further plausibility to the theory that ultimately fire caused a cascade failure of the structural steel supporting the building.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/diddieselfuelforwtc7%E2%80%99semergencygenerator
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63
Steel melts at around 2950 degrees F but is actually hot rolled at around 1400 degrees F. A sustained fire from burning diesel fuel would have been sufficient to raise the temperature of the steel columns on the lower floors to the point where they could no longer sustain the weight of the entire structure above them. The massive steel failures along with many events during the collapse would have reverberated throughout the building creating explosion-like sounds. However they are not evidence of any deliberate detonations.
The forensic scientists and engineers who studied the problem are in a far better position to know what likely happened than armchair spy novel enthusiasts or those with political agendas are to guess about failure of technology they do not understand. BTW, having worked in both the steel and construction industry and seen probably about a million tons of structural steel made from iron ore, coal, and limestone through to fabricated steel construction shipped to building sites, I find the official explanation entirely plausible in light of the facts, the conspiracy theory entirely implausible.
Complain about this comment
#80 RE nytimes article - quote:-
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said. "
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@Peter_Sym
"Its the same for these 'puddles of molten steel' (which oddly seem to have remained puddles as a million tons of building and concrete dust fell down around them). Show me a photo of them."
http://nasathermalimages.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
Next...
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII
"A sustained fire from burning diesel fuel would have been sufficient to raise the temperature of the steel columns on the lower floors to the point where they could no longer sustain the weight of the entire structure above them."
You think it was diesel Fuel?
The following is from NIST's website.
"Q: Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
A: No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed."
Nice try.
Complain about this comment
#81
There are many possible explanations for some of the steel being vaporized. One of the most likely IMO is the possibility that during the collapse, live medium and high voltage electrical feeders short circuited to ground through the collapsing steel on top of them before protective overcurrent circuits upstream de-energized them. This is entirely plausible in such a failure scenario and while I didn't see an example of one myself, I had direct reports of those who witnessed it and the aftermath in an industrial accident nearly 35 years ago. The current flow would be so high, the temperature rise so rapid, that substantial steel could vaporize literally in seconds. Again, people who do not know anything about the technologies involved have wildly speculated trying to make facts fit their fancy. BTW, it is not clear to me that in a controlled explosion detonation to destroy a building, such high temperatures would be achieved. The damage is invariably due to shock waves, not heat. I don't know where you got the information about the vaporized steel from but I would be surprised if the possiblity of electrical failure had not been raised and investigated.
Complain about this comment
A look at the blueprints for the core of WTC 1, available through the download page of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, shows at a quick count 27 of the 47 core columns were open to elevator shafts. Placing devices on these columns could have been done privately and with little disruption to enclosures around the columns. I think it is plain that there was OPPORTUNITY for, say, a military team to access the core columns relatively easily, and to place devices powerful enough to disrupt couplings and joints.
Given the documented damage in the first 5 to 8 minutes after the plane strike, and the eyewitness accounts of occupants, firefighters referring to secondary devices, and building workers much more was happening in the building immediately after the plane strike that has not been explained rationally or plausibly.
And as it has been pointed out above, unusual noises and workers were seen in the months before the event.
Photos of column ends from the rubble pile show concave and convex surfaces on otherwise straight box columns, as well as discoloration indicative of high temperature exposures. The concave and convex surfaces would be consistent with a charge pushing a face inward from one side, with the column resisting that pressure on the other face, pulling that opposite side in.
As pointed out in comments on an earlier blog in this feature, NIST has had long experience with military and government contractors and agencies, and even has its own research unit, investigating highly energetic nano-thermite, or nano-composite materials. Simply because Jack Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition says conventional explosives were not found, would have produced extremely loud explosions, and that he knows of no other explosive technology is not proof that military applications of high energy composites could not have been used. What a perfect testing ground for technologies the military has a vested interest in keeping under wraps. And the fact that multiple firefighters in the Oral History accounts talk about three very large explosions just prior to collapse, a cause and effect inference can be drawn at least to the degree that it should be investigated further.
Complain about this comment
"Its precisely for these reasons people like you get branded a loony."
Thanks, Peter. I guess it doesn't seem very coherent. But then again, neither is the official story which you seem so happy to accept.
The US governemnt plan called Project Northwood suggested using remote controlled planes and that was in the early 1960s - I would have thought it was even easier to fly remote controlled aircraft nowadays.
You believe it was 20 hijackers. Not 19? Why 20 hijackers? Not 21? And why those 20? What proof do you have?
Complain about this comment
You can fool some of the people all of the time I guess. This blog is a testiment to that.
The BBC finally allowed the public to see video footage of WTC7 collapsing, after refusing to air this major event for over 5 years.
Mike Rudin's been given the task of showing us the footage of what looks like a demolition, and trying to convince us that it's not a demolition.
Some of you have apparently been fooled.
It's the Emperors New Clothes for the 21st century.
One thing I've noticed over the last couple of years, is that the people supporting the official story will often change their minds, as the official story changes.
First, the official story people claimed that WTC7 was fake, or that the collapse didn't happen on 9-11, because it wasn't in the 9-11 commission report, and our media hadn't told us about it.
Then they claimed that the substation and fuel tanks were to blame, as these theories were postulated on tv and in the news.
Now their opinion has changed to support the fire initiated collapse. Even though this would be the first time in history anything like this has happened, and judging by the (formerly suppressed) video evidence, fire seems very very unlikely.
I wouldn't waste too much time arguing with people who can't see WTC7 for what it is. A controlled demolition. It's obvious why our media refused to show the public the video footage of collapse for over 5 years.
Isn't it Mike, or can you offer an explanation for this coverup?
Maybe Mike Rudin can set up a poll. Have a link showing full video clips of all known footage of WTC7 collapsing, and then ask readers whether they think this is a controlled demolition or not.
Complain about this comment
#85 "I don't know where you got the information about the vaporized steel from "
It was on the second page of the article from nytimes you linked to.
"I would be surprised if the possiblity of electrical failure had not been raised and investigated."
The molton steel etc seems to be ignored in the official reports so it appears not to of been.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, the information about vaporized steel comes from a couple of places. Worcester Polytechnic Institute examined the steel, has published photos of one inch thick steel flanges thinned down to a curled, nearly razor edge hole the size of a silver dollar. They said at the time this was a great mystery, although since they have largely taken the official line.
Your explanation is one of the more plausible I have heard, but those that examined it -- the fire researchers at WPI -- probably would have recognized other tell tale signs of that type of energy source.
Another study performed by RJ Lee for an environmental assessment of the Deutsche Bank building directly across the street from WTC and heavily damaged by debris, found vaporized alumino-silicates, vaporized lead, as well as microspheres of iron. The USGS study of particulates found microspheres of molybdenum, requiring over 2700C to form, as well as iron microspheres. Jones, et al, found microspheres of iron in multiple dust samples from around ground zero, indicating wide dispersion of molten iron.
Firefighters, as well as a rather long list of others, including engineers, recovery workers, reported molten metal, as firefighters reported, "flowing like lava" down channel rails. Extremely high temperature conditions persisted under the pile for months after the event. NIST's FAQ states:
"13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY) - who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards - found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."
How's that for a non-answer answer? What is the likelihood of molten steel forming in the wreckage due to combustion of office materials?
Is it purely coincidental that a by-product of a thermite/thermate reaction is molten iron, more specifically, spherical molten iron if aerosolized?
Complain about this comment
83. Grakkor
I just looked at the 'proof' of the thermite theory.
The photo is labelled 'Seeming molten material recorded by Alan Chin'
Even the 'truth' people aren't saying it is definitely material from thermite - let alone proving it. Melted girders are steel, thermite makes iron - not hard to prove, but no evidence is offered.
The thermite I personally saw demonstrated in real life remained a glowing liquid for seconds - certainly less than a minute - then scabbed over with a dirty looking crust. It didn't stay there glowing like mount etna for 20 minutes.
The picture is described as 'recorded 20 minutes after the collapse of WTC 2' How come this 'thermite' is allegedly a glowing liquid 20 minutes after the collapse?
If these are the girders that were sabotaged to CAUSE the collapse, why aren't they under the rubble? How do girders at the bottom of the collapse end up out in the open?
This clandestine, controlled demolition by thermite 'fact' is so full of holes it's just not credible.
Complain about this comment
ok, i have been following these blogs for a while now, and i am no 'scientist' just an ordinary citizen. in 2001 when the towers were first hit i was in my late teens, and shocked and scared at the images and warnings that were being projected from my tv screen and had no reason to doubt what i was being told. I am now in my mid 20's and have a very different view to how the world works, i wouldn't call myself a conspiracy nut nor do i believe all the crap that the government feed you. The first time i was shocked was when i read about Clinton (Clinton's public apology for the government killing families in the 60's by intentionally giving them syphillis and studying the effects) if you'd have been told before then that the government were giving their own people diseases to study the effects would you believe them? probably not. 9/11 doesn't add up by any stretch of the imagination, and it doesn't just involve arguments regarding tower 7 (which, may i add, i never even knew fell until a couple of months ago! i thought it was maybe just me but no, not a lot of people i know had any idea that 3 towers collapsed that day, weird!) but every single thing that happened before during and after the attacks. Maybe if people opened their eyes and realised the world is run by money, power and greed instead of living in their own goldfish bowl maybe then would we get some answers. People are too scared to believe their own government would commit such atrocities, but it happens!
Complain about this comment
Grakkor #84
I did not read the report. Even if I had, I might not necessarily agree entirely with it. I've participated in engineering peer reviews and dissented from other peoples' designs and analysis on numerous occasions based on my training and experience. The temperature of the steel would not have had to reach 2950 or even 1400 degrees. Even just the girders softening enough to buckle under the structural loading of the concrete deck above and cause lateral stability they provided to fail could have been sufficient to cause the collapse. Under the weight of evidence, a conspiracy theory is the least plausible explanation no matter how hard those who want to find one argue for it. The more I think about it, at least the evidence for the melted and/or vaporized steel having resulted from an electrical short circuit seems almost certain. I hope some consideration of this was given in the analysis and report. Only a high temperature incendiary such as thermite could have caused that effect from sabotage and that is not the material of choice for controlled demolition of a building. They also would have left a residue that would reveal their presence.
Complain about this comment
From the FAA website:
"WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) is an extremely accurate navigation system developed for civil aviation. Before WAAS, the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) did not have the potential to provide horizontal and vertical navigation for approach operations for all users at all locations. With WAAS, this capability is a reality ... WAAS provides service for all classes of aircraft in all phases of flight - including en route navigation"
From an FAA news release in Aug 2000:
"WASHINGTON, DC — After a successful 21-day stability test of the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) signal in space, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) declared that it is now available for some aviation and all non-aviation uses ... The system demonstrated one to two meters horizontal accuracy and two to three meters vertical accuracy throughout the contiguous United States ... Raytheon will operate the system for the FAA on a continuous basis"
From a 1995 news release:
"The Honeywell team participated in Boeing’s Category III-b flight test evaluation program in July and August of 1995. NASA supplied the 757 aircraft and flight test facility. Boeing supplied the pilots, ground crew, maintenance, flight test personnel and performed the aircraft modifications for the flight tests. The flight tests were accomplished at NASA’s Wallops Island, Virginia, flight test facility. A total of 75 Category III-b automatic landings were accomplished during this phase of flight testing. The autopilot used the DGPS to guide the aircraft to a landing and ... performance data of these flight tests showed that the Honeywell DGPS landing system achieved the predicted system accuracy of one to two meters."
From a NASA news release:
"A high-performance navigation system used primarily for automatic aircraft touchdowns promises centimeter-level landing accuracy.During a four-day period in October 1994, the idea was put to the test on Runway 35 at NASA's Crows Landing Flight Facility in California. Using signals from orbiting GPS satellites and the ground-generated pseudolite signals, 110 autopilot-in-the-loop landings of a United Airlines Boeing 737 were completed."
From Honeywell:
"A flight management system or FMS is a computerized avionics component found on most commercial and business aircraft to assist pilots in navigation, flight planning, and aircraft control functions. It is considered to be composed of three major components: FMC (Flight Management Computer), AFS (Auto Flight System), and Navigation System including IRS (Inertial Reference System) and GPS."
I wonder if this could in the slightest way at all explain how otherwise amateur, but not only amateur, incompetent pilots could perform highly professional flying techniques, such as a high speed descending spiral into a target, or high speed banking turns into relatively narrow buildings?
Complain about this comment
86. sdemetri
"What a perfect testing ground for technologies the military has a vested interest in keeping under wraps. And the fact that multiple firefighters in the Oral History accounts talk about three very large explosions just prior to collapse"
I thought you guys were saying it was thermite - hence the pools of molten metal?
I thought it had to be thermite because that explained the absence of explosions, but now you say there were explosions.
If it's 'nano-thermite' (a novel material demonstrated in laboratory quantities) that would be an explosion, with a bang. It's not ordinary thermite with a (pretty impressive) splutter.
Whats the point of using an untested explosive that makes a bang when something like C4 or semtex is incredibly effective on steel, has a massive test history, has proven technology for simultaneous detonations and could easily be passed off as something in possession of the islamists if the CIA got rumbled?
Where did the alleged pools of molten metal come from if it was high explosive or explosive 'nano-thermite'?
None of this clandestine, controlled demolition using thermite stuff stands up to scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
So if the aim of the sinister shadowy figures was to bring down the towers, and then blame it on Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/Generic Arab Terrorists, why didn't they repeat the MO of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, in which a truck full of explosives was detonated in the underground car park and which almost caused the collapse of one of the towers, which would have then crashed into the second. This wouldn't have required any crazy thermite/demolition charges/planes, and would require about 99% less planning and preparation. Instead, the truth movement would have you believe that three whole towers were rigged with demolition charges while not a single one of the 6000 or so people that worked in them noticed a thing.
And to put things in perspective, the top floors of the WTC were 400metres up. That's a lot of detonation cable to reach up there. I think someone might have noticed a few miles of extra cable being brought in.
Complain about this comment
#87. You don't have to justify the fact that remote controlled planes exist- I own one myself. It cost £20 from eBay. The US use big ones called predators over Afghanistan.
What you DO however have to prove is why american airlines allowed 4 of their planes to be so equipped given that it would damn near bankrupt them afterwards. You would also have to prove that all 4 of those planes were taken out of service for 'maintenance' for about a week before hand to actually fit the gear. You would also then have to explain why none of the ground crew saw pilotless planes taxing about. I presume you've been to an airport and you've seen that tractors are used to shunt the planes away from the gate and to the taxiways.
I agree the official story isn't very coherent which is precisely why I'm inclined to more or less believe it. For instance it makes no sense to frame 19 Saudis and a Saudi mastermin if you are planning a war in Iraq. The whole plot would have been vastly over elaborate, required far too many people in on it and would have been highly likely to go wrong. A false flag op a fraction as elaborate (like a big truck bomb under the WTC planted by 4 'iraqi's' would have done fine)
#91 Agreed. Being a very bad (but scientifically rather competent) teenager I made thermite myself and burnt through a paving slab. It glowed for a second before rapidly cooling. Those 'hot spots' could have been burning photocopiers for all that rather dubious video shows
Complain about this comment
jon112uk, the point of a new investigation would be to investigate the evidence of explosives of several types. If controlled demo was used, why would they limit themselves to only one type of charge? There is nothing predicating that more than one type of explosive would not be used. If in fact visual, physical, and audio evidence exists, which is surely does, that explosions occurred it is certainly encumbent on researchers to investigate what they were. If eyewitnesses saw, heard, experienced explosions, that evidence should be evaluated, corroborated with other eyewitnesses and with the physical evidence. Your "scrutiny" is pretty lacking IMHO.
This link provides useful information on the implementation of satellite based navigation systems for major commercial aircraft a full 13 months prior to 9/11:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16702
if the moderators will kindly let it through.
Complain about this comment
If you want to know why buildings fall down, sometimes it's best to ask someone who puts them up.....
http://blip.tv/file/306082/
x
Complain about this comment
It's clear this producer is biased in his view already. Therefore this program is not impartial, though it will do it's best to look like it is.
The first program was made by zdf enterprises. The head of zdf.ent, Mr A Caridass has worked for and has very close ties to Fox broadcasting. This is elitist propaganda masquarading as fact, promoted by government agency.
Use the internet.
Complain about this comment
could it be that those behind the conspiracy theory are infact hidind the truth and causing the conspiracy theory to keep those who likes conspiracy's happy and to keep there minds off the true conspiracy,
or is it just one big conspiracy.
Complain about this comment
Peter,
20 muslims did it did they, Go on prove it, photos, receipts, cctv footage please.
I would love the same demands you make of me and others to be put forward to those that perpetuate the 9/11 and 7/7 myths and the official story. I guess your critical thinking is only for things you dont want to believe.
But your not going to do that, your only a scientist when it comes to things you don't believe. No critical thinking about things you already hold dear as facts. I am guessing the old ego can't handle the idea that you have been fooled.
Peter you really should try answering the questions you ask of us first. Like the thermite question, check for yourself before you make a fool of yourself, the nasa images are some of the most basic evidence of the use of thermite.
Then you rattle on about the first wtc bombing, i am guessing not looking into the case. The first WTC bomb was supplied by the FBI, Yes the FBI informant who was their inside guy with the 'terrorists' was shocked when his offer to supply them with a fake bomb was knocked back and he was told by his superiors to supply an active workling truck bomb.
Please Peter, you are making my faith in the competence of our scientific community wane by the minute here.
You even have the gall to say that the amount of inconsistancies in the official story make it more believable.
If i can repeat this for the third or fouth time, Many workers complained about the work being done on the 34th floor, william rodriguez even had a look around the 34th floor to see the whole floor stipped back. then there was the power down and the removal of bomb sniffing dogs and so on and so on.
People did notice. If you don't believe them thats fine, call them liars, thats your choice but don't pretend they have not given testimony. At least have the decency to say you just plain don't believe them.
farasay I couldn't agree with you more when you say how they keep changing their argument. My favourite is the logical explanation for the collapse of WTC which is now onto it's 7th version. How logical is that really.
I wonder how long before they say, "well of couse it was thermite, but that proves nothing."
Complain about this comment
Another possible explanation for melting/vaporizing the steel is through magnetic induction. This could occur when high fault current flowed through feeders during the collapse. The huge magnetic field caused by the high fault current could induce very large current flow within the building steel, the steel superstructure acting in effect as the short circuited secondary winding of an air coupled transformer. The current could have been hundreds of thousands of amps. This would be enough to vaporize the steel. BTW, I'm a degreed electrical engineer with nearly forty years of experience. While this is conjecture, it is an educated guess based only on what little information I have. I would not assume that fire inspectors, architects, structural engineers or others no matter what their specialized expertise investigating the collapse would necessarily have this possibility occur to them. This possibility would most likely only occur to electrical engineers. I had something similar happen to my house earlier this year when a bolt of lightning struck nearby causing among other electrical and magnetic disturbances to my house, magnetization of the picture tubes of several CRT color television sets. There are probably other equally plausible explanations which have nothing to do with conspiracies.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter_Sym
I'm glad that we agree on all the stories being incoherent. Doesn't that justify some form of investigation to establish, if not the truth, just the basic facts so we can all start on the same page.
Since there has been no air crash investigations then it is difficult to say what happened to the aircraft. If you had bothered to read up on Project Northwood. It involved plane substitution. So normal plane takes off and replaced by a drone. What happened to the passengers? Good question. I have no answers just questions and suggestions.
Since American Airlines and United are both in business, I presume that it wasn't so bad for them...
You said "You would also have to prove that all 4 of those planes were taken out of service for 'maintenance' for about a week before hand to actually fit the gear."
Not true. The identities of the crash planes has never been proven. The planes that crashed could be entirely different from the planes that departed (as per the Northwood plan). The only 4 air crashes not to have been investigated in the US happened on 9/11.
It would have been so simple to prove the official story. And it hasn't been done!
Complain about this comment
How could amateur, incompetent pilots fly highly sophisticated aircraft in highly technical maneuvers, such as a high speed descending spiral into a target, or high speed banking turns to strike relatively narrow buildings? Would they have the sophistication to program a flight management system to hit their targets? Could they manually control, at high speed, such precision flying? Military and commercial pilots with thousands of hours say not likely.
The links at:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16702
are all working and link to official websites that describe the advanced system that has been tested over the past decade and more, and is currently completely capable of remotely handling vertical and horizontal navigation, and landing and take off to within one or two meters vertically, two or three meters horizontally. The WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) was implemented a full 13 months before 9/11.
Just one of many questions leaving folks thinking this conspiracy is absolutely real.
Complain about this comment
If whoever destroyed WTC-1 and WTC-2 also wanted to knock down WTC-7, why wouldn't they have just hijacked another plane and crashed into it? The conspiracy theory is plain stupid.
Complain about this comment
98. sdemetri
"jon112uk, the point of a new investigation would be to investigate the evidence of explosives of several types"
Just a few hours ago the 'truth' movement seemed to be pretty specific - they were saying it was a controlled demolition using thermite. It's just up this page in writing.
Now it appears they are not so clear.
If you want to allege that people from the US president, to the mayor of New York to the BBC (!) have been involved in mass murder of US citizens then I think you need to be specific so people can examine your claims.
If you start off saying it was thermite, then you say nano-thermite, now you don't know what it was then that damages your credibility.
Out of interest are you guys saying all these radio controlled planes were (a) empty (b) had passengers but no crew (c) had passengers + cabin crew but no flight crew (d) had passengers + full crew? Please be specific on this one.
Complain about this comment
@jon112uk #91
I did not post 'proof' of the thermite theory.
Peter_Sym asked for photos of 'puddles of molten steel', which I provided.
This is the same molten metal that is completely, totally and utterly omitted and ignored by the official story that you are so desperately trying to defend.
Seriously jon112uk, what's your theory on the molten metal? Do you deny its existence? Do you not question why the NIST report completely fails to mention it?
Complain about this comment
Jon112uk,
It's so difficult to be specific on who was involved.
The neo-cons in the Program for a New American Century stated they needed a New Pearl Harbour to act as a catalyst for change. Thereafter I believe the politicians would not be involved in order to preserve "plausible deniability".
James Bamford recently revealed some of the alleged hijackers planned the attacks in a hotel opposite the NSA headquarters! (This is the official story not some conspiracy theory). So, I'm assuming the NSA was involved in the planning. Members of the military must also were involved in order to plan multiple war games that stopped any form of interception of the hijacked jets.
Were the planes empty? How can anyone tell if there has been no air crash investigation to even establish what planes were involved? The only 4 air crashes on the US mainland that have not been investigated occurred on 9/11.
I would hope you would confirm there are some simple measures to clear up this mad vacuum where conspiracies can develop. And join the 9/11 families calling for a new, independent 9/11 investigation.
Complain about this comment
Hi MarcusAureliusII
You wrote
"Another possible explanation for melting/vaporizing the steel is through magnetic induction. This could occur when high fault current flowed through feeders during the collapse... There are probably other equally plausible explanations which have nothing to do with conspiracies. "
I would be very happy with a non-conspiracy explanation. Please let NIST know because what they find affects design of skyscrapers, skyscraper safety, firemen safety, insurance levels and cover.
Unfortunately, that is not what NIST have concluded. The official story doesn't add up. Lee Hamilton said all three skyscrapers fell because of "super-heated jet fuel" - great except that
a) there is no such thing as "superheated jet fuel" - just jet fuel ignition (at temperatures well below anything that would affect steel) and
b) WTC7 was not hit by a plane.
Therefore his explanation would only cut the mustard in a bad comedy show.
Please, if you do have a very good solution to WTC7's symmetrical, freefall collapse, explaining the pre-knowledge, dust and molten steel, please let NIST know. Their current explanation is just nonsense.
Complain about this comment
108. Grakkor
"Seriously jon112uk, what's your theory on the molten metal?"
109. ynda20
"Were the planes empty? How can anyone tell if there has been no air crash investigation to even establish what planes were involved?"
I'm not putting forward a theory: I'm asking for specifics of YOUR theory so we can all evaluate it.
It's very difficult for people to assess the validity of your claims if you can't/won't be specific.
So please be specific:
IN YOUR THEORY were the 'radio controlled planes' empty, passengers only, passengers + cabin crew, or passengers + full crew? Surely that's fairly basic to a radio controlled plane theory?
Complain about this comment
What a disgusting waste of license fee money.
Spending more money on another 9-11 program... wait for it... to prove something (i.e we have not been told the truth about 9-11) is wrong!
This is a basic logical fallacy.
Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:
"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
In other words "We are being told the truth about 9-11, because there is no proof that we are not being told the truth"
To simplify things for you, Mr Mike Rudin,
The burden of proof IS ON YOU TO PROVE (beyond a reasonable doubt), that Bin Laden, fueled by a unnatural hatred of our widescreen tv's and blu ray players, WITH the 19 NAMED HIJACKERS (and no one inside America), were responsible for the planning and execution of the 9-11 attacks.
A videotape confession seruptitiously found in an afghanistan safe house does not constitute proof in my mind. Maybe you are privy to some other information.
A wealth of valid evidence exists to show that elements of the official story (itself a conspiracy theory because it is not verifiable), are false. It is not possible, however, to use the newly discovered evidence as the basis for a conclusion about what actually happened and who was responsible. At least not yet. There are many indications, and there is a long trail of evidence suggesting US government complicity, but that is all there is. That much is a theory, but the evidence itself is comprised of facts. That evidence can not be dismissed simply because the theories that are wrapped around them are inconclusive. The proverbial baby cannot be thrown out with the bath water.
As for the "trail" of evidence....
In an apartment rented by Ziad Jarrah and Ahmed Alhaznawi, the FBI finds a notebook, videotape, and photocopies of their passports. [Miami Herald, 9/15/01]
In a bar the night before 9/11, after making predictions of a attack on America the next day, the hijackers leave a business card and a copy of the Koran at the bar. The FBI also recovers the credit card receipts from when they paid for their drinks and lap dances. [Associated Press, 9/14/01]
A September 13 security sweep of Boston airport's parking garage uncovers items left behind by the hijackers: a box cutter, a pamphlet written in Arabic, and a credit card. [Washington Post, 9/16/01]
A few hours after the attacks, suicide notes that some of the hijackers wrote to their parents are found in New York. Credit card receipts showing that some of the hijackers paid for flight training in the US are also found. [Los Angeles Times, 9/13/01]
A FedEx bill is found in a trash can at the Comfort Inn in Portland, Maine, where Atta stayed the night before 9/11. The bill leads to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, allowing investigators to determine much of the funding for 9/11. [Newsweek, 11/11/01; Times of London, 12/1/01]
The hijackers past whereabouts can even be tracked by their pizza purchases.
An expert points out: “Most people pay cash for pizza. These [hijackers] paid with a credit card. That was an odd thing.” [San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/3/02]
“In the end, they left a curiously obvious trail—from martial arts manuals, maps, a Koran, Internet and credit card fingerprints. Maybe they were sloppy, maybe they did not care, maybe it was a gesture of contempt of a culture they considered weak and corrupt.” [Miami Herald, 9/22/01]
Note The New Yorker's quote of a former high-level intelligence official: “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the FBI to chase.” [New Yorker, 10/1/01]
http://tinyurl.com/byva4
Reads like a poorly written film script, doesn't it?
No mention of explosives, thermite, fake planes or any of that nonsense.
Remember Mr Rudin, you have to prove you are right, not that I am, or 'we' are wrong.
Complain about this comment
@jon112uk
So you want me to speculate some conspiracy theory so that you can pick it apart? No thanks.
How about I (and many other here) just provide you with hundred of pieces of hard evidence, omissions, distortions and ridiculous coincidences that rip the official story to shreds.
You also seem to be missing the key point. It's not the responsibility of the truth movement to tell you specifically what happened. It's the Government that must prove that the official story is true.
The truth is we don't know exactly what happened. We do however know that there and hundreds of critical holes in the official story, which you seem only too eager to defend.
Complain about this comment
Hi Jon112uk
"It's very difficult for people to assess the validity of your claims if you can't/won't be specific."
My claims? I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I am just asking questions on the official story because it doesn't add up. And I am keen to find out how and why circa 2800 people were murdered. I find it distressing that the Bush Administration seemed prepared for 9/11, issuing the patriot act days after after 9/11, invading Afghanistan soon after that, moving the US and the western world towards some dreadful Orwellian future. 9/11 was the catalyst for all that, and frankly, I think it needs to be investigated properly.
I make no claims.
Complain about this comment
It is really hard this, so it is.
You guys keep presuming their is one overall conspiricy theory that all us who don't believe in the official theory hold.
Like we all agree on one set of events, I will tell you now, we don't.
Some folks are LIHOP others are MIHOP, some folks are planers others are no planers. Some folks believe it was mossad, others the cia, some others think it was all of them in it together. Some even think it was George W Bush and if you go all the way to the david icke end of the spectrum, yes you will find people who believe it was aliens.
Believe me when i say that the "truth movement" disagrees with each others theories much more than you could imagine.
But the one thing we all know is that the official story is a fairy tale. Research it, look at the evidence, read the testimonies, read the report. Check up on the information provided and you soon realise that there is no way, not a chance in hell, that the official story tells us what happened on 9/11. That is the one thing that we all agree on.
I know most of those who attack us have not done this because of the idiotic points they raise and the massive holes in their knowledge of the evidence that has already been amassed.
The truth movement is so called because we are all searching for the truth, none of us claim to know it, we know what didn't happen so we can only theorise as to what did happen.
Most of us spent weeks, months and years looking at the official story, then trying to collect and understand all the evidence surrounding that day in september.
Only to have the most simple and basic questions put forth by the Peters, the Johns and the Pixel chap on this blog. We watch the absolute travesty of a film made by Mike and his pals at the BBC and are stunned at either how badly they understand the issues or how willfully they are misleading folks with their analysis of it all.
You really are going to have to stop refering to 'truth movement' as though we have one theory, we dont. Their is no alternative theory, get this into your heads. there may be many an individual theory, but these are just that theories, until we have a proper debate and a proper investigation, which would mean that you who wish to argue that the official theory is right would at least have know the contentious issues.
At the moment you all seem to watch loose change and think that this represents the views of the 'truth movement'. Believe me it doesn't.
It is like watching the daffy duck cartoon when he fights the Germans in WWII and then entering into a historic debate about the War.
Please if your going to attempt to say we are talking nonsense at least know what we are talking about.
It's depressing when you have to listen to defenses of the official story that are so weak or attacks against random theories that no one here has actually put forward.
Your inability to defend what you believe in is, with out sounding mean, pathetic. At times it is like argueing with a child who thinks WWE is a real sport.
Complain about this comment
All I have to say to Jon112uk, who doesn't seem at all interested in examining anything, is I honestly don't know what happened. I can't say thermite, or nano-thermite, only that there is reason to suspect one or the other, or multiple types of high energy devices. I do know fire, aircraft damage, and gravity simply can't explain the observable evidence. I do believe the NIST report was deliberately narrow in its focus to satisfy a political expediency. Whether deliberately or not, the results could not show in any way government complicity. In that it succeeded.
I can look at the blueprints and determine there are no elevator shafts, or utility shafts, that make plausible what this official report is claiming. It has taken many hours of examining the prints and reading the report, and there is more to be done, but the physical description of the building supports my skepticism of their story. The story which you appear to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. Good luck with it. Don't choke.
Complain about this comment
Maybe it's wise to start an independent investigation for a change? But one without Philip Zelikow and N.I.S.T., how about that?
Maybe, just maybe this will include the statements of Norman Mineta, Sybil Edmonds, and why WTC7 was excluded from the official 9/11 commissions report? Maybe they can reveal the names who benefits from the put options, placed on American and United Airlines? Specifically these two airlines who were involved? Maybe they can force Bush and Cheney to make a statement under oath? Maybe they can reveal the videotapes the F.B.I. confiscated at the Pentagon?
Well, there are a lot of questionmarks here!
Maybe we must put a questionmark on the death of Barry Jennings to, what do you think?
Complain about this comment
So we've finally reached the start?
Do tell, remember that wildly widely reported story about petition being read in Canadian parliament?
Here it is, in full.
"We, the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following:
THAT, scientific and eyewitness evidence shows that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document and that those behind the report are consciously or unconsciously guilty of covering up what happened on 9/11/2001. This evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by demolition explosives and that the official theory of the towers collapsing from the airplanes and the ensuing fires is irrefutably false.
We further believe that elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001. This event brought Canada into the so-called "War on Terror," it changed our domestic and foreign policies for the worse, and it will continue to have negative consequences for us all if we refuse to look at the facts.
THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to:
(1) Immediately launch its own investigation into the events of 9/11/2001 on behalf of the 24 Canadian citizens murdered in New York City.
(2) Act lawfully on the findings of its own investigation by helping to pursue the guilty parties in the international courts.
Committed to truth and accountability,"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6DK_jTVcA
As I endorse the broadly reported and refreshingly rational calls for independent investigation, let's recall the other, wildly widely reported story, the one about the presentation in Japanese parliament.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaEGhiHhZ1Y
I like the part where the report falls without resistance the best.
Complain about this comment
Phew, who'd have thought this would divide people so much? ;-)
I'm not a truther, a conspiracy nut (I don't even own a tin-foil hat) or even a fan of the X-files but I hate being lied to and this whole thing stinks of lies.
All the old TV cop shows tell you - follow the money. Who has gained from all this? Iraq/Iraqi's? Afghans? If bin Laden was behind this, why attack two countries that he's not from and not, thus far, turned out to be in?
There's plenty of testimony of power-cuts in Manhattan for around a fortnight leading up to 9/11, WTC personnel had reported sniffer dogs being withdrawn and security cameras being switched off before the fateful day. Add this to the two-bob job of an official report and, is your credulity really not being stretched yet?
We've all seen footage of air-crashes on TV news, was there anything at the pentagon that undeniably spoke of a large passenger jet slamming into the building? An engine, perhaps? Some seats? Luggage? Body parts? Come on.
Are we really to believe that the HQ of probably the most technologically advanced military in the world had only one camera pointed at it, and that only recording at 5fps? If the US govt. wanted to end speculation about the Pentagon incident they could release more video. Hell, can it be true? My local Tesco's has got better CCTV than the pentagon? Really? Come on jon112, don't be a mindless troll - do like lookdeep @ 35 said - use your mind.
Sadly, there's none so blind as those who won't see.
Complain about this comment
One thing at least Mike is, when you open your mouth, things begin sprouting. Some of the debunkers now landing on the fence surely are just here for the short term sniping and will be off to other places. I seem to recollect at least one similar name that appears on the Harretz comments site.
Mike and BBC you have made it on Alex Jones Prison Planet site and on Mike Rivero's whatrealyhappened site as well. Some comments are so unkind BBC, seems that your name is going around the world big time and the show has not been broadcast, seems that BBC name incites unfavourable expectations worldwide these days. (I must say normally I would not agreee)
One would suspect that there is an attempt to sway new examiners of the 911 murders, away from examining the detaill by alleging arguments which have been well and truly displaced by previous comments/examinations/research by those who are not Bush Believing conspircay theorists.
I reiterate what I said at 50; BBC put all the comments since February 2007 up so that the unitiated can see that much of the material put up in this thread by debunkers has already been well and truly dealt with.
Now debunkers, perhaps you can do yourself a favour and go and listen to the lecture by Richard Gage on 6th November at the Darwin Lecture Room, Darwin Building. University College. London WC1E 6BT. (I think from 6.30 pm to 9.30 pm?) No doubt it will be videoed and we would love to see the debunkers here (including MIKE and as many BBC staff as possible) ask some quetsins of Mr. Gage and then we can see our happy BBC (9/11) family on video, no doubt on the Architects and engineers for 911 truth site. To get ready for the lecture there are a number of presentations on Gage's site and on other sites linked at 911blogger.com.
Hank at 115 about sums up the situation for all the thinking persons who are prepared to think.
BBC,I again request that you broadcast the Italian production; 'Zero, an investigation into 911'. It turned up here in Australia on the Fox history channel some weeks back. Other videos/lectures/presenations/discussions on 9/11 are available on the net for everyone else. Zero can also be found. Now not one of the videos covers all the damming material to oblitertate the "official conspircay theory" for reaons pointed out by Hank. So unlike our 'Mr. Scientist friend', it is essential that one looks at all of them not; just 'Loose Change" or anyhting put up by the BBC.
I promise the genuine enquirer the following: once the evidence and lack of it put forward by aiders and abettors of the culprits, you will never go back to accepting the official version, at the very least, you would support another independent investigation into; who murdered so many from so many countries. (10+ from Australia, 24 from Canada and 24 from Japan etc.)
On realising that "Government murderers' do do these things you will open your eyes to simiar diabolical acts: such as, the 'operation Gladio bombings' in Italy in the 1970', the French in Algeria, the operation Northwoods plan, the lavon murders, the 'USS Liberty' false flag attack to get the US to attack Egypt in 1967, the operations of the English in Northern Ireland, the killing in NZ of a Greenpeace photograper by the French agents when the blue up the Raibow Warrier. The psych ops in Iraq when Iraqi police wer shot and murdered by "allied" forces and had to be sprung out of prison by the British using tanks. (Surprisingly, that one hit the front page of the SMH at the time) etc, etc, back to Crassus of Rome and his manipulation of Spartacus.
Sorry to ramble a bit, but seeing 9/11 as an 'inside murder job' is not out of the ordinary for the evil people who run our lives, I fear it is only going to get worse unless the populace wakes up. Sadly, perhaps unwittingly, there are so many who will go along with them, as seen by some of the debunking comments herein.
BBC, BBC staff, how about some help and support for a new world independent investigation NOW?
Complain about this comment
Had WTC-7 been destroyed by explosive charges carefully placed near building columns by conspirators, they would had to have been placed there before 9-11. Had they been discovered, that could have put the entire city on alert, possibly the entire national security apparatus and foiled the plot to destroy WTC-1, WTC-2, the Pentagon, and the White House. Why would the conspirators have taken that risk when they could just as easily have hijacked another plane? Makes no sense any way you look at it.
Complain about this comment
Here's a today's quote on WTC 7>
''This is the first time I've every seen such dramatic interior changes being made in a new building,'' said Irwin G. Cantor, structural engineer for the project. ''And the whole world is watching.'' [NYT]
And it does make sense anyway you look at it.
Complain about this comment
116. sdemetri:
"All I have to say to Jon112uk, who doesn't seem at all interested in examining anything, is I honestly don't know what happened."
113. Grakkor :
@jon112uk
"So you want me to speculate some conspiracy theory so that you can pick it apart? No thanks.
How about I (and many other here) just provide you with hundred of pieces of hard evidence, omissions, distortions and ridiculous coincidences that rip the official story to shreds."
No thanks Grakkor - I've heard your comments on the government theory, I was asking for a clear statement of YOUR theory so we can have a look at it. sdemetri - I'm very happy to look at SPECIFIC claims.
Earlier on in the discussion people seemed to be happy to be specific and I was happy to have a think about it - eg. the covert controlled demolition using thermite idea. IMHO...
* I thought about controlled demolition with thermite - it doesnt look plausible, it couldn't be timed accurately enough
* I looked at the pictures I couldn't actually see 'puddles of molten metal'
* The idea that the girders which caused the collapse would be lying on the ground outside the wreckage pile didn't make sense
* I thought about thermite still being molten and glowing 20 minutes after it was ignited - thats just not credible, it burns out in seconds
'Truthers' were previously giving specific claims. Now they seem to be unable/unwilling to give specifics for people to think about/examine.
I think that before anyone starts accusing named people of involvement in mass murder they need to have at least a coherent theory as to what they are alleging.
If you will not state your theory in detail for us to examine I think people will have to make their own conclusions about the credibility of your claims.
Complain about this comment
Hi MarcusAureliusII at 121
You wrote:
"Had WTC-7 been destroyed by explosive charges carefully placed near building columns by conspirators, they would had to have been placed there before 9-11. Had they been discovered, that could have put the entire city on alert, possibly the entire national security apparatus and foiled the plot to destroy WTC-1, WTC-2, the Pentagon, and the White House."
I agree. But two things: first, the White already knew about 9/11: there was countless warnings from FIS and internal intelligence services about the attack. Look at the recent James Blamford interview: the NSA knew all about it!!!
Second thing: who was in charge of security at WTC and Dulles airport? How could any of these conspiracy theories possibly work unless you had a trusted insider controlling security? Google for this information and be amazed.
You said:
"Why would the conspirators have taken that risk when they could just as easily have hijacked another plane? Makes no sense any way you look at it."
Hmm, you are assuming suicide hijackers (or CIA patsies depending upon your point of view) grow on trees! 9/11 was a costly exercise for whoever planned it: for OBL in his cave: he couldn't have had that many trained jet pilots willing to make the sacrifice. (Some would say, he didn't have any pilots trained to fly jets at all!!!) If the US planned it you have huge costs: airliners, drones, people, hush money etc. Fortunately they did have the means: Donald Rumsfeld announced a $2.2trillion DoD overspend on 10th Sept 2001. His trusted department researching where these trillions went were housed (with Naval Intelligence) in the newly refurbished wing of the pentagon. The next day, Hani Hanjour, apparently the worst cessna pilot in the world, overflew the pentagon then executed a masterful, diving spiral attack into that same newly refurbished wing, killing many people (but relatively few considering the wing only held two departments) but perhaps more importantly also destroying ALL the DoD's financial records. (Check publicly available DoD audit reports, I couldn't make this up!). Unlike at the WTC 1, 2 where virtually every business recovered its data and IT systems, the pentagon lost all its financial data.
As Mike' documentary shows, WTC7 housed a whole series of government agencies including SEC (fraud investigation), perhaps it was targeted because of the information it contained.
Complain about this comment
Jon
"I think that before anyone starts accusing named people of involvement in mass murder they need to have at least a coherent theory as to what they are alleging."
I agree. Why were those 19 hijackers named? Why were their names not issued immediately by the airlines as being on board the aircraft? They were already judged to be the terrorists? How!? Do we really know that they were on the aircraft when there are claims there was mistaken/stolen identities etc?
Why did these terrorists attack? What was their motivation? ("They hate our freedom?" Atta seemed to be enjoying it pretty much the previous evenning!)
How were they financed? Where is the financial investigation into their funding?
I think that before anyone starts accusing named people of involvement in mass murder they need to have at least a coherent theory as to what they are alleging.
Complain about this comment
#119. Not only have I seen aircrashes on TV I've seen that aftermath of Lockerbie.... a big crater in the ground and a couple of bungalows knocked down. You'd be amazed how little damage happened. Remember the plane DID NOT HIT the pentagon... it landed short. The fairly minimal damage is entirely consistent with bits of fast moving, but light aluminium. If you compare it to the pakistani hotel hit by the truck bomb last month or any building hit by a US cruise missile, you'd rapidly discount any missile or bomb theory.
Equally why only one CCTV camera out front? Easy. Thats all thats needed when you have military cops with two eyes and M16s at every door. A little guy watching a monitor can't match that. The pentagon comprises 5 rings with the most sensitive parts in the 5th ring. There are armed security checkpoints in every link corridor between every ring. Only those with the highest security clearance pass get into ring 5 (having passed at leat 4 previous check points). CCTV is unneccesary and possibly a security risk (tapes of the checkpoint procedures could be rather useful in the wrong hands).
I think it might be time to bow out this blog now. Its gone beyond stupid... we've got alleged thermite glowing for 20 minutes after its been lit (or at least big orange blobs allegedly photgraphed by NASA), planes mysteriously vanishing after take off to be replaced with other planes all apparently to frame 20 Saudis in order to justify Iraq (like that makes sense...) when a big truck bomb or Beslan school seige would have done the job of 'another Pearly Harbour' with 1% of the staff, risk & cost.
Yes, there are big holes in the official theory and yes the investigation should have been WAAAAY more thorough, but we are talking about the Bush government here. They've not managed to get one single job done properly (including forgetting to plant some Sarin in Iraq) so a screwed up 9/11 investigation hardly suprises me. In fact a watertight explanation would have been far more suspicious.
Complain about this comment
Peter,
Your bowing out, i think, because your finding it harder and harder to defend the indefendable.
Your ego will never allow you to admit you have been duped, so you are running away.
Good luck with that
Hank
Complain about this comment
Why doesn't the BBC present ALL the evidence and let the people decide?
Why is the BBC supporting the most ludicrous official theory of events around 911?
If you think this was a 'men in caves job' (which means you're also a conspiracy theorist) your blindness to the inconsistencies surrounding 911 is astounding.
Why hasn't a FULL investigation in to mass murder been carried out? Does that not bother the likes of John?
By trying to discredit 911 'truthers' the BBC is putting its considerable influence and weight behind the 'official theory' of events. Why? The BBC portrays itself as unbiased...
They are part of the rotten system that wants people to believe what they are told and to stop thinking for themselves.
If you are happy with the way the world is managed YOU are the lunatic.
Long live the human spirit of exploration in our hunt for the truth. For those that don't want it go back to your tv's to finish off your programming. You will never silence the people who search for the truth.
Complain about this comment
Argh,
Peter you are so frustrating.
Fast moving light aluminium causes light damage at the pentagon but cuts through the steel faced wtc 1 and 2 like butter.
Lockerbie was blown up in the air not crashed into the ground.
And the pentagon damamge went through many of the rings and looks exactly like a missile hit.
What about the anti-aircraft missiles at-top the pentagon, you forgot to mention them too.
Bow out peter, go back to doing what you do and i pray i never have to take and drug you have worked on if this is your level of analysis and research.
Complain about this comment
No Hank. My ego is quite aware of its limitations (and I think I've suprised you in the past by freely admiting when I don't know or have got something wrong) and there frankly isn't any answer to 'the 4 planes were swapped in mid air for 4 other planes' etc.
What I'm also a bit annoyed by is that the tin hat brigade never answer any of my most important questions like:
WHY FRAME SAUDIS TO INVADE IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN? WHY NOT FRAME 19 IRAQI's or AFGHANS?
or
WHY WHEN YOU HAVE INVADED IRAQ LOOKING FOR FICTIONAL WMD DIDN'T THEY THINK TO BRING A FEW WITH THEM?
or
WHY GO TO SUCH RIDICULOUS TROUBLE TO JUSTIFY A WAR WHEN A FAR SIMPLER PLAN WOULD HAVE DONE JUST AS WELL WITH FAR LESS RISK?
Examples of far simpler plans would be:
a big truck bomb (worked nicely in Oklahoma and almost happened first time round in WTC)
a Beslan school seige.
10 bombs in 10 planes all going off at once (and don't tell me that the conspirators couldn't have got them past security when theyre capable of swapping planes in mid air and wiring up 3 office buildings)
half a dozen planes shot down with Stingers on take-off landing (neatly frames the Taliban)
suicide bombers on the subway
a dirty bomb
Hell- if you want to invade Afghanistan do what the russians did in Georgia. Just have half a dozen US 'aid workers' killed and send in the troops.
etc.
The Kennedy shooting which I do think was a conspiracy (probably the cubans but I don't really know, nor hugely care) needed one idiot fall guy and one guy who could shoot straight, plus a couple of rifles. Thats a nice simple, effective & fairly low risk plan. The 9/11 conspiracy pantomine is so ridiculously over complicated its not true.
Equally 20 fanatics with 1 way tickets and 99 cent box cutters is a nice simple plan. Radio controlled 767's, pre-planted thermite and the BBC pre-briefed isn't.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym.
You claim about the plane not hitting the Pentagon is wrong.
Also the claim about "he fairly minimal damage is entirely consistent with bits of fast moving, but light aluminium" is wrong.
The extent of the damage can be seen at the photos below, both pre and post collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/#postcollapse
Also, if the Bush Government is telling the truth about 9-11, why is there so many holes in the official theory?
Complain about this comment
"Lockerbie was blown up in the air not crashed into the ground."
Issaac Newton described gravity 400 years ago. The Lockerbie plane suffered a fairly small explosion in the front of the cargo hold and then fell out of the sky onto a small residential street. It would have been doing about 500 mph when it hit so is roughly equivalent to what happened on 9/11. Google the images... apparently most of the plane is still in a hanger in Farnborough and isn't a popular place for staff to pass through. For what its worth my gran lived in one of the houses that were flattened but she moved out 15 years before the plane crashed. We lived about 40 miles further along the flight path (so if the plane had taken off 5 minutes earlier.....)
What about the anti-aircraft missiles at the pentagon? Do you suggest they should have vaporised the plane? In fact if such missiles HAD been fired you'd have had an uncontrollable plane hurtle out of the sky at 500mph... rather like Lockerbie and rather like what is alleged to have happened.
THAT is a perfectly good example of a 9/11 cover up that I'm happy to accept happened. In the land of litigation I wouldn't want to have been the man who pressed the missile button who killed 100 people. Ditto the plane that crashed in Pensylvania... an air national guard AMRAAM?
You also shoot yourself in the foot with the aluminium comment. The WTC centres didn't fall over the minute those planes hit. They stood for hours and burnt.
Light damage.
Incidentally I hope you never need anything I develop too. Colo-rectal cancer is a bad way to go. However anything I make goes through full QC tests here, then is passed to the drug companies who repeat all my in vivo tests then do the same on animals then do 4 phases of clinical trials.... and at the end of all that it'll probably be rejected because most drugs are. THAT is real science, not armchair theorising based on false stats, paranoia and funny camera angles.
Complain about this comment
"Also, if the Bush Government is telling the truth about 9-11, why is there so many holes in the official theory?"
Because they don't know exactly what happened and have come up with a cover story to save the hides of various bush regime people who if they'd done their job properly could have prevented this?
Lets face it there's holes in their economic policy, their plan for Iraq has gone toes up (especially as the Iraqis are now negotiating oil deals with China.. hahaha), their foreign policy is a disaster, their enviromental policy is contradictory... why should they manage the 9/11 enquiry any better than they managed ENRON?
Cock-up beats conspiracy any day.
Complain about this comment
125. ynda20:
Jon
" 'I think that before anyone starts accusing named people of involvement in mass murder they need to have at least a coherent theory as to what they are alleging.'
I agree. Why were those 19 hijackers named? "
============
You're back to the GOVERNMENT case again. I've heard that.
I wanted to know the specifics of YOUR allegations so I could think about your theory.
I am genuinely interested in the specifics of your allegations - I found the covert, controlled demolition by thermite idea very interesting even though it really didn't convince me in the end.
But now you won't even say if you think the radio controlled planes were inhabited or not.
Suddenly you've stopped being specific about your theory.
Complain about this comment
@jon112uk
"I think that before anyone starts accusing named people of involvement in mass murder they need to have at least a coherent theory as to what they are alleging."
The 9/11 commission report came out over 2 1/2 years after the war in Afghanistan started.
"If you will not state your theory in detail for us to examine I think people will have to make their own conclusions about the credibility of your claims."
Like I said earlier, you have missed the key point. It's not the responsibility of the truth movement to tell you specifically what happened. It's the Government that must prove that the official story is true.
Destroying the credibility of the official story is the only way to get a new, full, independent investigation in order to determine precisely what happened.
Complain about this comment
"Like I said earlier, you have missed the key point. It's not the responsibility of the truth movement to tell you specifically what happened. It's the Government that must prove that the official story is true."
This is SEPTEMBERGATE.
Complain about this comment
I see someone criticised my questions as simple, and that I haven't taken the time to research 9/11.
I've found that the truth movement can't answer the simple questions, so I may as well start with them.
I've actually spent a fair amount of time researching 9/11, and I've been banned from at least 2 9/11 forums, for the great crime of disagreeing, or pointing out where people are wrong.
The truth movement makes stuff up as they go along, then takes it as fact, and then charges everyone else with the duty of proving them wrong.
For example I see the questions asked about the anti-aircraft missiles/defences at the Pentagon, how it is suspicious that they didn't fire etc.
They didn't fire because the truth movement made up the anti-aircraft defences. The Pentagon has none. No anti-aircraft missiles, no anti-aircraft guns.
It's a bit like thermite. I'm sure we've all seen thermite on Braniac, or made our own. Ever noticed they always use it to burn vertically? How would thermite cut horizontally through a steel column then? The truth movement made up that property of thermite. They'll ask you to disprove it though.
The greatest challenge they've faced though is eyewitness accounts. To a member of the truth movement, if someone says something sounds *like* an explosion, it *was* an explosion. So if a car backfiring sounds *like* a gunshot, it *was* a gunshot to the truth movement, and they're probably hunting for the murderer right now.
I think if you're talking to someone that can't even understand similies, it's best to start with a simple question.
Complain about this comment
#136. Thats not an unreasonable point, although being pedantic I'd question whether legally the government has to prove anything. Morally yes, but legally?
The problem is that too many truthists ARE trying to specifically tell us what happened- in painfully elaborate detail and you're contradicting each other which actually prevents you forcing any enquiries.
The other problem is that too many of you will not accept any amount of proof because you belief too firmly that it was all a dark plot. Any evidence will be faked or you'll find a website out there that contradicts it and cling onto some element of that.
I'd suggest the Princess Di death is the perfect example of this- ten years of inquests in the UK and France have proved far beyond reasonable doubt that it was an accident, but allegedly 30% of people think Prince Philip and MI5 did it and that anything that suggests differently is also part of the plot.
Complain about this comment
"It's a bit like thermite. I'm sure we've all seen thermite on Braniac, or made our own. Ever noticed they always use it to burn vertically? How would thermite cut horizontally through a steel column then? The truth movement made up that property of thermite. They'll ask you to disprove it though."
You could probably pack some thermostable putty or cement like substance around the charge to hold it against the girder- it would burn a wedge out of the steel before it flowed around the sides of the putty. Of course this would make the building topple sideways like a tree cut with an axe which is precisely what DIDN'T happen!
To be fair I would expect the pentagon to have stingers (they're good against helicopters or cessnas) but against a 767 it would be like a 44 magnum fired at a freight train. What they certainly don't have is proper AA defences like patriots or HAWK. In fact if they had such a system no missile should have got through. This is a great case of the truthers contradicting themselves.
Complain about this comment
for jon117uk (.107)
John the truth movement isn't an organisation that we've all signed up to. It's various individuals with different views on the same topic. The only common ground is we don't believe what is told about what happened. I thought this conspiracy was a load of rubbish myself when told by a friend.He said 'don't listen to me- look for yourself. I did. The media went into overdrive on that day and if you say something to the populous enough then it becomes real, as they all start to act on it. Look at the difference between what the press were saying a year or so ago re credit crunch then look at how they've switched when global recession was obvious for years. The IMF stated this over two years ago themselves.
As an easy point to witness yourself, look at how the planes hit the building in any film on youtube. In theory, on immediate impact the plane would of folded, exploded,and some of the plane would of fallen straight down having broken up, it's hitting hard concrete at 500+mph remember. Instead what you see is the plane disapear completely inside the building, like the walls of the building are paper, or not even there, and then the explosion. This is a physical impossibility. Not a single piece of plane was ever found at the site. Everything was disintegrated into fine dust including two huge multi ton jet engines? They did manage to find a passport from one of hijackers though. How about that.
x
Complain about this comment
BARRY JENNINGS IS NOW DEAD (at 54)UNDER SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES AND MICHAEL HESS HAS CHANGED HIS STORY.
If the building (WTC7) collapsed as a result of severed columns on the southwest side of the building (not the conclusion of the NIST report I might add) the building would have collapsed to that side, it didn't it fell into it's own footprint at near free fall speed. The NIST report concludes that the collapse was the result of "a new phenomenon" of "thermal expansion" and that this is "The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".
Why is Mr Rudin again in charge of this 3rd documentry? How can he really make an un-biased documentry having concluded twice before that the official version of events on 9/11 is the true version? He also has a conflict of interest as much of this documentry will be about clearing his name and saving his reputation from the allegations from the Truth movement.
I am extremely concerned about the biased and unbalanced reporting coming from the Bbc in recent years, the latest George Osborne scandal is another example of the huge influence business men and politicians have on this organisation, on the plus side it does go someway to expose the secret government that really controls this country.
Unfortunatley the well meaning general public will be much more likely to listen to Rudins disinformation as he tells the public what they want to hear.
Please Google ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH and the listen to the opinions of people who know what they're talking about as oppossed to those of a hack journalist like Rudin.
Complain about this comment
please refer to 128, its taken them so long to moderate my comment?!
Complain about this comment
Oops - the 'truth' people are flat out refusing to be specific about their theories.
Have a look at the top of this debate: they were naming names, talking about thermite, talking about radio controlled planes.
Then a handful of ordinary people started looking at the details.
Now they won't give anymore details.
Guess we will have to draw our own conclusions about the quality of their theories - we are not going to be allowed to examine them.
Complain about this comment
137, 139
I've seen thermite melt downwards in front of my eyes, I've been told how they do it on vertical surfaces but not seen that. They can use high temp putty type materials or they can use ceramic devices that channel the molten iron as it exits the device.
But all of it melts, not explodes. I just don't find it credible how people could time that to less than a second on tens of steel collumns to do a controlled demolition.
In any event it looks like the mother of all fireworks - gone in a few seconds not flowing and glowing 20 minutes later.
Complain about this comment
ynda20 #124
So the conspiracy widens. The conspirators infiltrated the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey which owned the WTC site and the Dulles airport authorities, their facilities and security depratments who have maintenance men and security guards who make routine tours so that nobody would spill the beans when they noticed something that didn't look right. Why not write a novel about it? That's where this fiction belongs.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter, 138
You wrote
"...although being pedantic I'd question whether legally the government has to prove anything. Morally yes, but legally?"
What you can go to war without being legally right?
You wrote: "The problem is that too many truthists ARE trying to specifically tell us what happened- in painfully elaborate detail and you're contradicting each other which actually prevents you forcing any enquiries."
Do you think this is a political movement or something? Anybody that questions the official story isn't some signed up member of a political party. Who cares whether we contradict each other, the point is that the official story is full of holes. Which you yourself have admitted to....
You wrote: "The other problem is that too many of you will not accept any amount of proof because you belief too firmly that it was all a dark plot. Any evidence will be faked or you'll find a website out there that contradicts it and cling onto some element of that."
I disagree. I will take any evidence which is solid and verifiable and open to scientific discussion. The NIST report is not independent and has well recorded holes. I will not accept Bazant's paper (also full of holes. See 911Blogger for the problems getting scientific debate upon it!) or Stefan's paper (also full of holes) or Popular Mechanics Debunking which is er, full of holes, half truths and is not independent!
Where are the air crash investigations, Peter?! The black box data released from flights 77 and 93 doesn't match observations: how is this going to be reconciled without a proper investigation?
You wrote "I'd suggest the Princess Di death is the perfect example of this- ten years of inquests in the UK and France have proved far beyond reasonable doubt that it was an accident, but allegedly 30% of people think Prince Philip and MI5 did it and that anything that suggests differently is also part of the plot."
I agree, the Princess Di inquest did resolve the issue and killed off the conspiracy theories. It was way too late though and allowed the CTs to spring up. 9/11 is so much more important than the Princess Di inquiry and has so much more inconsistencies and implications that it should be properly investigated.
Complain about this comment
139. At 12:19pm on 23 Oct 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
"What they certainly don't have is proper AA defences like patriots or HAWK. In fact if they had such a system no missile should have got through. This is a great case of the truthers contradicting themselves."
Peter, you're so naive. Obviously Rumsfeld unplugged all the air defences at the last minute. Then he flew the plane in on remote.
Surely, the best explaination is that the US gov knew someone was planning attacks in the US, the PNAC/neocon types in charge we're happy to let an attack come so that they'd have an excuse to start making moves in the ME but they were completely unprepared for the scale of the attacks.
In their haste to take advantage of the situation and make sure that no-one uncovered the wide-ranging and varied incompetence, they ended up covering up things that didn't need covering up and so drew attention to themselves.
There's also the South Park theory - that the government created all of the conspiracy theories on the principle that it's better to appear evil than useless.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter, 138
You wrote
"...although being pedantic I'd question whether legally the government has to prove anything. Morally yes, but legally?"
What you can go to war without being legally right? "
Yes! As in invading Iraq when there were no WMD under a very dodgy reading of a 10 year old UN resolution. Remember the official explanation for 9/11 was that Saudis did it, not Iraqis.
"I agree, the Princess Di inquest did resolve the issue and killed off the conspiracy theories. "
But it hasn't. The daily express still run stupid Diana stories and as so many people buy it its a reasonable assumption they agree with what their paper of choice is writting.
Whether you realise it or not the truthist movement is political. Virtually everything in life is political. You don't have to be a member of a political party to have views on politics.
Complain about this comment
"Oops - the 'truth' people are flat out refusing to be specific about their theories.
Have a look at the top of this debate: they were naming names, talking about thermite, talking about radio controlled planes."
Jon, be honest. Your logic is entirely faulty. NIST refuses to release its data, parameters, and methodology used to reach its conclusions. It released a conclusion, but not how it reached that conclusion. Without that data, without access to steel samples, without access to the hundreds of videos, without access to the empirical data they generated themselves, not having the parameters and methodology precisely as to how they configured the software used to create the simulations... you honestly expect someone like me, or like the physicists, engineers, architects who are studying this to meet your criteria for specificity? To have all the answers?
That's not just ridiculous, it is a design simply meant to close debate. You are not interested, except in closing debate.
My main working hypothesis is, the official story cannot be correct because of these enumerated self-contradictory holes in their conspiracy theory... and I have listed some of these holes above and in other postings on this blog.
Argue with me about Hani Hanjour's incompetence as a pilot, yet his supposed ability to guide a 757 at 400 mph in a descending spiral, pulling 5 G's. Military pilots say they couldn't do it. How could he? Maybe if you can get your mind around this contradiction, you might start to see things more clearly. Explain this ONE contradiction.
But, it is clear to me, you only want to close the debate by blaming us for not having all the answers. I don't, and I make no apologies for not. I know, however, the official conspiracy theory is full of self-defeating contradictions that render it unworkable, obviously so.
A "cock up" hardly explains observable, physical evidence completely and inexplicably left out of "official" forensic investigations. "Cock up" points more to "cover up" in this case.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII....
I'll show you where the fiction began.
"ANGEL IS NEXT"
According to Bob Woodward's canonical mainstream account: "At about 10:30 AM Cheney reached Bush again on Air Force One, which was still on its way toward Washington. The White House had received a threat saying, 'Angel is next.' Since Angel was the codeword for Air Force One, it could mean that terrorists had inside information." Allegedly because of this report, Cheney argued that Bush should not return to Washington. "There's still a threat," said Cheney. (Woodward 18) Within minutes, the plane changed course and flew to Louisiana instead. (Washington Post, January 27, 2002) Was this now a third threat, after the post-Booker threat and the "Air Force One is next" threat? Did the terrorist controllers now add the code word "Angel" to further document their insider status, and their possible access to nuclear codes? Or are we dealing with two versions of the same threat?
We will return to "Angel is next." This represents the single most important clue as to the sponsorship of 9/11, since it was at this point that the sponsors showed their hand. They were not located in a cave in Afghanistan, but were rather a network located high within the US government and military It was a moment of capital importance, the thread which, if properly pulled, will unravel the entire fabric of 9/11 deceit.
The principal clue leading us to the existence of the rogue network behind 9/11 is the“Angel is next” threat. Since hasty attempts to deny that this ever existed came soon after 9/11, we pause to document the evidence that this call really did take place.
In an interview with Tony Snow on Fox News Sunday, National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice confirmed that the September 11 threat against President Bush’s lifeincluded a secret code name.
SNOW: Sept. 11 there was a report that there was a coded message that
said, “We’re going to strike Air Force One” that was using specific coded
language and made the threat credible. Is that true?
RICE: That is true.
SNOW: So we have a mole somewhere?
RICE: It’s not clear how this coded name was gotten. We’re a very open
society and I don’t think it’s any surprise to anyone that leaks happen. So,
I don’t know -- it’s possible the code name leaked a long time ago and was
just used.
SNOW: How on earth would that happen?
RICE: I don’t know. I don’t know. We’re obviously looking very hard at
the situation. But I will tell you that it was plenty of evidence from our
point of view to have special measures taken at that moment to make sure
the president was safe.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Ross's presentation on how the explosives were placed within the towers to attack the core steel structure is a must see for everyone.
And remember, why is it that the BBC and the rest of the media fails to mention the closure and power down of the towers on the weekend prior to 9/11?
Why is it that the BBC also fails to investigate any of the real facts and continues to do everything it can to back up the official conspiracy theory which is full of inconsistences and blatant lies..
Unfortunately, the BBC just cannot be trusted anymore, plain and simple.
Complain about this comment
"Surely, the best explaination is that the US gov knew someone was planning attacks in the US, the PNAC/neocon types in charge we're happy to let an attack come so that they'd have an excuse to start making moves in the ME but they were completely unprepared for the scale of the attacks. "
That works for me. I can't find anything wrong with that idea at all.
#141 BARRY JENNINGS IS NOW DEAD (at 54)UNDER SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
Is he? I though he had a heart attack. He was 54 and looked a good decade older. Unless you can come up with some piece of evidence to suggest it WAS suspicious (like a puncture mark over his heart) I'd suggest this is just another truther using emotive language to spin a story out of nothing. Perhaps you'd like to suggest what killing him would even achieve seeing as he's already told his story to anyone who'll listen.
Complain about this comment
"Where are the air crash investigations, Peter?! The black box data released from flights 77 and 93 doesn't match observations: how is this going to be reconciled without a proper investigation?"
This is another case of Bush regime stupidity. Cancer patients do not normally have post mortems. The reason for this is that cause of death is obvious. If you have someone eaten up by tumours who passes away there is no need to cut them open. The actual cause of those plane crashes was equally obvious (they hit tall buildings) so there was no need to investigate as no mechanical fault was likely (the reason crashes are investigated is to stop them happening again)
However I agree that this is inadequate and they SHOULD have been investigated just to be thorough.
Complain about this comment
This blog is atypical of the arrogance of Mike Rudin, and of the BBC. Over the years, hundreds if serious valid questions have been asked about 9-11.
Do Mike Rudin or Richard Porter bother to respond to these questions?
No, they haven't bothered to respond to one of the questions asked by their blog readers about 9-11. These guys give bloggers a bad name.
But then someone calls Mike "Eurotrash", apparently, and he sees this as important enough to write a blog about.
I think there are more important issues at stake here Mike, than worrying about what people are calling you.
Complain about this comment
147. MonkeyBot5000
"Obviously Rumsfeld unplugged all the air defences at the last minute."
Thanks - now thats a specific statement of a theory of what happened.
Really pleased to see you are still willing state specifics monkeybot.
Is there anywhere where I can see evidence from operators of the stingers/patriot/CIWS etc who were ordered to stand by or documents on the deployment and removal of the AA systems or photos of the AA systems immediately prior to the radio plane's arrival? Is there any CCTV coverage of the AA systems arriving/leaving? (or anything similar?)
Complain about this comment
149. sdemetri
"But, it is clear to me, you only want to close the debate by blaming us for not having all the answers. "
Hi sedemetri: quite the opposite - I think the debate is very interesting. The thermite thing was great.
I've heard the debates on the government theories - I'm just asking to debate the theories from you guys for once.
I'd love for you to be more specific about the radio controlled planes theory so we could debate that as well.
Complain about this comment
Jon, "Argue with me about Hani Hanjour's incompetence as a pilot, yet his supposed ability to guide a 757 at 400 mph in a descending spiral, pulling 5 G's. Military pilots say they couldn't do it. How could he? Maybe if you can get your mind around this contradiction, you might start to see things more clearly. Explain this ONE contradiction."
Ok, for argument’s sake, I'll help you out. He is able to disable the Flight Management system. He grabs the stick and leans on it. By a one in a million chance the plane descends in a tight spiral at 5 G’s, 400 mph. He’s almost blacked out, but he holds on and smacks right into the side of the Pentagon. Stranger things have happened. You know the piece of straw forced clean through a tree limb in a tornado, that type of thing.
The 757, with its 44.5 ft high tail section, its 125 ft wing span, completely disappears in a 19 ft diameter hole. No wings, no engines, no baggage, no tail section, only very small parts that official type guys are immediately picking up, (disrupting a crime scene, but hey, it’s the military. You don’t question the official uniforms.) Within a couple of days, the entire lawn in front of the crash scene is covered with 4 to 6 inches on new dirt…
The fiberglass and aluminum nose cone, instead of shredding on impact on the newly reinforced concrete, brick and steel wall it hits, continues through the building punching a nearly perfectly round hole on the third circle wall of the building having passed through several walls already. Not bad for aluminum and fiberglass, but, hey, stranger things have happened.
The flight data recorder is found sometime later. It doesn’t have a serial number that the NTSB publicly lists, as all but two others over the previous twenty years of crashes were listed. (One of those other two happens to be the FDR from flight 93, but that’s another twist.) The data on this FDR at the Pentagon doesn’t quite jive with what people who saw something come in and hit the Pentagon said. Some of the last data points don’t appear right. They are too high too close to the pentagon for the speed of travel for impact to occur. No matter, it is all mystery, we are told.
The NTSB assists the FBI with identifying the wreckage. Neither the NTSB, nor the FAA, nor the FBI have any documentation about how they did this. A judge tells the FBI, release the documents about how you positively ID’d the plane, or explain why you cannot. (This really, really happened.) To this day, no one is talking about how the aircraft that hit the pentagon was positively identified. It was flight 77, no questions allowed, especially not by the truth community. The federal court hearing that is about to happen might force the FBI to release this information, but I am betting the FBI won’t. National security and all. It was 77, trust us…….
Complain about this comment
Self styled coincidence theorists like Rudin should get one thing straight. Every little wack red herring and straw man you create, there are 100's of us planting the truth in 1,000 of peoples' hands and heads every day. So when you feed out crap like:
"Barry Jennings said he heard explosions. We think it is likely that this was when Tower 1 collapsed, showering debris onto Tower 7."
We show people that Barry Jennings actually said much more than what you lead on :
D. Avery: ..."the whole Official Story, the whole reason that Building 7 collapsed allegedly, was because the North Tower fell onto it and caused damage.
And what people are going to say, is they're going to say "Barry was hit by debris from the North Tower."
Barry Jennings: "No. What happened was when we made it back to the 8th floor, as I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing because I looked one way, looked the other way..now there's nothing there.
When I got to the 6th floor there was an explosion that forced us back to the 8th floor.
Both buildings were still standing.
Keep in mind, I told you the fire department came..and ran.
They came twice.
Why?
Because building tower 1 fell and then tower 2 fell. "
RIP Jennings. Your murder will find justice.
Complain about this comment
#152 Yes suspicious, one of two eye witnesses, the other a frail old man who has since changed his story.
"Barry Jennings said he heard explosions. We think it is likely that this was when Tower 1 collapsed, showering debris onto Tower 7".
Here is an interview With Barry Jennings that proves that Rudin has either made an error (even on his 3rd attempt) or is just plain lying. It's the same question we have to ask about the Bush administration are you criminally incompotent or criminally insane?
When we reached the sixth floor… there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging and I had to climb back up and I had to walk back up to the 8th floor… it was dark and very very hot. I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone. I was trapped in there for several hours. I was trapped in there when both buildings came down. The firefighters came. I was going to come down on the fire hose, because I didn’t
want to stay there because it was too hot; they came to the window and started yelling ‘do not do that, it won’t hold you’. And then they ran away. I didn’t know what was going on. That’s when the first tower fell. When they started running, the first tower started coming down. I had no way of knowing that. And then I saw them come back with more concern on their faces. And then they ran away again. The second tower fell.”
Later-
Dylan Avery: “So it’s safe to say that that explosion on the 6th floor happened before either tower fell?”
Barry Jennings: “It definitely happened before either tower fell and I’ll tell you why…” (Chopper
overhead)
D.A.: “Barry, I’m sorry, could you just wait for that chopper? ‘Cause this is vital. Because the whole official story, the whole reason that Bldg. 7 collapsed, allegedly, is because the North Tower fell onto it and caused damage, and what people are gonna say is, they’re gonna say, well, Barry was hit by debris from the North Tower.”
B.J.: “No. What happened was, when we made it back to the 8th floor, as I told you earlier - both buildings were still standing. Because I looked two… I looked one way and looked the other way, now, there’s nothing there. When I got to the 6th floor before all this happened… there was an explosion. That’s what forced us back to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. Keep in mind, I told you the Fire Dept. came and ran. They came twice. Why? Because Bldg Tower 1 fell, and then Tower 2 fell.”
Complain about this comment
157. sdemetri
Very interesting but its about questioning the government theory again.
I was asking about your theory.
I'm inviting you to tell me your theory in detail so we can discuss it.
If you don't accept a 'hijacker' flew a plane please tell us what did happen?
Are you in favour of the radio controlled plane theory?
I'm just asking if the radio controlled planes were empty or if they had any people in them? If so who?
Complain about this comment
Hi, MarcusAureliusII, 145
You wrote "Why not write a novel about it? That's where this fiction belongs."
Thanks for the tip. I do think there is a good book here, actually. But damm-it, one's already been written: The Shell Game by Steve Alten - a well respected author.
In the meantime try reading this:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html
Complain about this comment
Jon, I talk about things that I know. The official story says one thing, and the evidence I look at says another, whether it is in the blueprints, in what was seen in the debris, what 118 eyewitnesses among the NYFD, those among the police, those among the office and building workers, what any of them say that directly contradicts the official story. That is what interests me. Especially when that evidence corroborates the disparate and independent bits and pieces.
How would I know whether the planes are radio controlled or not, empty or not? My opinion means absolutely nothing. The official story says Hani Hanjour flew 77 into the Pentagon. For the reasons I state above, and others, I highly doubt that. It is extremely plausible some or all of the aircraft were remote controlled. The technology existed then to a high degree of precision. Whether it was used or not, I haven't the foggiest. That rank amateurs, incompetent pilots are supposed to have flown highly sophisticated aircraft on the strength of a few hours of cockpit simulation experience, performing highly technical maneuvers is very doubtful to me, and to highly trained, experienced pilots for these types of aircraft.
My opinion, my "theory" means nothing. What the facts points to, that is worthy of further investigation.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym@126 - "a little guy watching a monitor"? I'm sure the US military industrial complex, so ably represented by the Pentagon, could do better than that. Just to monitor alkies and street ne'er-do-well's, the police in London's West End use, or have trialled (amongst other goodies like L3's Praetorian) such exotic tools as described at http://videosurveillance.swri.org/ I think you're being a little naive if you think the Pentagon only had one bloke with a monitor and a few guards. Naturally, they don't post the finer points of their security arrangements on the 'net for us all to read so we'll have to guess, but only one camera? Please.
and @ 132 - the first tower fell a little over an hour after being struck, the second one fell after less time than that. Not "They stood for hours and burnt" as you said.
Talking of burning, according to Underwriters Laboratories, the structural steel used in the twin towers'
construction was certified by them to withstand 3 hours at 3000f. More accomplished scholars and/or people with
better thermometers than I have determined avgas burns at 1600-2000f. On September 11th one building made with this steel stood for less than one hour, another less than two hours before complete collapse and obliteration, discuss.
Perhaps they should've built the towers out of their surprisingly rugged passports?
MarcusAureliusII@145 - In addition to already owning the lease on WTC7 and other buildings in the complex, Silverstein's property company took out a 99-year lease on more or less the rest of the entire WTC complex in late July 2001 and very quickly got the site insured for more than it was actually worth. Unlike a lot of insurance,
the policy specifically included acts of terrorism as an insured risk. We all know what happened just 6 weeks later.. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html for further info.
Jon112uk@ quite a few posts - you still seem to have missed the point that has been made a number of times now: people who don't wholeheartedly accept Gov. Kean's single, unified (but preposterous) theory of everything don't accept it for any number of differing reasons. For me it's the conclusions that don't match the reproduceable facts (new phenomena the commission invented like thermal expansion or whatever they called it) are right up there with the miraculous recovery by Ernest Saunders from Alzheimers just after being let out of prison early because he had, err, Alzheimers and the Easter Bunny. I'm neither a chemist, a demol expert or a metallurgist. If someone who is one tells you that what "officially" happened couldn't have happened, or at least not in the way it's claimed, then you have to at least take note and, if you're like me, look for a third opinion. If you counted all the money in
your pocket right now, noted the total, and then immediately counted it all again and came to a different total which would you determine to be the correct answer? Or would you count it again a third time just to be on the safe side? All I'm saying is where doubt exists, seek to resolve that doubt, particularly in instances of massive loss of civilian life or the launching of wars for reasons which shift over time such as we're talking about here.
Blindly accepting what the first person tells you as truth is about as smart as buying a package of securitised loans that have been put together in such a convoluted and opaque way that neither you nor the seller can determine their precise worth, what exactly it is you've bought or from whom, but their seller has damn-well determined a
price. Now who'd be daft enough to do that?
As it's now 1:30am and I can hear my life calling, I'll ask this:
If "truther" (meaning one who doesn't accept the official story) is the disparaging nom de jour for non-believers, should those who do accept the report now be referred to as "liars"?
Furthermore, if you don't always accept the official story (on anything) and search for the truth, and that's reason to be derided, are we now all living in Bill Hicks' Alabama waffle-house?
Complain about this comment
Maybe Mike, your secretly on the side of the "truth movement! Why else would you produce such questionable material so often? Maybe theres a method behind your madness? I like the way you make the official "theory" look vulnerable to attack, I hope I'm right and on Sunday we will see more evidence to support a government cover up and a lot more sheeple will wake up from their dormant stuper and see whats been going on.....
...keep up the good word!!
All you "man in cave did it" please watch this vid then have another think!
http://blip.tv/file/306082/
Complain about this comment
I've actually played with that thought too 4x0, a few times to say the least, not sure though, when they stole election back in US, and people tried to act upon it, it was all that yelling about conspiracy nuts and tinfoil hats..,
After that blast in Oklahoma, they've actually suggested the bill which would allow up to five years prison sentence for those who engage into "baseless conspiracy theories regarding the Federal government of the United States". What sort of superunhuman shield is that?!
Dear, oh dear, how lengthy and well imprinted is that whole circus.
Then again, you've actually suggested a conspiracy within conspiracy and I'm not sure that the sum of that can produce anything but the..,
Fact?
Complain about this comment
162. sdemetri
"How would I know whether the planes are radio controlled or not, empty or not?"
Some years ago the BBC looked at a real conspiracy - ten Irish guys locked away for a series of terrorist bombs in mainland England. I though it was rubbish, they deserved to be locked up. The BBC eventually told me the structure of the IRA unit who really did it, every detail of how they did it, the names of the bombers, etc etc. I changed my mind - the guys in jail were innocent and the government probably covered it up. (The innocent men where later released)
The BBC did that on a little programme with one reporter and a handful of researchers.
You guys have a global network of thousands of people with websites, film making units, millions of words published - including allegations of radio controlled planes - but no one will give me even basic information about the allegation you are making?
As with the BBC alllegations about the Irishmen, I will have to make my own conclusions about the credibility of your claims.
Complain about this comment
Jon112uk, I’ve made this point before in other blogs, and it has been made to you before on this blog by others. Your challenge, to those of us who have many questions regarding the official conspiracy theory, to prove what happened is meaningless. We don’t know what really happened that day, but we do know what could not have happened, based on the wealth of evidence of media film clips, photographs and witness testimony that fateful day of September 11th.
It is not up to us to prove what happened, it is up to the prosecution, in this case, the Bush administration. To give you an example, if a man is charged with murder, and I came to the police with crucial irrefutable evidence which shows that he just could not have committed the crime, would the police then tell me to then prove who actually did it. Of course not. But this is what you ask of us. They would reopen their case and continue to seek the actual perpetrator of that crime.
So please, do stop demanding that we prove who was actually behind 911. Certainly I don’t know, nor, to my knowledge, do any others who doubt the official story.
It is for this sole reason why a full, thorough, unbiased criminal investigation needs to be undertake into 911. A non-political investigation - which, incidentally, has never been done.
Complain about this comment
Jon112Uk, at #116,
So you're basically saying, when the media tell you something, you believe it, and then when they change the story, you believe the new version.
Aren't you capable of processing information and reaching conclusions on your own?
No matter what anyone on this blog shows you, I suspect that you will stick with the official theory, for another decade or so until you read exactly what Ynda, Hank, Sdemetri, etc have been telling you over and over again, in the mainstream press, at some point in the future.
Only took the BBC 5 years to show us video footage of WTC7 collapsing. Maybe that's still news to you, but I prefer to hear the truth right from the start.
Don't worry Jon, there are plenty of people like you who can be shown a building collapsing in under 10 seconds, and not see anything suspicious in that. You're not alone.
Complain about this comment
Re:my post at #168, I meant to say -
Jon112Uk at #166.
Spivver at #167, excellent example about disproving a murder not making the disprover responsible for finding the real killer. Mike Rudin seems to be expecting the same thing of the truth movement, whereas, I believe it is very clear that the official version of 9-11 can't possibly be correct, and there has obviously been a coverup.
Sadly, the BBC has towed the line and supported the coverup right from the start. For example, the day Kean and Hamilton released their book saying the Pentagon lied to the 9-11 commission, BBC didn't run this story at all, but instead ran the story that the 9-11 commission report had been published in comic book form.
Complain about this comment
167. spivver
"I?ve made this point before in other blogs, and it has been made to you before on this blog by others. ...
We don?t know what really happened that day"
That's an important comment and I'm pleased that others have asked you about this.
Further up this page - still there in writing - people clearly allege radio controlled planes, thermite controlled demolitions, give names of alleged conspirators. (Apparently Mike Rudin is one of them)
Now you won't do that anymore and you decline to clarify any of your allegations.
Taking your analogy - if I walk into a police station in regards to a murder and allege person X did it, using a radio controlled car then refuse to offer any clarification of what I'm saying then (in the UK) I would be lucky if got out of the police station without being charged. We have cases where people have injected information into major inquiries, which the police wasted time investigating, and the person was subsequently jailed.
As with the Irish 'terrorists' wrongly convicted above - people (including myself) can be convinced of government wrong doing but the allegations need to clearly stated and credible.
Complain about this comment
The unfortunate thing for you personally, Mr Rudin, is that your name will be forever conflated with this shoddy propaganda journalism.
You've had some fun junkets over to the US, pointed your camera at people of your choosing, had an exciting and supposedly 'validating' little scuffle with the [questionable] We Are Change lot on the streets of Manhattan, you fail to ask the hard questions of Sunder.
Then you patronisingly expect us to fall for this sad BBC gig... and get upset when some direct their anger at you. Oh dear.
The only good thing to have emerged over the last few years - partly (and counterintuitively) via your 'mockumentaries' - is that the BBC's very narrow little window on the world stands exposed for all to see.
The BBC blatantly shuts out the full spectrum of views that are necessary for the functioning of democracy .
In this respect, the BBC comes across as a latter-day Pravda; its stenographic hacks complicit in the illegal wars and bombed wedding parties that sicken a majority of us.
Complain about this comment
168. frasay
"Aren't you capable of processing information and reaching conclusions on your own?"
Absolutely capable - I'm just asking for you guys to give me your theory in detail to evaluate.
I haven't made any comment on the government theory - I just asked for your theory.
If the media - or anyone else - give me specific and credible information about what they are alleging then yes, I will change my opinion.
No one has asked you to 'prove' your theory it was just a request for you to state specifically what the theory is.
I think it is very important that the tone of the comments here has steadily changed from specific allegations to an admission that:
'Certainly I don?t know, nor, to my knowledge, do any others who doubt the official story' (167)
Complain about this comment
Here's one for all you people who believe in wild fantasies....
http://blip.tv/file/306082/
Complain about this comment
Jon112uk, I think you are completely missing the point.
Rather than trying to wean unsubstantiated theories from people ("I'm inviting you to tell me your theory in detail so we can discuss it"), the burden of proof is on you to prove that Bin Laden/Al Queda were responsible for the planning and execution of 9-11.
Your radio controlled car analogy is either a)misleading or b)a barefaced lie.
Not one rational person here is saying they know what happened on 9-11, except, of course, 'the *official conspiracy theorists'.
* The bin laden/koran/flight manual/passport theory.
Complain about this comment
The question is whether Mike Rudin is involved in directly in a PsyOp or whether he is an independent journalist - well independent in so far he still has to please his bosses.
A PysOp is miltary term to persuade your opponent to cease violence and surrender. It was originally started as leaflet dropping in the American War of Independance (and very successful it was too!) and has continued ever since with increasing sophistication. PysOp groups operate not only in wars but also during peace. We know the BBC edit stories for miltary and political purposes. We know the US media is infiltrated by CIA operatives. I can also point you to documents where the US have included the internet as part of its operations.
We also know that there are different organisations performing PysOps: miltary (we know most about military PysOps) and secret service PysOps - in the US, there appears to be 2, maybe three, organisations performing PysOps: CIA, NSA and Dept of Homeland Security. The latter was tasked to guard against terrorist organisations and I suspect shower the internet with disinformation about 9/11 truth (as if it were in some way a threat). Richard Gage was shocked to find some of his ae911truth web pages in a US governement presentation about terrorism on the internet...
Some people have found damming evidence for LIHOP and MIHOP 9/11 theories and the fact the story is confused, is, get-this, another conspiracy theory! The truth is probably being blurred or buried by PysOp operators in Maryland, USA! Or perhaps news editors in major media corporations...
So rather than blab about this theory or that, I think the best any right minded person can do is say, just like magic trick cannot really be magic, we know that the official story of 9/11 is wrong and wool is being pulled over our eyes. We need a new independent investigation of 9/11. This is mass murder we need to understand, who, why and how. And if it proves either LIHOP or MIHOP, people need to be be aware that the War on Terror is a sham and stop the wars. And we need our military (our own people!) to really defend us and NOT attack defenceless third world countries for invalid reasons.
I hope this doesn't make me sound too crazy and tin hatted. To support my points, factual history books (and psychology books) are currently still available despite Donald Rumsfeld previous efforts in buring books... Google stevia and rumsfeld for more info - you can't make this stuff up!
Complain about this comment
Jon112UK, Thanks for the reply. There's a lot of information worth pondering in this blog, and in the other "conspiracy" blogs that Mike Rudin and Richard Porter have hosted. I hope you have had a read through some of the comments there.
I don't think anyone here is making specific allegations are they? We're offering possible alternatives to the official story, because the official story doesn't make sense.
Here's where I stand...
At each point where there would have to be a coverup/action, in order to get away with 9-11, there is.
EG.
Hijacked planes are able to hit targets without interceptor jets reaching them in time. The jets have over an hour in some cases.
Rescue units are in Manhattan on 10th September, in readiness. Pentagon officials are warned not to fly on commercial airlines from August 2001.
FAA flight controllers were interviewed on 9-11 about their experiences in the control towers that day. The tapes were then picked up and cut into little pieces and distributed in rubbish bins around the building.
Evidence from the building collapses was quickly removed and destroyed, which is a federal offence.
Media were quickly given cover story, about Osama, and the 19 suspects.
Patriot Act was written prior to 9-11. PNAC agenda reports that an event like a "New Pearl Harbour" is needed to achieve it's aims.
Cheney is aware of plane/missile heading to towards Pentagon, and yet nothing is done to stop it.
Bush hears 2nd plane has hit towers, and yet his secret service agents don't rush him to a secure location. Why not?
All peoples who displayed gross incompetence on 9-11 are promoted.
9-11 commission is given limited remit and budget, and later says the pentagon lied to it. Originally Kissinger is to head investigation, which sends alarm bells around the world. Much of the testimony to the 9-11 commission, eg Willy Rodriguez, is not published.
Rudy Gulliani says he was told the towers were going to collapse before they did. There is also video evidence of firemen claiming WTC7 will be coming down soon, and media accounts of the collapse of WTC7 before it happens. Followed by 5 years of media suppression of the actual news event of WTC7 collapsing.
Phone calls made on some of the planes are later said not to have happened, eg Barbara Olsens call.
The doomsday plane, recorded by mainstream media flying over NY and above the Pentagon at key times on 9-11.
Stock put options are not properly investigated. The anthrax scandal is not properly investigated.
Sibel Edmonds says there are connections between terrorism/nuclear black market, and elected US officials. She is gagged, unable to tell her story.
Bush says "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" The media wholeheartedly support this.
Editors who question the official story are fired from their jobs, sending a message to others...
There is virtually no evidence to suggest Muslim hijackers were on the hijacked planes. We have very little evidence except for dubious audio tapes, that anyone was on the planes.
The Bin Laden confession video is highly dubious considering he looks too fat on tape, and is right handed, writing quickly, whereas Bin Laden is left handed.
I believe the public have been fed a story, but when looking at the actual evidence, there is very little evidence to support the official story. Jon, I hope you will do your own research into 9-11. These blogs have lots of links and places to start. Searching on google will lead to many more questions.
Complain about this comment
I could barely suppress my outrage, which is why I guess my previous message has been sent off ;-)
Here's a calmer version:
I don't buy the snappy "We Are Change Confronts Mike Rudin" snippet.
Especially as it emerges from a group which reveals itself to be less interested in sober facts and truth; and more interested in emotive factoids and truthiness.
We are Change NY has not displayed a core commitment to sober analysis, which is why some look more closely at who it seemingly 'goes after' - in this case, Rudin.
Complain about this comment
Not sure what was wrong with my post @ 163. No email from mods either telling me what was so controversial either. That's unusual.
Was it the reference to the CCTV technology used on us in London? Or the banker who's no longer senile now he's got out of jail?
Whatever.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
The whole official explanation has so many holes in it Gruyere wants their idea back.
ynda20 @ 175. I'd heard about aspartame, I doubt there's anyone who doesn't know the shameful money-grabbing lengths Monsanto'll go to in order to ensure their bottom line remains healthy (patent for a pig, anyone?). Didn't know about the Rumsfeld connection though. Well I'll be darned...
Some days I really wish I'd never had kids.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, my missing post is at 163. What's the prob, mods?
Complain about this comment
Hi sirjohnwood, 177,
I'm sorry I know this is your second attempt at expressing your outrage, but I don't understand where you are coming from.
Are you upset with WeAreChange for challenging Mike or with WeAreChange becuase they are just trouble makers?
I imagine they have lost their sobriety becuase they can't get any sober facts. Where are the facts with which we should be sober with?
Let's see:
No forsenic examinations of bodies or fire?
No examination of steel?
NIST contraversial and changing reports which obfuscate rather than enlighten?
Scientific papers which don't make sense?
No air crash investigations?
Media reports from telephone calls that did not happen (eg Barbara Olsen)?
Eye Witnesses that suddenly die (ie Barry Jennings)?
People popping up on the TV on the day of 9/11 with the official story prepared (Bin Laden)
And confessions extracted by torture?
We do have some facts around pre-knowledge of events. Should we be just happy with that?
I have assumed that Mike Rudin is doing his job but he should also expect that there is a lot of emotions running over this subject: mass murder and catalyst for wars have a tendancy for doing that.
Are you a real "sir" or this just a useful handle?
Complain about this comment
174. plectic
"the burden of proof is on you to prove that Bin Laden/Al Queda were responsible for the planning and execution of 9-11"
You're mistaking me for the government or an apologist for the government. I'm not alleging bin-laden or anyone else did it.
Whoever makes the allegations needs to offer the proof or at least be specific so others can test the allegations and see if they are credible.
I've heard the government allegations and can make up my own mind.
I was asking for details about the allegations you guys are making. Just the details of the allegation, not even proof.
You raised the idea of not having to prove what you say if you question a police inquiry (167). It looks like you don't find my 'burden of proof' analogy about going to the police station credible - but at least it is specific and testable. You or any of your colleagues could test it yourself. Next heavily publicised murder in your town, walk into the police station and tell the detectives the mayor did it. Tell them he used a radio controlled car/knife/gun. Then refuse to say any more details. Just keep telling the detectives how shoddy/corrupt their inquiry is. Accuse the detectives of being corrupt. Let us know what happens.
(174. "Not one rational person here is saying they know what happened on 9-11" - are you getting this Mike?)
Complain about this comment
No No No.
Dear jon112uk
YOU are making the allegations, not us.
Specifically, that 19 hijackers, armed with korans and bolt cutters aided and abetted by bin laden/al queda were SINGLEHANDEDLY responsible for 9-11.
I have seen no proof of this theory.
Maybe you are privy to other information to prove this theory.
Maybe it's a little difficult for you to parse any discussion whose level of complexity is greater than a binary.
Just because I don't believe in the "Official Conspiracy Theory" doesn't mean that I automatically believe in thermite, Israeli spies, holographic planes etc etc.
As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, the burden of proof is not on the 9-11 'truth' movement or any individual to offer any coherent or correct theory regarding 9-11.
The onus is on YOU to demonstrate the veracity of the OCT*.
* The bin laden/koran/flight manual/passport theory.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, I haven't yet read all the comments because the 'they're funded by General Electric' really made me laugh.
I thought everyone knew that the BBC was funded by the Martian Little Green Men...?!
Sorry, I'll stop now. Refund for license please.
:))
Complain about this comment
176. frasay
"I don't think anyone here is making specific allegations are they?"
Hi frasay
Yes I think people are making allegations - have a look further up the page we have radio controlled planes (77), covert controlled demolitions by thermite (56), people being named (6).
Thanks for telling me what you are saying. However it was still essentially a list of questions about the government theory.
I was asking for a specific statement of what the counter theory is. What are people saying DID happen?
I have had my mind changed by claims a government had set up the wrong people for a terrorist bombing (166). It was actually the BBC that pursuaded me - but they gave me a detailed and specific statement of what they were claiming for me to evaluate for myself.
Complain about this comment
Jon112uk, in my post at #167 I suggested that if I walked into a police station with 'crucial irrefutable evidence that the person could not have committed the crime….'.
I note that you are twisting what I have hypothesised by turning it into a 'if I walk into a police station telling them that X can’t have done it because Y did it…'.
Clearly your mind is completely closed to reason, and, no doubt, looking, in an intelligent questioning way, at the wealth of evidence by way of media clips, photographs and witness testimony which is freely available on the Internet, and in many DVDs, which clearly demonstrates that 911 could not have happened the way we have been spun.
Complain about this comment
"Whoever makes the allegations needs to offer the proof or at least be specific so others can test the allegations and see if they are credible."
Jon, you don't exhibit interest. But here, on the downloads page of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, look at the blueprints for WTC 1. Take some time and digest the information.
The elevator banks in WTC 1 that ran in the strike zone were ALL, except two shafts, local elevators that stopped at the 78th floor. Their pits on the 78th floor had a concrete floor that would prevent leakage to the elevator shafts below them. The local elevator shafts below them likewise had concrete floors at their pits. The express elevators from the 78th floor to the west street lobby were said to be undamaged by firefighters that saw them. Look specifically at the core blueprints as that is where all of the elevator shafts were.
The fireballs that erupted and that everyone saw outside the building likewise blew into some of the damaged local elevator shafts. The wife of the fellow in Car 50, way down in the basement, was also an operator in a car on the 78th floor. When the plane hit, the door of her elevator had just closed, according to an article in USAToday. The occupants forced open the door to escape. She was severely burned by the blast of hot gases and flames, but survived. Her husband, 1100 feet below in Car 50, suffered injuries from the car falling a number of floors and coming to rest but he too survived. He was not burned. His passenger, a carpenter, Marlene Cruz, was injured but not burned.
Look at the blueprints for the effected floors. Look for the shafts in that zone of the building, zone 3. And look for the utility shafts in that zone. Follow them down the building on the lower floors. The local elevators end at floor 78. The utility shafts continue further down, but all likewise end at lower floors, most a few floors lower, some as much as ten or more floors lower.
The only shafts that reached from the strike zone to the basement were for Car 50, which went to the deepest base of the building, sublevel 6, and the shaft for Cars 6 and 7 which serviced the restaurant on the 108th floor. That shaft's lowest reach was subbasement level 3. Explain, in general terms, how walls could collapse, extreme heat, fireballs, smoke, could be witnessed in sub level 6 immediately after the plane struck, when the occupants in the only shaft that reached to that level from the strike zone did not experience this while stuck between sub level 2 or 3.
This is a specific question.
If you are really interested, and not just a gainsayer, raising unanswerable questions ad nauseam, I expect a well thought-out, reasoned reply.
It follows that if damage on sublevel 4, 5, or 6 cannot be explained by jet fuel eruptions through the only access for jet fuel to those levels, something else destroyed the machine shop and hydraulic press on sublevel 4, parking facilities, and caused collapsed walls, smoke, fireballs and extreme heat even lower.
Complain about this comment
Plectic @ 182 - I think you win. Can we all go home now? :-)
Complain about this comment
What's so crazy about the official hijacker account? Please explain how any of these stages are impossible or improbable:
1. Hijackers board plane with boxcutters (essentially stanley knives) - US airport security is poor
2. Hijackers gain control of aircraft - In 1999 a Japanese plane was hijacked by a single man using a kitchen knife. There were several hijackers on each plane.
3. Hijackers fly the plane - Flying is easy. I've flown and landed a multi-million dollar Singapore Airlines Boeing 777 Simulator. My training? Microsoft Flight Simulator.
4. Hijackers navigate plane towards New York/Pentagon - Requires basic knowledge of aircraft systems, easy to learn.
5. Hijackers crash plane into WTC - Easy
6. Hijackers crash plane into Pentagon - Black box data shows none of the manouevers were complicated or high g. Pilot overshot pentagon, circled round while diving and aimed at the pentagon. Harder than flying straight, but still fairly easy.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mike:
Georgia's attack on civilians in South Ossetia on the night of August 7th 2008 used to be a 'conspiracy theory'.
However you now know it to be the truth and that's why the BBC doesn't talk about it anymore.
Don't be a news repeater, be a news reporter.
Thanks...
Complain about this comment
Brian Kenny
WeAreChange.org
October 22, 2008
An open letter to Mike Rudin
Mike Rudin, producer of the BBC 9/11 Hit-piece 'The Third Tower', recently posted an article called 'Caught up in a conspiracy theory', in response to a video I put out - WeAreChange Debunks the BBC at Ground Zero 9/11/08. In the article, he does not deny (or even attempt to explain, in some instances), the glaring misrepresentations, distortions, and omissions that we called him out on at Ground Zero. He does not apologize (as many have called for) for repeatedly exhibiting poor journalistic ethics while covering the most controversial and important issue of our time. Instead he continues to dishonor the victims of 9/11 and insult the intelligence of the BBC audience by digging a deeper hole. Very well Mike Rudin, so be it.
Read the entire rebuttal here:
http://bbcdebunked.blogspot.com
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mr Johnny pixels.
No evidence has been put forward to substantiate these claims.
Complain about this comment
#188 Easy huh?
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).
Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." This is part of Wittenberg's statement on Patriots Question 911 website
Another former Navy pilot: Commander Ted Muga, on the same website:
The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that.
Your experience...a flight simulator... who should I believe?
Complain about this comment
Jon112Uk,
I am saying there has been a coverup of the truth, and I have illustrated a few problems I have with the official account, which suggest a coverup. I also believe WTC7 is a controlled demolition, because I have eyes and a brain, and that's the conclusion I came to from veiwing the videos of the collapse.
You need to do your own research from now on, because I can't make your mind up for you. From reading this blog, there are enough sources mentioned and areas to invesigate to get you started.
You really do seem to be just wasting everyone's time.
SDemetri has laid out some excellent posts for you to take in, as have others. I hope you will spend a bit of time looking at his posts with an open mind.
Good luck.
Complain about this comment
A CALL TO ACTION!
Readers of this blog are encouraged to contact Mike Rudin and the BBC and demand that the entire, unedited Barry Jennings interview be released immediately, as well as a public apology for the other distortions and omissions.
[Personal details removed by Moderator]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
Complain about this comment
#189+
Best get a translator for this Mike - Your own 'BBC Russia' no less...
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Oh, and while you have a translator in the room, you'd better look at this:
I like the bit showing British Landrovers...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R-EIuAG0VCQ
And this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FtYoDqyUNE8
And this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t_ChR00SmFY
By the way, 9/11 was an inside job!
Complain about this comment
182. plectic:
"No No No. Dear jon112uk. YOU are making the allegations, not us. Specifically, that 19 hijackers, armed with korans and bolt cutters aided and abetted by bin laden/al queda were SINGLEHANDEDLY responsible for 9-11"
Show me anywhere I have made that allegation?
Thats the government theory not mine.
I just keep asking to know what YOUR theory is so that I can evaluate it.
But all of you just keep telling me more stuff criticising the government theory.
To be specific for you..
At 186 you say...
"...something else destroyed the machine shop and hydraulic press on sublevel 4, parking facilities, and caused collapsed walls, smoke, fireballs and extreme heat even lower"
I read your comments on the government theory. You say it can't be credible. OK - So what's your alternative theory?
What's the 'something else' ?
Complain about this comment
190. Brian_WeAreChange
WeAreChange.org ?
Isn't there a presidential candidate with the campaign slogan 'its time for change' ?
Any connection?
Complain about this comment
Even George Bush thinks there was a conspiracy in 9/11. The only question is "Who dunnit?"
If the FBI don't have the evidence against Osama bin Laden, as they say the don't, then we have to start from scratch. Bush, if he's lying on that one must of course be suspect number one at least with respect to the cover-up.
Why has the truth had to be dragged out bit by bit from the BBC? I was less than impressed when Mike Rudin's people replied to my complaint about the first 9/11 conspiracy programme. They said they were sorry that I didn't think the BBC could produce good documentaries. That was untrue. The BBC are perfectly capable of producing good, truthful documentaries when they wish to do so.
But they haven't yet done so in connection with 9/11.
Complain about this comment
Mike Rudin's BBC email address is posted in my article. Please contact him directly, along with other BBC general inquiry and complaint addresses, and demand the immediate release of the full, unedited Barry Jennings interview. The stakes are high, people.
"Be the change you want to see in the world"
-Mahatma Gandhi
Complain about this comment
198:
WeAreChange.org has been around for 2+ years, well before Obama starting using "Change" as a campaign slogan. It is interesting to note that we used the following phrases before Obama's camp as well - "Truth squad", and "2008 Now or Never" (our 9/11/08 NYC events where we raised thousands of dollars for the First Responders and also debunked the BBC at Ground Zero).
Complain about this comment
At 186 I said nothing. It wasn't me. You've got me confused with someone else.
Complain about this comment
@192
I only asked if those things were possible, and if not why not.
@193
That's funny, the black box recorder output shows that the aircraft never pulled more than 2G in any direction during the flight.
The roll angle was a maximum of approx 40 degrees, compared to 20 degrees during turning after take off
The descent rate was approx 1500ft per minute, roughly equivalent to the climb rate after take off.
Airspeed was heading over 500kts at impact.
None of these are outside the design parameters of an airliner, none of these are anything like the figures your pilots talk about.
Maybe if you asked the pilots to comment on the actual data.
Complain about this comment
What I find disturbing is "jon112uk" is the only genuine representative of the bbc's take on the subject on this blog, Is there no one else who can argue with people not stupid enough to fall for the propaganda and lies we've been fed? I put it to you "jon112uk" that you are a shill!.....No one with any credit has argued the governments corner!...I find this Terrible!
The only people who pop on here to so called "debunk" the Truth seekers seem to be very uneducated, ignorant, disillusioned, stupid cattle and they need to WAKE up very quickly IMHO
Complain about this comment
201. Brian_WeAreChange:
198:
"WeAreChange.org has been around for 2+ years, well before Obama starting using 'Change' as a campaign slogan."
Interesting.
Does WeAreChange.org have any connection with the democrats?
Complain about this comment
The bbc reported that tower 7 fell 20mins before it collapsed so how can you say there is no conspiracy? simple as that boys, no other fact needs to be mentioned although there are thousands, bbc is spreading and covering the lies of the governments and need to stop because if you havent noticed people are using the internet more and finding out whats really going on.
Now theres going to be a programme designed to disprove the truth seekers, not going to happen the only thing that is going to happen is that people are going to argue the facts with one another until were back where we are now and the bbc and other corperations have to think of new ways to cover their backs.
Just give up now and save face before there is civil unrest throughout the whole uk, either way people will know what happened on 911 and on 7/7 very very soon as countries like germany are now showing all the truth seeking documentaries and joining their campaign, give it a decade and it will be the world against the UK and US.
Complain about this comment
202. plectic
"At 186 I said nothing. It wasn't me. You've got me confused with someone else"
Sorry plectic - its enough me arguing with people about the things people have said without me starting about things you haven't said!
Complain about this comment
#197
I suspect the "something else" in the basement was one or more of any number of high energy explosive devices available to the military. As NIST states that they did not test for explosives, and given that the debris was removed and made unavailable to anyone except "official" researchers, it will probably be very difficult to determine what type.
Scan traces of residues in microspheres of iron in the dust samples collected around ground zero compare with the scan traces of thermate variants, providing evidence of thermate variants present in the dust.
It has been suggested that these residues resulted from the clean up activities that took place at ground zero. This is unlikely as the samples were collected soon after the event, and before clean up began. And, the location of sampling was at a distance from ground zero making this even less likely.
Indirect evidence of extremely high temperatures suggest high energy explosives, composites, or nano-composites were used. Not only were iron-rich spheres found in WTC dust, but the firm RJ Lee in its study performed for the Deutsche Bank found evidence of vaporized lead, alumino-silicates, as well as iron-rich spheres. It has been suggested the iron-rich spheres are the results of cutting structural steel, however the x-ray energy dispersive scan does not resemble what is found from cutting torches.
The USGS discovered microspheres of molybdenum, a very high melting point metal used in computer components, and lighting fixtures.
The temperatures required to form these spheres or to vaporize lead or alumino-silicates are:
vaporize lead 1740C
vaporize aluminosilicates 2760C
melt molybdenum 2623C
melt iron 1538C
(That these materials showed up in the dust blown around lower Manhattan would be consistent with the use of thermate variants, or nano-thermite composites on the supporting structure of the core columns. In combination with explosives placed on the columns in the privacy of the elevator shafts, the building could be rigged, set with radio controlled and/or timed detonation devices, and remotely activated once the aircrafts hit the buildings.)
MIT professor Thomas Eagar estimated the highest flame temperatures for burning jet fuel in air under ideal conditions, about 1000C. NIST's ACTUAL metallurgical analysis of WTC steel showed "no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600C for any significant time."
So both direct analysis of WTC dust shows residues of known high energy compounds, and indirect evidence from several independent labs exists that extremely high temperatures existed, temperatures not possible from jet fuel, or normal office material fires, even those ignited by jet fuel.
Taken together with over a hundred eyewitness accounts of explosions, I think it very likely the towers were brought down by a combination of explosives and high energy compounds, any and all of which the military has readily available, and the expertise to use.
Jack Loiseaux doesn't think so, but he has a company to run and for him to say any differently would be very difficult for him politically.
Complain about this comment
#203
As alluded to above, and in Aidan Monaghan's FOIA request for documents relating to how the aircraft were positively ID'd, it is not at all clear that the FDR said to have come from 77 came out of that aircraft. Until that controversy is cleared up, it is not clear the data you cite is actually valid for flight 77.
Another pilot elaborates:
John Lear – Retired commercial airline pilot with over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Flew for over 40 years. Holds every certificate ever offered by the FAA and has 23 different FAA type ratings. Held 17 world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24, set in 1966. He was presented with the PATCO award for outstanding airmanship in 1968, and the Symons Wave memorial. Flight experience includes Boeing 707 and 727, McDonnell Douglas DC-8, Lockheed L-1011 and many others. Son of Bill Lear, founder of Lear Jet Corp.
"And no Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I'll tell you exactly why he couldn't do it the first time. Now, I'd have trouble doing it the first time.""Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour."
[Founder of Pilots for 911 truth] Rob Balsamo: "Yeah, as a matter of fact, one of our members, he was a 737 Check Airman. He was in the sim at the time on September 11 and right after it happened they tried to duplicate it in the simulator and they said they couldn't do it. They were trying to hit the Towers and they couldn't do it."
"In late summer of 2006, I co-founded the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth, to more formally conduct research on the aviation-related aspects of 9/11. In August 2006, Pilots for 9/11 Truth received from the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) a copy of the Flight Data Recorder data of Flight 77, which, according to the official account, hit the Pentagon.
He said, "We analyzed the data and announced our conclusion on 3/26/07 that "The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.""
"And what's worse is that the FBI and NTSB refuse to even discuss with us the many obvious problems we found in the Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder."
More questions than answers is the theme of the government's handling of the 9/11 story.
Complain about this comment
205. jon112uk:
No connection to the Democrats whatsoever. WeAreChange.org is a non-partisan political activist / citizen journalist group, although most of our members tend to lean toward the Libertarian / Constitution party and other third parties. Cynthia McKinney on the Green party is a great alternative to Obama. She was one of the first govt. officials to speak out for 9/11 truth. She is also featured heavily in a film made by our UK Chapter - WeAreChange.org.uk. It's a spectacular film called 'Elephant in the Room - No smoke without fire'. Watch it for free on Google Video.
Complain about this comment
Another key point I raised in my article - is foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC7 consistent with a "new phenomenon" (NIST's thermal expansion theory)? Is the fact that the BBC reported the collapse 26 minutes in advance consistent with a "new phenomenon"? Think logically, people.
Complain about this comment
208. sdemetri
Thanks sdemetri - someone with some specifics.
I always found the thermite/nanothermite idea interesting when it was mentioned earlier.
But when I looked at it things didn't make sense for me.
1) if its normal thermite, how do they time it precisely for a controlled demolition? It sputters away like the mother of all fireworks, not an effect timed to less than a second like they need.
2) If it's nanothermite, whats the point? C4 or semtex is well proven and amazingly effective at cutting steel collumns. Why use unproven and just as noisy nanothermite? Islamists have C4/semtex/TNT - nanothermite just seems to bring suspicion back on the US government, so why do it? If the theory is they used HE on some collumns, with the ensuing noise, then it just makes even less sense.
3) People told me to look at pictures of glowing puddles. But the pictures were taken 20 minutes after the collapse/blow-down. Thermite burns out in seconds then covers up with a mucky scab - how can it be glowing 20 minutes later?
Complain about this comment
204. zerozero00 :
"What I find disturbing is "jon112uk" is the only genuine representative of the bbc's take on the subject on this blog, Is there no one else who can argue with people not stupid enough to fall for the propaganda and lies we've been fed? I put it to you "jon112uk" that you are a shill!"
Hi welcome to the debate.
This has been going on for four days now - there used to be other people but they collapsed with exhaustion some time ago.
This is a bit like the last two world wars: the americans arrived a bit late, but I'm sure you will get stuck in big time now you are here.
Have a look higher up the page - I'm not arguing the government case - I was just questioning yours.
(What's a 'shill'?)
Complain about this comment
209. sdemetri
Once again - thanks for specifics to consider.
Question:
An experienced airline pilot says he could not replicate the 'hijacked' jets manoever - even if it was him sat in the captains seat on the plane.
Let say I accept the whole of this to help the discussion.
How did the government carry out the manoever?
(Particularly if they were flying the plane remotely?)
(sorry guys it's end of shift in the psyops bunker under an undisclosed three letter agency in whitehall and I'm blowed if I'm doing this in my own time. If the boss still wants me to argue with you all on Monday I'll see you then. Oops, should I have said that?)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mike Rudin,
Till Sept. 2007 I was convinced that, 19 muslim hijackers, orchestrated from a cave in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, were the perpetrators!
How ignorant and naief!
Would you like to know, what made me think otherwise?
Well, I will tell you! On 9/11 (and not only on 9/11) there were to many coincidences! Don't you agree? You should not only look at the events of that day, but you have to look further back in history!
It's a well known fact, that the United States can only react if been attacked!
To join WWI, the U.S. send out the Lusitania even they were warned by the Germans! On May 7th 1915 a German U boat torpedoed the Lusitania! Almost 1200 people died!
To join WWII, the U.S. knew by cracking the Japanese codes, that on Dec. 7th 1941 a huge Japanese naval/aerial fleet was on his way to attack Pearl Harbour! They let it happen!
1962 code named "Operation Northwoods"!
Ever heard of it Mike? You should really read this and "connect the dots"! Sounds familiar?
To join the Vietnam war, on Aug. 2nd 1964 there was a staged incident in the waters of the gulf of Tonkin!
1997 an American neo conservative think tank also known as PNAC, with members like, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz! What was/is the goal of this "think tank" and the later in 2000 "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? Read it and enrich yourself!
2001, put options placed on American and United airlines, the two airlines involved in the attacks on 9/11, a coincidence?
Several wargames held, the hole airspace wide open for terrorist attacks, a coincidence?
Sept. 10th 2001, Donald Rumsfeld admits $2,3 trillion is missing from the Pentagon, a coincidence?
Videotapes confiscated by the F.B.I., minutes after the attack on the Pentagon, a coincidence?
The wing of the Pentagon that was hit, did you know there were accountants in there? Probably for the Sept. 10th event? a coincidence?
When you call you're mother from a airplane then you say; "Hi mom, this is Mike Rudin"! Yes you do, don't you?
Well Mike, here are some coincidences you might consider! And you no what, none of them are lies!
Complain about this comment
@209
Oh I see, so you spent all this time on a FOIA request for the data, and the data didn't say what you wanted it to, so the data is wrong?
If you are saying it is faked, why doesn't it match up with the official account? Do you think they spent all that time faking it and got it wrong? Do you really think they're that stupid? That they can't manage the job of shuffling a few numbers around in a data file?
John Lear said that did he? I found another website with some information about John Lear and what he thinks:
"John Lear suspects that Venus does not have the sulfuric acid atmosphere with an 800 degree temperature that we've all been led to believe and instead is a planet very similar to ours, but with a similar, but much more technologically advanced civilization."
Two planes hit the WTC. Whether you believe they were piloted from within or remotely, there was no practice run, they hit first time. So how did the remote pilots, or whoever was in the planes if not hijackers, how did they hit the towers first time?
Complain about this comment
Dear Johna Shill #213., no wonder we are exhausted since you've bored us to bed with your 'was it von Rumsfeld's missile or flying Dick that penetrated Pentagon conspiracies'.
Eh, I'd guess another repeater is in order.
9/11 Commission report is rejected; people of the world and all around the world seek new, international and independent investigations of the attacks.
After that we will also reexamine all of the historical state sponsored crimes which happened and to this day continues to happen in so many countries.
Citizens elect their leaders and they have power to hold them accountable.
Citizens ask questions, government provides answers, unless you have to deal with those rogue governments that is.
There's a say, it says, those who make peaceful revolution impossible..,
Complain about this comment
Mike Rudin,
You don´t really believe the final outcome from N.I.S.T., do you? Thermal expension?
Was this a independent investigation?
Isn't N.I.S.T. part of the Department of Commerce? The Gouvernment?
Only colom 79, and the whole building goes down on freefall speed?
An airplain that hits the south tower in the corner, and collapse due to fire?
A pancake theory, where no of the 47 central coloms sticking high up in the air? And they are not hollow!
Aluminum airplaines flying against steel and concrete?
7 of the 19 hijackers still alive in the middle east, according the BBC?
What do you think we must believe?
Complain about this comment
"jon112uk"
(sorry guys it's end of shift in the psyops bunker under an undisclosed three letter agency in whitehall and I'm blowed if I'm doing this in my own time. If the boss still wants me to argue with you all on Monday I'll see you then. Oops, should I have said that?)
This is a SHILL
Complain about this comment
My, was a bit reluctant, but I've just took a look at those clips up there.
Mr. Giuliani and his fellow, is it?
Mike, "It was just, to me, very, very eerie to be right there again when one of these attacks takes place," honorable Mr. Giuliani said in an interview on BBC radio.
Complain about this comment
Mr Rudin, I know you know the truth, I know that every journalist that's worth his salt knows the truth and I know the rest of the mainstream media knows the truth and I also know that just about every government minister and politican knows the truth about 9/11.
Why can't the truth ever come out however? Because the fallout would be too castastrophic, people wouldn't be able to handle it and governments would fall hard. The trust would simply be gone forever and chaos would ensue. So I kind of understand why the BBC has to push the big lie .. if it doesn't then all hell will break loose. In a way, I know that you are only trying to do your job, but at the end of the day, the truth will come out, that the world's number one superpower was taken over by a bunch of criminals that carried out 9/11 against their own citizens and then went on to murder many many more innocent people in the Middle East. But like I said, for the moment, it just doesn't bear thinking about.
Complain about this comment
Covering all the angles
Establishing the facts
Counting down
Complain about this comment
I'll do my best for you Peter, but please accept this is just my theory, unconnected to anyone elses theory, not part of a mass commonly understood theory. Just a personal opinion.
WHY FRAME SAUDIS TO INVADE IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN? WHY NOT FRAME 19 IRAQI's or AFGHANS?
Your question presuppoeses that 9/11 was purely about starting wars in both Iraq and afghanistan. I would agree that one of the main side effects of perpertuating the 9/11 attacks would have been to attack afghanistan. Although 9/11 helped create a more acceptable and favourable climate in which the iraq invasion could take place I don't think 9/11 was specific to that plan.
For me the reason the nationals claimed to have been involved in 9/11 are mainly from saudi is because that was at the time the number 1 recruiting zone for the Al-CIA-eda. The afghans were implicated via the taliban offering sanctuary to the Al-CIA-eda.
I think the actual nationality of the "terrorists' is irrelevant. The important part of it is that the are brown skinned and Muslim.
The other group who you have not mentioned and who suffered the backlash of 9/11 as much as any is the US population. From the Patriot act and all that has followed They I think were the target as much as afgahnistan.
WHY WHEN YOU HAVE INVADED IRAQ LOOKING FOR FICTIONAL WMD DIDN'T THEY THINK TO BRING A FEW WITH THEM?
Because they didn't need to. They just need to make the claim and then say they are sorry, we got it wrong. They know that we are so preoccupied with other things that even when they find nothing we will not hold them to any true account. Which is the case. They got away with it
WHY GO TO SUCH RIDICULOUS TROUBLE TO JUSTIFY A WAR WHEN A FAR SIMPLER PLAN WOULD HAVE DONE JUST AS WELL WITH FAR LESS RISK?
Follow the money. I would say the plan is reasonably simple and has a guarenteed outcome.
Many gains, few losses in the 9/11 plan.
At the WTC
Silverstien gets rid of his asbestos ridden building and gets 7 billion for his trouble. (plus who knows what happened to the Gold in the vaults)
Also the psychological impact. The effect Twin Towers being brought down has had on the american psyche is one of absolute outrage. Like a Mother defending her children. If you attack one of the Symbols of america you strike deep into the heart of the culture. If you want a blank cheque to attack foriegn nations best you take down a real icon of your own culture and blame it on, well anyone you want to attack.
For me the Pentagon and the shanksville 'crash' are just there in a supporting role. Adds to the confusion on the day. The greater the chaos the more order you can create from it.
Again these are not accepted theories by any wider groups beyond myself.
I am just trying to answer your questions.
This is the main part of my post from number 192. I had added some questions for you to answer, nothing too shocking but they didn't make it through and they were hardly worth moderating, but hey, what can you do
Complain about this comment
I maybe wrong here, but hey ho!
This is the 4th blog regarding what really happened on the 11th day of September 2001 put up by the BBC and from what i've read from maybe over 1000 responses(I've read every one) the common ground is the US government is involved in a cover up....No Doubt!
The holes, lies, coincidences and contradictions are beyond belief, I really doubt even Mike could possibly believe the "OCT" , but I see Mike trying to do the job he is employed to do by feeding us biased drivel we call propaganda and he calls journalism....Like I said earlier, I believe Mike is trying to do such a poor job of it that the masses have to start questioning this whole sorry saga!
I am not going to go over the same ground as the rest of you very intelligent people have done in providing the gaping holes and inconsistencies of "OCT" as I feel your doing an excellent job!...But its not me that needs convincing
I've also noticed that only shills and uneducated(regarding 9/11) people stand and fight the corner for the "official conspiracy theory"....Laughable to say the least
Where are the educated intelligent people with facts and evidence to prove the "OCT"??...They don't exist!!...There isn't any proof or evidence to support "OCT" of 9/11...unless you count the NIST report....again Laughable to say the least
And thank you "jon112uk" You answered your own question " what is a shill"
So, who do you work for jon112uk?
Only a paid shill would argue for the sake of an argument and without anything constructive to say....but I see your arguing and awkwardness is only cementing the facts in the same way the BBC are doing with their poor journalism so please keep it up......and maybe do a little research in your own time for yourself and not some 3 letter secret government office you work for, I'm sure you'll find it enlightening
Complain about this comment
John your a bizarre fella,
So if i get this all right, you don't believe in any conspiricy theories apart from the ones proven in court or through official document release after xyears, Tonkin, Liberty, Iran-Contra.
But I still don't know if you actually beleive the official story. as you say you are only here to question each and every individual who themselves wish to question the Official theory. The Kean Commission, Man-in-a-cave theory, which you refuse to actually endorse.
You seem to know next to nothing about any of the contraversial issues and about next to nothing about the different players in the debates. Hence you seem to have no idea about who wearechange are and even go as far, and very amusingly, to ask if they are accociated with the Democrats.
Still stuck in your left right paradigm i see.
From your other postings on various subjects, you are in favour of hanging the opium workers of afghanistan, you seem top have little regard for the UK and you are fearful of anyone looking into 7/7, well anyone from the mass media for sure.
Lucky the BBC shelved their film i guess.
Your arguments are Mainly based around the idea that if you suggest anything conspiritorial happened on 9/11, automatically you must believe in lizard men aliens, wear a tin foil hat and use green ink in your pen. I am guessing woodward and berstien are glad you were not their editor, although Oliver North must have been wishing you were on a congessional committee or two.
All in you add absolutly nothing to the debate. You will take no evidence, yet offer none yourself. you argue from no standpoint. You have no view. You are a sceptic only to the truths you don't already hold, and you are not going to bother checking out either.
The more i read of you I am wondering if you a John who hosts a commercial radio morning talkshow available across the UK.
But as i say you offer absolutly nothing to the debate, But at least you are a measure of how you can't argue against what is true.
If you are the best that believers of the Man-in-a-cave theory can muster then i wonder if its just down to you and mike who have the crazy notion that you have something to benefit from continuing sticking to the fable that we were fed about that day
Complain about this comment
I guess Jon will be back on Monday (unless he's doing overtime).
Just a couple of points about aluminum and steel/concrete points. WTC towers were clad in aluminum. There is an independently-made computer sim of the first jet crashing into the towers.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
Since this was independently made I trust this to be a fair and accurate model. What was important that only a couple of the central columns were severed. The total box formation of the tower easily re-distributed loads. The towers did stand for an hour, there was no collpase at that time and firemen entering the building were not worried about the building falling. People in the second tower were told everything was safe and no need to evacuate. Nobody thought that one tower would collapse, let alone in an explosive manner. The fact that, er... THREE skyscrapers, one, two and seven, did is a bit of a mystery and overwhelming and inconceivably improbable coincidence.
So shocking is this event in every direction: political, economic, scientific, militarily, socially, historically, don't you think we need that we a FULL and INDEPENDENT investigation of the whole thing, and not just sweep aside like a minor blip in the American dream? After all this must be the case: why else are there so much argument over the basic facts seven years after the event!
Complain about this comment
Oh dear
Anyone who is planning on watching Mr Rudin's film tomorrow please note all of the above arguments and think about who makes more sense. Don't forget, he will come to the predictable conclusion that we all expect, but that is not the whole story - for goodness sake, do your own research before you jump to any conclusions about this. As Bob at 222 says, they cannot afford to let the truth out, it would be catastrophic for those who prop up the status quo, for those who control the money, for those who hold the reins of power, for those whose jobs depend on the whole system not collapsing (!!). Maybe one day it will come out - but don't be taken in anymore, it's all a facade. Some of us have seen through it, some haven't. Some have the sang froid to confront the reality, some are too scared. We can't change this. Just use your brains and intelligence and think for yourself please!!!
Complain about this comment
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]The guy speaking at 2.16 into the video trailer at the top of this page is lying, whether it is intentional or not is irrelevant.
"Everyone had been evacuated except the two of us"
Secret service agent Craig Miller died in WTC7.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
The following is from a talk at Waterloo University in March 2008. Graeme McQueen gave a talk describing some of the objections people have to considering controlled demolition. The explosions, some say, were bodies or elevators falling, columns breaking, loud noises from smoke explosions or vapor explosions. McQueen reads a statement by a Port Authority Police officer, Sue Kean (sp?). She is a high credibility witness because she had been with the police for 8 yrs prior to 9/11, and in the US Army for 13 yrs prior to that. She had millitary experience she drew upon. She said:
“Sounded like bombs going off, that’s when the explosions happened. I could hear it coming and I knew something was going to happen. I braced myself. It started to get dark and then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion. We were on the mezzanine, which is all encased in glass. The windows blew in, everything went black, we all got thrown. In the military they blow things up around you so you’re not afraid of it, you don’t panic. If something blows up, we cover, we breathe into our shirts, we wait for it to pass over, and then we look up before we get up. All that stuff stayed with me. There was this incredible rush of air, and it literally sucked the breath out of my lungs. Everything went out of me with this massive wind, stuff was just flying pass. I had burn marks, not like you’d have from a fire, but my face was all red and my chest was red and for three or four days, there was stuff coming out of my body like you wouldn’t believe. It was like shrapnel.”
The McQueen talk is at:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15793
Of the many accounts given by firefighters in the Oral Histories, several talk about hearing a large explosion, or three large explosions, just prior to the collapse starting. The inference can be drawn, at least to a degree to warrant a new investigation, that the explosions that were seen, heard, and felt were not simple, easily explained phenomena. They were very likely from secondary devices, as the many firefighters expressed concerns over. Instead, this human testimony is discarded as unreliable. The official myth has taken hold in the official media.
Again, Jack Loiseaux can say conventional explosive devices were not used for whatever reason. He has no choice but to say what he needs to say to stay in business. Hess finds himself in the same position. Those adhering to the official conspiracy theory mustn't associate themselves with any alternative theories if they want to maintain their reputations and positions in official society.
Complain about this comment
Craig Miller died in WTC7.
No government group can give details of their network operations, which would constitute a playbook for enemies, so Weaver can only affirm the importance of the wireless network and the operational model they had built.
“ It was totally unexpected, of course, a complete surprise when it happened. We evacuated – which is easy to say but not easy to do when there are 200-300 people in the building on your floors for whom you’re responsible. We needed to seek all of them out to be sure they left safely. That was a coordinated effort – it wasn’t just me, it was all of us, all of the agents in the office. Heroic things were done that day. Great responsibility was taken at great risk, at great sacrifice. We lost Craig Miller, an employee that we still can’t find. His body has never been recovered. People here are still grief-stricken.”
http://www.thiemeworks.com/write/archives/MoreThanHuman.htm
Complain about this comment
The main argument for the case of the "OCT" regarding controlled demolition is that it can't be done without oh so many people, what people tend to forget is that the US SS, or any form of military group will have far more advance knowledge regarding explosives tecknowledgey and demolition and they are also very good at espionage and planing and plotting evil works at any time they need to....thats what they are all about!
I don't doubt any organization who can lose over $2 trillion dollars somewhere could destroy the evidence in a fake attack, it wouldn't be the 1st now would it?
I think its time for the human race to wake up to this BS and rise above it!...A lot of terrible coincedences have happened in the past and they tend to have continued up until today, surely its only a matter of time before the majority are asking these questions we read on here and many many other web sites....with the current financial situation the way it is I can only see it continuing to spiral down until its to late to do anything about it...Please wake up people and Question before we miss the chance to, I dont want to lose my equity in my house,i dont want my children to suffer and I dont want to become a debt slave's to an unjust world! Who does?......There are so many wrongs with globalization, its evil, the good it does does not compare to the harm it does.
Complain about this comment
@232
"I don't doubt any organization who can lose over $2 trillion dollars somewhere could destroy the evidence in a fake attack, it wouldn't be the 1st now would it?"
I think you'll find that money was lost through poor accounting, suggesting that if they can't even keep their accounts properly, the chances of being able to cover up anything is laughable. Even more so when they announced the fact that it was missing. IF they're covering up for 9/11, why aren't they covering up poor accounting practices, which would be much much simpler?
Complain about this comment
$2.3 Trillion missing = Poor accounting?
Are you that foolish? You think poor accounting can result in that amount missing?...I think you have something missing?....Maybe you should watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
Military and Secret operations can explain a lot, I don't fall for "US government are to stupid" theory at all, only people who fall for propaganda could believe that!
Complain about this comment
Richard Clarke appears in the trailer above saying, WTC 7 wasn't brought down by CD. He is a counter-terrorism expert, and long time civil servant with the experience and credentials behind him. But that is all that is behind him. He says it wasn't CD, we have no recourse but to believe him, or so it is expected.
The strength of his argument, as it appears here, rests on the idea that it would take many, many people to pull off a false flag attack like 9/11, and then keeping the secret would be impossible. Reasonable, but weak arguments.
Compartmentalized plans keep those "in the know" to a minimum. Key people in a chain of command are the ones that would be required to keep secrets. If they are loyal, or under threat of financial ruin, or worse, they can keep secrets for a long time. The Martin Luther King assassination is testament to that. The secret plans for Operation Northwoods, the Manhattan Project, or NATO/CIA conduct during Operation Gladio are all examples of large planning efforts, and projects, and of very well kept secrets.
Danny Jowenko, the demolitions expert, said of WTC 7 that a team of 40 or so workers could rig that building, working hard, in a day. Let's grant him some leeway and consider that an exaggeration. The point is, that was a 47 story building and it would not be a monumental job rigging it, requiring many people, and days to accomplish. The privacy of the elevator shafts in the other two towers, unlimited time, security access, access to other areas of the buildings under the guise of maintenance work, are all very plausible, not requiring large contingents of people to accomplish, and are not unreasonable when considering that recorded maintenance that DID take place, in some cases was performed by companies that are no longer in operation and unable to be investigated. Were they legitimate, or were they a cover?
So Clarke's two contentions, as given here, for why CD could not have happened, or why a false flag attack was not possible are not at all strong arguments.
Add to this that Clarke simply could not say anything but what he said. Of course he won't say it was an inside job. Why should he? Would he gain by saying so, or would he lose? For all his authority, and credibility, why even ask him? Of course he will say no. That he gave two unsubstantiated reasons that lack strong, conclusive backing makes his opinion suspect and weak.
It is much like the BBC documentary on the USS Liberty, Dead in the Water. McNamara was asked to comment on aspects of it, and he flatly refused to talk about it. Doesn't prove complicity, but certainly doesn't resolve outstanding issues and questions, particularly the crew member's recollections.
Complain about this comment
The evidence that could be gathered together by anybody who is willing to research the matter is amazing :
Video footage of squibs, loud explosions, witness accounts, buildings free falling, dubious media coverage.......I could go on and on but I won't as I know through something called "common sense" what has happened, It was Controlled demolition!!!!
I only wish everybody else could be informed of all this by our very own BBC
Complain about this comment
@233
"I think you'll find that money was lost through poor accounting, suggesting that if they can't even keep their accounts properly, the chances of being able to cover up anything is laughable. Even more so when they announced the fact that it was missing. IF they're covering up for 9/11, why aren't they covering up poor accounting practices, which would be much much simpler?"
I think you'll have to ask youreself this question; "Why admits Donald Rumsfeld on Sept.10th 2001, one day before the attacks, that there was $2,3 trillion missing?"
Also a coincidence? I think he knew this much more in advance than Sept.10th 2001! This indicates, he also knew about the attacks! He was not the smartest guy in the Bush administration, you know!
Do I make myself clear, Johnny Pixels?
Complain about this comment
76. At 11:26am on 22 Oct 2008, jon112uk wrote:
How does anyone ignite multiple thermite charges all round a building and have them melt through all the steel supports at exaclty the same time?
What a statement. Copper conductivity. Do you live in a cave or are you propped up by this fraud. Yet, in the next sentence you claim that demolition experts time collapses to fraction of a second to.... What a crock!
Explain the reason to your existence. You are obviously happy with how thigs are.
Complain about this comment
@237
"I think you'll have to ask youreself this question; "Why admits Donald Rumsfeld on Sept.10th 2001, one day before the attacks, that there was $2,3 trillion missing?"
Also a coincidence? I think he knew this much more in advance than Sept.10th 2001! This indicates, he also knew about the attacks! He was not the smartest guy in the Bush administration, you know!
Do I make myself clear, Johnny Pixels?"
No not really. Why would they admit it at all if the plan was to cover it up again?
The $2.3 trillion isn't missing, it's been spent, but no-one knows what on because of poor record keeping and poor accounting. They don't need to channel money away like this for secret projects, because there are already top secret projects that are funded and the money accounted for, but no-one knows what those projects are, eg the F117A Stealth Fighter, the SR-71A Blackbird, the B2 Spirit, the U-2 spy plane, all of these projects were developed in secret, tested in secret and no-one spilt the beans until the projects were ready to be unveiled.
This is from a CBS news article
"Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the "accounting games." He's still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.
"Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year," he said.
Another critic of Pentagon waste, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, commanded the Navy's 2nd Fleet the first time Donald Rumsfeld served as Defense Secretary, in 1976.
In his opinion, "With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in that building, without having to hit the taxpayers." "
Complain about this comment
"The $2.3 trillion isn't missing, it's been spent, but no-one knows what on...."
That's beautiful Johnny P.
I don't think even Don Rumsfeld could have come up with such a ridiculous statement.
Maybe you'd care to watch this clip of Mr Rumsfeld being quizzed by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney over certain matters, and have a wee think about the kind of people you're bending over backwards to defend.
You too Mr Rudin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU
Complain about this comment
And while I'm at it, I thought I should throw this little known piece of information into the pot of amazing coincidences surrounding 9/11.....
"U.S. OK’d plan
to topple Taliban
a day before 9/11"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/
Complain about this comment
@240
Donald Rumsfeld's exact words were:
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions"
The money has been spent, but they do not know what on.
That video show Cynthia McKinney asking about a year on year problem of accounting at the Pentagon, the quote I gave previously from CBS news indicated that the problem was occurring in the early 1980's.
If you are suggesting the government is corrupt and is siphoning off money, why from the defence's reported budget, why not from the secret weapons programs, where the amounts would never be found?
Which government are you suggesting is corrupt? This was happening in the 80's and probably before as well, so who was it? The Carter administration? Reagan? Bush Sr? Clinton? Bush Jr?
What is the money being used for? To develop weapons? The department of defence does that anyway. To live a life of luxury? Donald Rumsfeld, for example, made around $12 million from the sale of his company. Dick Cheney's net worth around is $30 million. George Bush is paid $400,000 per year as President of the US, but has his own personal fortune.
Complain about this comment
@241
From that link:
"After years of delay caused by inadequate intelligence, the U.S. government decided just one day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that it would try to overthrow the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan if a diplomatic push to expel Osama bin Laden from the country failed"
So what? If they decided 2 days before, would that be significant? 3 days? What about the day after?
Complain about this comment
"Which government are you suggesting is corrupt? This was happening in the 80's and probably before as well, so who was it? The Carter administration? Reagan? Bush Sr? Clinton? Bush Jr?"
I'm suggesting that the US government is corrupt no matter which public face of the military-industrial crime syndicate is in office.
Republican or Democrat, it basically makes very little difference.
Bush and Clinton are instruments of larger forces.
They are merely puppets.
Complain about this comment
#243
Well, Johnny, the point is we were all told the reason for invading Afghanistan was 9/11.
That turns out not to be true.
Complain about this comment
By the way Mr Rudin, I would like you and your bosses at the BBC to know that your squalid, insulting little "documentaries" are the reason why I sold my TV.
I predict that unless we start getting some honesty from the BBC, a great many other people will follow suit.
Complain about this comment
@244
For what purpose?
@245
No, we were told it was due to the failure of the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden.
These are George Bush's words from September 20th 2001
"By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:
-- Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.
-- Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.
-- Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.
-- Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.
-- Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.
The Taliban must act and act immediately.
They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."
Complain about this comment
Have you heard the one about leisure suit Larry and neocons?
It was no other but ol' Larry Silverstein and he had some problems with demolishing those towers. There was that thingy with asbestos and other nasty perks, so one couldn't make a profit out of those two no matter what, you could beat it like a dead horse, that's all. Even worse, you couldn't demolish things down at the port authority and boy it's far more expensive to deconstruct than destruct and.., well, you see the point.
He was just thinking, my, oh my, what can I do, but then, a stroke of luck, neocons came along, and there was suddenly a market.
Those chumps needed a new "Black Pearl" and he had it.
That's some story no matter how one tells it, think he also made quite well in aftermath, with regards to the insurance and all that, no need to say more, since Mike will point it out in the show.
*
I've seen a couple of posts about the 'great demise' if the truth comes out?
We are having a 'great demise' as we speak; it's nothing but a collateral damage of insanity and irresponsibility of our administrators.
Nothing but thieves, liars and murderers.
It shouldn’t be much larger than at Nuremberg.
Complain about this comment
"By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban"
And which incident is he referring to?
That would be 9/11 wouldn't it?
Incidentally, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden to the US authorities, on the condition that they first provide evidence of his involvement.
This seems to me like a reasonable request.
Unfortunately the US was unable to do this.
To this day, no hard evidence has ever been provided.
As other posters has pointed out, even the FBI had to admit that they have "no hard evidence" connecting Bin Laden with 9/11.
Complain about this comment
@248
Can I see your proof that the WTC towers needed to be demolished because of the asbestos in them.
Complain about this comment
Hi there Johnny Handsome, how about Iraq? There was a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq was it not?
pushmepullyou
Complain about this comment
"We are having a 'great demise' as we speak"
You're not wrong there, and here's a little video clip which amply illustrates the nature of that demise.
Freedom of speech in 21st century Britain......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRZretee2Fs
It's later than you think.
Complain about this comment
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
I would urge all would be 'truthseekers' to view the whole presentation, especially when the 'conspiracy theorists' are seen to be totally and utterly inadequate in their basic understanding, even when it is spelt out line by line.
The really sad thing here is that anyone should give these 'conspiracy' theories a single minute of air time, most especially as they have totally and utterly failed to come forward with a single shred of evidence from any source anywhere.
There inability to listen and understand the presentation is self-evident as certain 'members' launch into a diatribe based on nothing less than sheer ignorance and a complete lack of understanding of the robust science behind the conclusions.
Not one of the 'conspiracy' theorists theories has been found to be based on anything other than pseudo-science and make believe self-induced imaginary conclusions.
So the only real question that remains is why do the BBC give these dumb, poor misguided 'conspiracy' morons any credence whatsoever?
I am sure that there is a better use of airtime that the BBC could come up with.
Complain about this comment
Run this documentary, fine.
Run Zeitgeist or Loose Change.
Then we can all decide for ourselves. A "debunk" only point of view means there is always room for scepticism that the BBC is impartial, and not a true dialectic.
I mean, how many people read these comments :)
Complain about this comment
Hey, I've just noticed it was more expensive to deconstruct than destruct buildings, as a matter of fact and if I recall it correctly some estimated that deconstruction would cost more than it was the cost of constructing those buildings.
and of course it had to be removed (or whatever you prefer), asbestos is serious health hazard you know? Take a look>
http://www.maacenter.org/jobsites/WTC/asbestos.php
Complain about this comment
You only have to read the comments being posted here by the 'truthseekers; to realise that the Truth is actually the only thing that isn't on their bizarre agenda's.
Their inability to grasp even the basic understanding of the terms 'evidence and facts' is completely self-explanatory.
It is no wonder that they are so often accused of being delusional.
Complain about this comment
7 years on and the 'truthseekers' cannot point to a single material 'truth' that they have uncovered that undermines all that we know about 9/11 and all that we have learned since.
Why?
The answer is obvious.
they are far from being a 'truthmovement' if anything the very label they give themselves tells us all we need to know, it's a bit like the old Soviet days when the organ of state news was 'pravda' (Truth!).
Complain about this comment
Nice and soft landing LondonTradx, scholarly example of moving in, first some libel and then some utter nonsense about agenda.
Do tell us a bit more about this bizarre agendas and delusional minds.
Complain about this comment
Go to Nist's website - you can find a sobering and well constructed presentation of the actual events leading to collapse.
I would urge all the supposed 'truthseekers' to view the whole presentation, especially when their fellow 'conspiracy theorists' are seen to be totally and utterly inadequate in their basic understanding, even when it is spelt out line by line.
The really sad thing here is that anyone should give these 'conspiracy' theories a single minute of air time, most especially as these cultists have totally and utterly failed to come forward with a single shred of evidence from any source anywhere.
Their inability to listen and to understand the presentation is self-evident as certain 'members' launch into a diatribe based on nothing less than scenarios based on their imaginations, and are only able to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the robust science behind the conclusions.
Not one of the 'conspiracy' theorists theories has been found to be based on anything other than pseudo-science and imaginary conclusions.
So the only real question that remains is why do the BBC give these misguided 'conspiracy' adherents any credence whatsoever?
I am sure that there is a better use of airtime that the BBC could come up with.
Complain about this comment
@249
No.
From Wikipedia:
"On 8 June 1998, a United States grand jury indicted Osama bin Laden on charges of killing five Americans and two Indians in the 13 November 1995, truck bombing of a US-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh
On 4 November 1998, Osama bin Laden was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on charges of Murder of US Nationals Outside the United States, Conspiracy to Murder US Nationals Outside the United States, and Attacks on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death[83] for his alleged role in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
On 16 March 1998, Libya issued the first official international Interpol arrest warrant against Bin Laden and three other people for killing two German citizens in Libya on 10 March 1994, one of which is thought to have been a German counter-intelligence officer. Bin Laden is still wanted by the Libyan government."
Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were wanted long before September 11th, so there was no need to prove his involvement in 9/11, as that was not the sole reason for him being wanted.
Complain about this comment
@255
Where is your proof that the buildings had to be demolished?
Complain about this comment
@239
Well what is it, poor accounting, or they don't know were they spend these $2,3 trillion for?
Take you're pick!
It's a secret, yes I figure this out for myself, so far! It's so secret that on this day forward, nobody knows where these $2,3 trillion is spend on! You know what happend to Cynthia McKinney, don't you? Steven E. Jones and Kevin Ryan included! You simply don't ask difficult questions about 9/11! That's clear to me also, and to you?
Yes, and why not admit it on Sept.12th 2001?
Because Sept.10th 2001 was more convinient perhaps?
Main Stream Media is part of the system, and I don't believe them anymore! It's time to look at new lie of Mike Rudin!
Complain about this comment
Heh. Conspiracy theories are funny.
Complain about this comment
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02.
Johnny, do say, do you know what wykyepdia states about UBL with regards to 9/11?
It states, "Bin Laden provided leadership for the plot, along with financial support, and was involved in selecting participants for the plot."
It's like being caught in your own web or like being caught up in conspiracy, is it not?
Complain about this comment
You should go to bed potatolord, you were obviously too young to watch those people jumping out of burning buildings.
I hope you never ever see or experience something like that.
Complain about this comment
Mr Pixels, the fact remains that Bin Ladens supposed involvement 9/11 was used to sell the invasion of Afghanistan to the public, and there was not a word of truth in it.
By the way "LondonTradx", you seem to be somewhat ill-informed about the nature of the 9/11 truth movement and the quality of their evidence.
For your benefit, some reading material.....
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.....
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Pilots for 9/11 Truth....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
Patriots Question 9/11
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Complain about this comment
"222. At 00:04am on 25 Oct 2008, bob_the_analyst wrote:
Mr Rudin, I know you know the truth, I know that every journalist that's worth his salt knows the truth and I know the rest of the mainstream media knows the truth and I also know that just about every government minister and politican knows the truth about 9/11. "
You cannot and do not know all that- you believe it. Making an error like this indicates that your comprehension skills are a bit iffy.
Complain about this comment
"265. At 10:13pm on 26 Oct 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:
You should go to bed potatolord, you were obviously too young to watch those people jumping out of burning buildings.
I hope you never ever see or experience something like that."
Cheers, dude! So do I!
Complain about this comment
Eh, my apologies for such a fast trigger and a cheer back at you with it.
Do tell, commissioners rejected their own report, it's a mighty strange occurrence, wouldn't you agree that we need a proper investigation?
Complain about this comment
What do you mean, rejected? Rejected by who?
Complain about this comment
Ok, it was 'set up to fail'. So it's a failure.
Complain about this comment
..or do you perhaps think we should accept such failure?
Complain about this comment
WHEN INVESTIGATING SCIENCE-BASED MYSTERIES
It is a good idea to satisfy the scientific minds watching. It was painful that the guy who seemed to have no axe to grind AND KNEW ABOUT ADVANCED THERMAL CUTTING COMPOUNDS came and went. His input, if accurate, negated a lot of the official line. But you preferred wild eyed youth - barely coherent.
Not impressed BBC.
Complain about this comment
Mike,
Congratulations on the improvements on your documentary. It definitely hones the arguments on both sides. I still think you need more of a Jeremy Paxman-like attitude with these government officials... and I have still yet to see a complete computer simulation of how NIST expects WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC7 to collapse! What have they been doing for all these years? At the very least we should be evacuating skyscrapers until they can be proved to be safe (let alone building new ones!)
I also see a concerted effort by the official story supporters saying "the Truthers have no consistent story of what was supposed to have happened" which is disingenuous. If people can't even agree on the basic facts, with basic investigations on fire, forsenics and aircraft, subpoenas on witnesses etc how on earth is there supposed to be a complete alternative theory?
Doesn't it just re-enforce the need for a new, full and independent investigation?
Complain about this comment
Mike Rudin,
Well Mike Rudin, I've seen you're shock and awe documentary, and what kind of evidence do you have that 9/11 wasn't a inside job? Nothing! It was pure crab! Is this where you get payed for? We are not living 68 years back in time, people are a little bit wiser these days, thanks to the gouvernment! We have a knowledge economy, did you forgot that?
Maybe it's time you go back to the schoolbanks, and learn how people think these days!
Complain about this comment
Hi there barriesingleton, do tell, what does the scientific mind has to do with wtc 7?
That's the building which failed to show in that report, it also failed without strange glowing lights or whatever kicks you. It has no problems with planes, or the lack of them, there are no red dwarfs, no aliens and no, I'm so bored with them that I just might run to lovely meadow and give it all up, molten pockets of lava filled with pesky little engineers who are making safe housing impossible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
uf!
Complain about this comment
"# 271. At 11:00pm on 26 Oct 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:
Ok, it was 'set up to fail'. So it's a failure.
# 272. At 11:03pm on 26 Oct 2008, moriaeencomium wrote:
..or do you perhaps think we should accept such failure? "
I'm sorry, but have the two guys who wrote the book (I've just looked your quote up on google) rejected their report or said that it was rubbish? If not their findings stand. Have they said that their report was a failure? I don't think they have.
Complain about this comment
I agree with no.273.
Too much of the show was devoted to showing a handful of "truthers" and inferring that anyone who doubts the official story is an immature disrespectful punk. That's either a very ignorant generalisation by the BBC, or bordering on defamation.
I was particularly shocked that you cut the testimony of the now deceased Barry Jennings, to change his story to fit your programs agenda.
The full testimony of Jennings is freely available on the web, and he is adamant that explosions were going off in WTC7 before either tower fell.
Interesting that the lawyer Hess, these days, is "firm" on the "no explosions", since the only other witness, Jennings has recently died.
I find Sunders use of cartoon drawings, and short computer simulations pretty thin as well.
I don't trust the BBC to present the truth of 9-11, but regardless of the petty slant the show had, it's the third airing now, so more people have had a chance to see the footage of WTC7, and this kind of heavy exposure is very good for the "truthers."
As you can see on this blog, the guys who question the official story, aren't punkish or smarty pants. They come across with intelligence, patience, and insight from years of research. A shame to see the BBC wielding it's power to try and crush dissent, which is coming from a sincere and informed place.
Complain about this comment
From the opening line the programme was off toe-ing the line. We saw that the towers were destroyed, I'm still not sure we know how they were destroyed.
Two thoughts come to mind from what appeared to be a very similar programme to the last one:
1) Even if WTC7 was battered on one side by debris from the adjacent collapsing tower and it was severely weakened or structurally damaged on that side, it wasn't on fire on the side furthest from the twin towers (the one that there's lots of footage of) and it doesn't really explain the eventual vertical collapse into its' own footprint (a la CD) rather than, as the architect with 20 years experience said, following the path of least resistance as it should.
If the official explanation is true and fire did it, anyone who lives or works in a steel-framed high-rise building should have serious thoughts about going to work (or home) tomorrow if everything we thought we knew about these structures is wrong. Of course, the 100 or so other steel-framed high-rises that the programme referred to as having had worse fires that didn't collapse and therefore run contrary to the offical "firedunnit" story, err...? What do you believe?
2) A computer simulation has to be programmed in the first place. How hard is it to enter an incorrect parameter here or there so you get the right result? The actual experiments in the UK with the actual fire and the actual 8-storey steel structures showed quite clearly that although there was some bowing of beams, the structures did not fall down on any of the occasions they actually ran the experiment. Sorry about the over-use of "actual" but I work with software and there are times when software just doesn't do what the real world does. Virtual and actual are two different things. I daresay our banks and building societies were working off financial models, cashflow forecasts and projections that showed everything being hunky-dory as long as they carried on as they were. I don't think anyone could say that that is the present actuality though, is there?
Sadly, nothing I watched tonight has made me feel like I now know the truth or that any of my previous doubts or misgivings have been laid to rest. I may not ever know all the ins and outs of that day or who was behind it and what their motivation was, but there seem to be enough dots out there to draw a pretty reasonable (but very ugly) picture.
I hope this one gets through, mods.
Complain about this comment
Mike,
Just watched your programme on BBC2.
I don't think you are guilty of being part of a cover up...you are guilty of editing a poorly researched and presented programme. What a sympathetic approach you have taken to the official reports. Who knows what happened in 2001, but we are none the wiser partially because your programme does not make clear that the official account of events does not answer or even consider the very many questions that remain unanswered about that day.
If you decide to make another programme on the subject do me a favour and investigate this one for me. Why was the site of the World Trade Center never considered a crime scene and evidence preserved in order to fully investigate this human disaster?
Most of the unanswered questions would have been cleared up by now if it had been . You and your team could be in more exotic places like the Bermuda investigating trianglation points or some such thing.
Complain about this comment
@262
It's both, they don't know what it was spent on because of poor accounting practices. Their books don't balance.
Please can you tell me, if the money has been stolen for something, why Rumsfeld had to announce it was missing at all?
@264
Like I said before, the invasion of Afghanistan was for those 5 stated reasons. Not in direct retaliation for 9/11, or solely for the capture of Bin Laden.
I'm still waiting for your proof that the WTC needed to be demolished.
@266
Well Bin Laden is happy to associate himself with the attacks via his video messages.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
ACTUARIAL INSURANCE (thoughts after 279)
How have insurance companies reacted - is risk now calculated as higher or lower?
(1) Aeroplane strikes.
(2) Collapse from contents fire.
(3) 'Collateral damage' when falling: (a) reduction, because (statistically 3/3) all steel frame buildings that collapse go straight down (b) increase, because the next one has a higher probability of 'falling over'!
Insurance is pretty hard headed. Their calculations should be interesting.
Complain about this comment
@ 277.
They've said a lot of things; they've said that they were deceived and stonewalled and that we need another investigation. Here>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401026.html
Complain about this comment
The NIST NCSTAR 1 report went into a fair bit of detail simulating how and to what degree the fuel tanks were shredded and the fuel aerosolized in the floors that were involved in the crash. Using some advanced simulation software the dispersal pattern was mapped out. Estimating the amount of fuel released onto the affected floors, NIST calculated the oxygen content of the spaces affected and estimated how much fuel was able to actually burn within the building upon impact. They also provide in the report animated simulations of the fireballs that erupted outside of the building. There are tables that give estimated amounts of fuel that remained. I didn't find any explanation as to how much might be taken up and held in the carpets, to then later burn when oxygen flowed back into the space through broken windows, etc.
Although they estimated fuel remaining after the initial fireballs erupted, what I have found lacking is any explanation for what they then claim about fireballs erupting down elevator shafts, specifically claiming to have erupted in the lobby nearly 1000 ft below the strike zone. This is particularly puzzling, as there was only two shafts that passed from the strike zone to the lobby, and damage reported by firefighters in the lobby did not involve either of these shafts.
I have found no calculations for the oxygen in the local elevator shafts and subsequent amount of fuel burnt in those shafts. I have not found any estimates for how damage was sustained in the basement within the first few minutes after the aircraft struck the building. In short, I have found no estimates of the amount or routes taken by excess fuel into the lower parts of the building. This is not a difficult exercise to make estimates, if one can trust a blueprint of the building. If NIST could estimate the amount consumed in initial fireballs in the strike zone based on oxygen content in the space, the closed elevator and utility shafts should be within bounds of estimation using the same calculation.
The NIST report's mandate was to explain the collapse, but in fact, its actual purview was very narrow, setting about to try to only create a plausible cause for collapse initiation. They refused to take the analysis of complete, catastrophic collapse any further beyond what they hypothesize initiated collapse. They left that further explanation to the likes of speculators such as Bazant, Greening and others, who have put forward theories that themselves fail in the lightness of unsubstantiated assumptions and little empirical data.
The NIST report is, at best, a very long winded obfuscation. One that they refuse to debate, allow independent evaluation of, or subject to peer review.
Complain about this comment
#281
"Like I said before, the invasion of Afghanistan was for those 5 stated reasons. Not in direct retaliation for 9/11, or solely for the capture of Bin Laden."
But Mr Pixels, you yourself stated in #247 that the reason for the invasion was "due to the failure of the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden."
As you well know, 9/11 was used to sell the invasion of Afghanistan to the public, and it's frankly ridiculous to claim otherwise.
"Well Bin Laden is happy to associate himself with the attacks via his video messages."
Dodgy little videos of dubious origin do not constitute hard evidence.
As for this....
"I'm still waiting for your proof that the WTC needed to be demolished."
......I think you're confusing me with someone else.......
Complain about this comment
Loads of folk still here defending the truth, but still without any idea of the arguments involved or what evidence is availiable and already documented.
Then they demand, "show me the proof" of this or that.
Go find it yourself is the simple answer or don't. I could care less either way anymore. The same folks who are in denial about 9/11 are the ones who will believe anything they are told as long as there is a brand attached. Be it 'The Sun' or the BBC or the guardian or any other legitimizer of truth. The want these organisations to, not only, decide what is true for them but also set the agenda of the day for them too. At no point do these folks ever check the raw data and ignore what both the truth movement and the mass media say.
A perfect example is the 'bail out bill'. Idiots like me read the damn thing, it takes days to do it, It is a jumble of legalesse and references to other pieces of legislation that you then have to go and find and download and read and amend and understand.
451 pages later and you have a very clear understanding of what the bill is all about.
The same goes for 9/11, you spend hours trawling round looking up new york building regulations with regard to asbestos. New safety standards that they have to adhere to, time lines and final dates for compliance. Loads of raw info that you have to hunt down.
Then when you mention it, some daftie demands you show him this evidence. Because, clearly, thinking for himself would be too much a task, finding the data would be to hard, and to find out the truth of anything is more work than he should do.
What i think is going to really shock them is when all this starts coming home. The 'coincidence' folks are going to get the shock of their life soon, so wrapped up chasing a man in a turban that they have taken their eye off the ball. I think, in fact i know, a lot more of you guys will come round to our way of thinking soon enough, trouble is all us crazy mad conspiricy folks will be long gone.
We know whats next.
But i am sure the BBC will tell you what's happening after it happens
Good Luck
Complain about this comment
mollyaida, actually Bin Laden denied vehemently, twice, involvement in 9/11 in the weeks immediately following. And an argument can be made that given he was to be blamed for it anyway, he may as well claim responsibility and reap the benefits among those he wishes to recruit. He was after all in Afghanistan, while fighting the Soviets, considered a hero for having helped drive out the invaders. With that feather in his cap, and with blame for 9/11 being ascribed to him regardless of who actually did it, why not capitalize on the notariety and play the game? He had much to gain, and nothing to lose. That is one plausible view.
Also, it has been said that mobilizing the US military could not have been accomplished in the six week time span from 9/11 to invasion. The planning had to have occurred much earlier than 9/11. It is fairly well known that both the Clinton and Bush admins were negotiating with the Taliban over a proposed pipeline across the north of Afghanistan. Clinton's people backed away when the Caspian oil fields looked vunerable to instability, but I have read Bush and company said to the Taliban, let us build the pipeline, and ensure its security (and become wealthy is so doing), or we will carpet bomb you. At any rate, the invasion was likely planned well in advance of 9/11, and that catalyzing event, that "new Pearly Harbor," assured it would happen. It is consistent with what the neo-cons had planned all along for strategic control of the region in the Project for a New American Century report, Rebuilding America's Defenses.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps, Mr. Rudin, if you should continue to follow this issue with a new documentary you would interview instead of someone like Richard Clarke, say, Paul Craig Roberts. He was Ronald Reagan's assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the father of Reaganomics, and a former editor for the Wall Street Journal. He is convinced it was an inside job.
Or perhaps, a 27 year CIA veteran Ray McGovern. He prepared, for a number of years, the National Intelligence Estimates that went to the presidents Reagan, and Bush, their VP's, Secretaries of State, Joint Chiefs of Staff. He wrote in the foreword of David Ray Griffin's book, 9/11 and American Empire:Intellectuals Speak Out:
"It has long been clear that the
Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole "war on terror" was based on a prior deception."
You would certainly get a very different take on the official conspiracy theory from these two gentlemen, than from consummate insider Richard Clarke.
Complain about this comment
The latest program may turn up at the ABC in Australia in due course or on the net, I look forward to it
By then I will have sent to all I know the links to Richard Gage's and the AE for 911 truth, video, which actually looks at the evidence for the buildings' demise. You will find the trailer at 911blogger.com on 26th October 2008 at 12.27 am.
Sorry Mike but there are so many members of an increasing aware world who produce and present videos with more depth (than your previous ones), more analysis, more facts and substance. Even a collection of architects can come up with such videos, not to mention the Italians with 'Zero, an invetsigation of 911'. Of course a few fellows aged less than 25 with a laptop came up with the three editions of ''Loose change'.
Now tell us how much the BBC spent on your three productions!
BBC, no matter what efforts are made to not catch the murderers who did 911, the world has the capacity to inform itself and wonder, as to why the BBC is as shalllow as it is.
For those who care about humanity I suggest that you do your research as suggested by Hank at 287.
As I have said, once you examine the other material you will be sure that a new investigation is required.
Richard Gage will be in London soon, I suggest that BBC staff go and talk to him. Perhaps someone could hire a decent video camera, record the lecture and hey. 'presto', you have a good 911 documentray to broadcast. ( I wil not send a consultant's fee note for that advice, you can have it for free)
In addtion, you will save heaps on the travelling and expense account.
Complain about this comment
Everybody stop thinking about this immediately. Your insulting the dead.
And everybody please stop flaming Mike Rudin. Your insulting the one person who (however badly presented) has broadcast the wtc7 collapse on the BBC 3 times!
The problem was even as my parents were forced to watch this on sunday night TV. My mum still couldn't understand:
"But you just saw that building fall down. "
"But no building had been hit by a plane before, so how can you really know what would happen"
"Mum that building hadn't been hit by a plane"
"But were talking about the world trade centre"
"No, that building we just watched that fell down the same day"
"OK"
"And it wasn't hit by a plane, and it looked like an explosion didnt it? Don't you think thats suspicious"
"Why?"....
People cannot question thier reality.
#287 is right about a worldwide conspiracy with the financial crunch. But the BBC will report it before it happens.
Complain about this comment
alwayslean's mum (not being funny)
http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_facts_esbnews_mar1996.cfm
B-25 bomber crashed into Empire State Building 60-odd years ago. There have been other planes hitting buildings but rarely so large (that I know of).
Complain about this comment
"Somebody very wise once said that a fact is the point at which we have agreed to allow the investigation to stop. Our investigation will stop some at point soon. That does not mean we will have discovered all the facts."
Richard Ben-Veniste (Member, 911 Commission)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782 - Skip straight to 5m37s to see Mr Ben-Veniste say it.
1 - fact (noun) 1 a thing that is indisputably the case
2 - fact - a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "they supported their argument with an impressive array of facts"
3 - fact - an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
(From a quick search of online resources. Who's definition of "fact" sounds more like the one you recognise?)
"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.. ..although it does not actually include the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable"
NIST P.82 [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Does anyone know the identity of that very wise somebody to whom Mr Ben-Veniste referred?
Complain about this comment
Richard Gage will be in London on the 6th November to give a 2.5 hour presentation.
http://gageinlondon.blogspot.com
Complain about this comment
Listened to truth campaign for first time on here. Watched the programme last night. Willing to let people pursuade me of governent misdeeds - as I have been convinced in the past (eg. UK- Birmingham 6 & Guildford 4, US - Iran/Contra and other examples).
Three things struck me:
1) This is the first time I have ever heard campaigners - almost as a policy - refuse to say what they are alleging happened. They will say the government theory is wrong but they wont state what their own theory is. I find it very difficult to be pursuaded when people do that.
2) A small number - a couple of guys on the programme, a handful on here, have the cahones to tell us a specific theory of what was done, eg controlled demolition by thermite. Well done those guys. Trouble was it just didn't make much sense when I looked at the theory - but all respect for these people having the integrity to state their theory and allowing people to examine it and make up their own mind.
3) The way in which the debate starts calm, but if anyone disagrees then they are incorporated into the plot and the tone becomes more threatening. Again that tends to disuade me of their cause - if people have strong arguments they want to tell people about their ideas and pursuade them, not threaten them.
IMHO verdict on truth campaign: Sorry, still open to be convinced but not done so at this time.
Complain about this comment
@286
Bin Laden is an Al Qaeda leader, and the US asked for the leaders of Al Qaeda, so the refusal to hand over Bin Laden meant that the Taliban was not meeting US demands.
Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban supported Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. It wasn't just Bin Laden they were after.
Sorry yes I did confuse you with someone else, late night :)
But I am still waiting for evidence that the WTC towers needed to be demolished, because this is a standard "truth" movement tactic, make a claim and then never back it up with evidence.
Complain about this comment
@ 295
Jon your a very interesting guy my friend!(no aggressive tone),
As I see it the only ones who can tell you exactly what happened that day are the ones that did the deed, not people who question what they are told, your grounds for argument are very week and cowardice!!
We are talking about the worst act of terror on American soil, this is a very serious matter Jon!
Maybe you are willing to look at the evidence brought before you on this thread 1st please, Richard Gage!! Ever heard of him Jon?? Search his name! I have confidence in this man, like many others do too, then come back and argue that its not a CD.
A couple of reference points to start from Jon!:
Search "Danny Jowenko" I trust his expertise !
Video footage of squibs going off? in all three buildings?
Barry Jennings?
Some other reference points:
No airplane crash investigations?
No footage of an airplane hitting the pentagon?
No proof that OBL had anything to do with attacks on 9/11(see FBI)?
Just a few interesting starting points for you Jon!
Look these thinks up mate!(friendly tone) Like I said earlier " Its enlightening" to find out for YOURSELF
don't take my word for it, Search YOURSELF
This was written in a very friendly manner Jon! I get frustrated that people comment on things they know nothing about and that makes some look stupid or ignorant hence some aggressive tones.
I don't want to make any enemies at all, I want us all to unite in this search for truth, as you can see yourself there are many discrepancies with what we are being told by the US government!, no?
So Jon, are you willing to look at what i've suggested as starting points to search?
You asked to be convinced and to be shown evidence! I think I've shown you enough here!
Complain about this comment
@ 296
"But I am still waiting for evidence that the WTC towers needed to be demolished, because this is a standard "truth" movement tactic, make a claim and then never back it up with evidence."
Are you for real? needed to be demolished? standard "truth" movement tactic? no evidence for CD?
your not for real! again shill's don't argue very well when they have not done their research properly!
Complain about this comment
@298
No, if you read back through the comments, it was claimed that Larry Silverstein needed to have the towers "deconstructed" because of the asbestos in them, so he made a deal to have them the target of 9/11 to save money.
I'm waiting for evidence that the asbestos in the towers required their demolition/deconstruction.
Complain about this comment
Hi Hank,
At 287you wrote
"Loads of folk still here defending the truth, but still without any idea of the arguments involved or what evidence is availiable and already documented.
Then they demand, "show me the proof" of this or that. "
I agree with you, Hank. I've searched down hundreds of claims from the truthers and hundreds of claims from apologists for the official theory. The former ends in either documented evidence, a known hoax, weblinks that you have to search on webarchive or links that have been deleted from webarchive!!! So on the whole either good evidence, reasonably obvious dis-info or information that has been deliberately deleted or hidden.
The apologists evidence comes down to few dodgey scientific papers Bazant's (this guy is well respected by I'm not really too sure why having read the original documents!), Stefan's (no sense at all), NISTs (not taking a holostic view), FEMA (Bush set this organisation up so no conflict of interest there then!?) and the 9/11 Commission ("set up to fail" according to it own authors, Zelikow had already written "the story" before the Commission started and then supported it with evidence extracted by torture from the CIA, hmm). If there is a good body of evidence for the official story I have yet to find it! Where is the criminal forsenic examinations, standard fire tests, air crash investigations, etc?)
And from this seeming mess I have to somehow have "faith" in the politicians (and the industrial-military complex) despite their pre-knowledge and subsequent useless investigations and obvious cover-up...
The same guys that brings us "Crunch 08"?
I don't have to prove another theory, just show how weak, feeble and total unfeasible the official conspiracy theory is...
Complain about this comment
Johnny Pixels! I'm sorry if I come across as an idiot but I don't see your point of argument at all, maybe you should question What gives you reason to suspect Larry Silverstein being involved in a cover up?...Then we might get somewhere!
Research into the re insuring of the WTC by LS against terrorist attacks shortly before they happened!
Research LS "pull it" statement just after the attacks!
Research who LS is! Who he is connected to!
Once you start searching these things you can make up your own mind about the Official Theory being flawed hence a lot more researching needed!
I suggest Jonny Pixels and jon112uk do a little research themselves and stop making silly statements to counter the Obvious questions people have against the OT
Complain about this comment
Mr Pixels,
you don't get it yet do you. The reichstag has long since burned, sorry the towers have long since fallen. the argument is really over for most of us and we, well i for sure, spend much more time on other issues these days.
You are a good few years behind the argument. When the state media feels they have to use their propoganda machine to spin the truth, you kind of know the argument is over.
So, again, i am not going to hold your hand through the evidence, go find it yourself if you have questions or need evidence.
If there wasn't more pressing issues to be looked at then i am sure folks would be more willing to suffer your demands.
Best, if you believe in the man-in-a-cave theory, that you just ignore us crazies and get back to your life. Safe in the knowledge that you are well informed by the mass media and they would do their best to inform and warn you about any similar upcoming dangers.
Same really goes for jon112 and the rest of those demanding evidence. If you can't go find it yourself then i guess you will just have to believe what the bbc tells you. You can lead a horse to water and all that.
Complain about this comment
@301
Larry Silverstein only aquired the lease for the WTC a few months before 9/11, which explains why he took out insurance a few months before.
His "Pull it" statement refers to the firefighting operation. If you did some research you'd know that the fire department surveyed WTC7 to check it's structural integrity. They found that not only had it moved, but the structure was still moving, hence the decision to stop trying to fight the fire and clear the area.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@302
I take that as an admission you can't answer my questions, because I've had the same response time and time again from the "truth" movement when the going gets a bit tough, when people ask questions they can't answer. It's always "do your own research".
Complain about this comment
Mr Johnny Pixels,
I think you missed the point completely, the truth movement doesn't claim to know the truth about 9-11.
It just wants to hear the truth about 9-11, something we have demonstrably not been told.
Complain about this comment
297. zerozero00
Hi zero - thanks, no aggression detected!
Mr Gage: listened to him with interest last night.
One of the things he said was that to drop a building in the controlled demolition style takes timing of the order of 1/10 of a second. Personally I only ever thought less than a second but I am accepting what he said.
One of the reasons I was sceptical about the thermite is because that burns/melts over a period of several seconds. Not instant like a HE explosion. I can't see how they could time thermite to less than one second on mulitple vertical collumns.
Barry Jennings:
He was saying he heard loud, building shaking explosions - more than one, he clarified.
Thermite doesn't explode. Squibs are small devices to ignite burning fuse or incendiaries. They do little more than pop like a kids cap gun - not even as loud as a pistol shot, let alone an explosion.
If it was thermite, why did an eye witness - sympathetic or at least neutral to your campaign - say he heard substantial explosions?
Don't forget - my position here is that I have heard the government theory and will evaluate it myself. Here I am evaluating the competing theory - no different status just because it is not from the government.
Complain about this comment
@306
But the truth movement has so far (in 7 years) failed to produce any single piece of evidence which proves the official account to be false.
Complain about this comment
Mods: What's wrong with #293? The sources are unequivocal and stated right there in the post for you to check yourselves. Also, is there any chance of a reply to any of my three emails since Friday's removed post at around 14:00?
294 - Thanks! I'm not far from UCL. Worth a fiver.
295 - see 279 and most of the 300 posts here (so far). Proving what was in someone's mind when they took a particular course of action is notoriously difficult, any lawyer'd tell you that. Observing the contradictions between what appeared to happen compared to what the official reports say happened on 9/11 is much less difficult.
There is plenty of evidence that runs contrary to the official explanation. There are plenty of links and suggestions in these comments. No-one (whether they believe the OCT or not) can say what exactly was the intention of whoever planned the attacks but google "operation northwoods" & "Project for a New American Century" and have a read. See the names of some of the FCR members and compare them with names of those very close to the seat of power on 9/11. Then think about 9/11 then consider what's happened since then and who has really benefitted from the consequences of 9/11. Watch "loose change".
If you are genuinely open-minded (which, if you don't mind me saying, seems a bit of a change from last week) and "follow the money" you could well end up coming to a similar conclusion to a growing number of people who have spent hours and hours researching little bits of this and that to ensure they report facts and quote people as accurately as possible.
@303 - If LS meant he acquiesced to the fire chief's decision to get everyone out and let the building fall why did he say "pull it" not "pull THEM out" or "let's get everyone out". I doubt Silverstein or Nigro would mistake 100s of firefighters for an "it".
@305 - You are having a laugh aren't you? How much more research would you like done for you, or would you like someone to come and left-click your mouse on the massive number of links above for you? How much more do you need to have people say "here is contrary evidence or testimony, read, watch or listen to it yourself"? The research has been done, info has been obtained and linked to so you can read or watch what we've obviously read or seen.
Now I know we're being trolled....
Complain about this comment
@309
"Pull it", where "it" is the fire fighting operation. "Pull it" isn't a term used in demolition.
Yes I keep getting told to watch videos, read links etc. They don't contain any EVIDENCE though. They're like the "pull it" quote. It doesn't prove anything.
If you've got so much evidence, take it to court.
Complain about this comment
I once asked for members of the "truth" movement to do a simple experiment. To go and buy a section of steel girder, same dimensions as in the WTC, stand it up vertically, and then burn through it with thermite.
They never did though, because they could never think of a way to do it. I could be wrong though, has anyone managed to do this simple experiment yet?
Complain about this comment
Johnny Pixels
All the information listed at the below link, suggests foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks.
Most of the links are from mainstream sources, and many of them flatly contradict the official conspiracy theory.
http://tinyurl.com/5gg242
What do you think is meant by "the official account" in say, a couple of lines or paragraphs?
Complain about this comment