161

9/11: How it costs you friends

Harvey Burgess
9-11-anniversary-threat

I recently had an upsetting exchange with a good friend, brought about by my assertion that: “The Americans did 9-11 to themselves.” My remark brought to an abrupt end a perfectly calm and rational discussion, over dinner, about Geo-Politics. I saw a side of my friend I had never seen before. If I had confessed to hacking into his bank account and stealing a thousand pounds he could not have been angrier. He was extremely hostile and refused to engage with me on the subject.

Let me admit straight away that this was not the first time that my opinion on 9-11 had landed me in deep water with friends and family. “Why not avoid the topic?” I hear you ask. Well, often I do but, on occasion, when the conversation moves in a certain direction, I feel compelled to express my views. What is extraordinary to me is that otherwise rational, discourse-loving people completely shut down when it comes to 9-11 and treat me as though I am some kind of leper.

In my experience, around one in every five or six people with whom one discusses this subject reacts very badly. What might explain their ire? I would suggest three reasons. Firstly, rather like the antipathy towards telephone sales people within society, there are those who have no truck with so-called conspiracy theorists. After all, both mainstream media and a whole array of well respected, liberal journalists have long painted them as socially dysfunctional losers who spend most of their time on-line in darkened rooms. The Guardian journalist, George Monbiot, has characterized those who, like myself, belong to what is known as the 9-11 Truth Movement, as being:

possessed by this sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam,” who are “trying to infect me.”

Secondly, there is the strong human impulse to avoid taking on board information that conflicts with our innate belief system and preconceptions. The theory in social psychology underpinning such action is “Cognitive Dissonance.” Put another way, our a priori assumptions will inevitably exclude any amount of empirical evidence.

Thirdly, with regard to 9-11 itself, there is bound to be strong resistance to the possibility that any government could kill three thousand of its own citizens in cold blood. And yet, many of those who refuse to contemplate any wrongdoing on the part of George W Bush and his neo-con cronies in respect of 9-11, are more than happy to accept that the very same regime conducted an illegal war in Iraq which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

This contradiction is what I find so hard to accept. Surely, a government that is wicked enough to carry out mass murder in Iraq, on a false premis, would be more than capable of either planning, or at least being complicit in, the events of 9-11.

If I was seeking to downplay the catastrophe of 9-11 or even deny that it happened, despite the evidence of our own eyes, then by all means take me to task. But I do none of those things. I am just as upset and horrified by 9-11 as anyone else on this planet. I merely call into question who was responsible.

My friend, a thoroughgoing Atlanticist and a man of deep intellect, told me that the only other person who he had ever heard spout the same poison about 9-11 was a taxi driver in the Midlands. If he had been willing to listen to me I would have explained to him that opinion polls reveal that between thirty and forty percent of Americans – at least a hundred million people – do not accept the official account of the events of 9-11 and that the 9-11 Truth Movement contains hundreds of scientists, engineers and former US diplomats and civil servants.

I informed my friend that during the six years I lived in the States I attended public meetings and read books on the subject. He was not swayed.
Conspiracy theories are said to be:

a) speculative hypotheses that treacherous and illegal acts were carried out by two or more people and were plotted covertly and
b) always perpetrated by non-State and non-Institutional actors.

I agree with a but not b. I would argue that a government position on such an event constitutes an official conspiracy theory and those who adopt a contrary stance are espousing the unofficial version of the conspiracy theory.

In any event, just because I happen to contest the official narrative on 9-11, that nineteen Saudi Arabians with box-cutters hijacked four airliners and defeated the most sophisticated defense system in history, does not render me an irrational crackpot. All I ask is for a reasoned discussion on the issue and for usually sensible people to stop blindly trusting Bush and the neo-cons on 9-11.

Harvey Burgess is a British writer. He is the author of two books: “Political Asylum From The Inside” (non-fiction) Worldview Publications, Oxford, UK, 2000; and : “Tucson Tales, Bohemians, Bolsheviks and Border Rats.” (Fiction) Sunstone Press, New Mexico, USA, 2013. He has also published short fiction and non-fiction (Sarasvati magazine (UK) and Inkapture (UK), and Tucson Citizen and Tucson Weekly (Tucson, AZ, USA))

SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN

If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

161 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Jan 31, 2017 5:13 AM

STOP your fussing folks.. binra has said, “WHO CARES?”…nothing to see here!..move along!. And such an easy to tumble pissant he is too…. if I ca be permitted to say?

binra
binra
Jan 31, 2017 6:26 PM
Reply to  pavlovscat7

Smearing shit and assigning it to me makes a poorly executed false flag. Speak for yourself and have the courage to engage with me if you have anything to say. What you assign to me is YOURS.

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Feb 1, 2017 12:14 AM
Reply to  binra

And in your much demonstrated philosophy, what you assign to me is MINE also ?? Why don’t you just say, “YEAH YOU ARE!” ? You disappear up your own eductions mate. It’s exisitential crap. When engaged in your rambling diatribes of the psychoanalysis of every ones’ psyche trapped in their subjective ‘reality bubbles’.. observable of course to only the enlightened blowing on their bubble pipes… It’s there that you are the master of two slaves.. When it comes to real contention, to real debate, it is you who resorts to ignoratio elenchi…delivered in the style of an illiterate schoolgirl. The look on Noam Chomskys’ face when the house of credibility that he had constructed over many years..bricked up with a billion words; came tumbling down on two little words, “WHO CARES?”. If you are a victim of anomic aphasia that you have contained in your ‘reality bubble’ of not to… Read more »

binra
binra
Feb 1, 2017 2:14 PM
Reply to  pavlovscat7

I am not assigning smear to you. I offer communication you can use or abuse, engage in or pretend to engage in – or of course ignore. If there was something in what you wrote that was not ‘AT’ me, or TELLING me (or everyone) that I am as you say – then I missed it. When I write, I don’t couch it into longhand personal terms and I don’t much feel it in personal terms, but as meanings which are given form in the sense of an impersonal love – rather than a transactional contract. But by your response you are taking what I say personally as if I am TELLING you (or everyone), that they are as I say – and if you believe that – I understand your response as a defiant refusal to be dishonourably treated. By your own recent comment you grow the art of… Read more »

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Feb 1, 2017 8:57 PM
Reply to  binra

No more questions your honour……the prosecution rests. and awaits the jury deliberations secret:

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Jan 21, 2017 11:38 PM

…al jebr…
The patriot hasn’t sussed it yet..but embusques’ smirk on their tv sets..was the missing piece of the jigsaw jets:

Mike
Mike
Sep 26, 2016 11:48 PM

Anciently, when I was a younger man, i was in the habit of spending my Saturday afternoons at a local tavern with my friends. One such afternoon we were especially raucous and were asked to leave by the management. Dispite the lax drinking and driving laws in effect at the time, there was no question that we would leave the car in the parking lot, and walk several miles home. On the way we cut across a site where a building was in the process of being demolished, in that case by means of a swinging weight. My friends started to tell me about a new method of demolition using placed explosive charges. Even though they were all civil engineering students I did not believe this was possible and these guys were in the habit of pulling off elaborate hoaxes some of which I was taken in, and I suspected… Read more »

Brian Harry, Australia
Brian Harry, Australia
Sep 27, 2016 1:36 AM
Reply to  Mike

“Funny thing is, my friends went on to sucessful careers as civil, structual, and mining engineers, but to a man adamantly refuse to discus 911. I must say I have wasted many a bottle of fine scotch trying to pry something from them to no avail”.
“Cognitive Dissonance” It doesn’t allow you to accept facts that don’t coincide with your own understanding….Too many people believe that their government is “good” and wouldn’t do anything “bad”…..which is quite clearly not so.

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Jan 22, 2017 12:23 AM

Especially if tenured peer pressure is in the mental mix.

binra
binra
Sep 27, 2016 10:46 AM
Reply to  Mike

Any who recognize an act of tyrannous power – may intuitively protect from giving ANY outward sign that may cause exposure to that power and attraction of penalty. 9/11 operates as a declaration of power at a level beneath the rational or surface mentality. Terror on such a scale triggers association with tyrannous power in our world and the narrative being shape-charged into the collective mind is a dictate – and not open to open discussion or open investigation. This indicates that tyranny operates a mind-framing upon many who otherwise would normally ask questions and discuss possibilities. The protective gesture is “just don’t go there”. This is reinforced by the nature of response in those who feel unjustly denied communication – but perhaps justified in defending against those who hate being lied to and become hateful in reaction. The latter can be infiltrated and inflamed. “Too big to fail” is… Read more »

Le Ruscino (@LeRuscino)
Le Ruscino (@LeRuscino)
Sep 16, 2016 10:42 AM

Most people are sheep !

ANDERS PETERSON
ANDERS PETERSON
Sep 20, 2016 5:46 PM


This is what Chomsky has to say about 9/11.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Sep 24, 2016 1:36 PM

What a complete load of BS. “All kinds of elaborate conspiracy theories”. For such an erudite person he sinks into the denigrative stereotyping language of the non-thinker. I also saw him refer disparagingly to the number (about 1,000 at the time) of architects and engineers within Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. Yeah? So where are the 1,000 of architects and engineers defending the physics of the official story. He doesn’t actually deal with a single piece of evidence though. How interesting.

Anders Peterson
Anders Peterson
Sep 24, 2016 5:17 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

What’s wrong with the evidence that Al Qaeda did it ???

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 24, 2016 5:54 PM

Well, Anders, are you at familiar with “Architects and Engineers of 9/11?” Perhaps you should start there. It’s a lot of information to digest. Give yourself some time to carefully assimilate it, to let it sink in. Then when your begin to realize that the buildings could not have come down but by ‘explosives,’ you also begin to twig to the enormity of the logistics that had to be involved in pulling off this operation. A rag-tag outfit like Al Qaeda could not possibly have pulled it off. Only an organization on the scale of some state’s military could have done that, and which military do you think might have been able to have covert access to the buildings? But all of this is too far away from you to even begin to contemplate. You first need to educate yourself about the very basis scientific issues. Perhaps this might be… Read more »

binra
binra
Sep 24, 2016 6:15 PM

In addition to what’s wrong with evidence Al Quada ‘did it’ is the trail of evidences showing such ‘movements’ to be a proxy puppet of geopolitical agenda – including a way to induce one’s population to give up rights and powers to a police state that can hide anything under ‘national security’ – even from most political representatives and by a need to know basis, in different degrees at different levels. The shock is not that such things are possible and actual, but normal for humans – though I feel normal does not equate to natural. Deceit is part of the way the human personality works – exists even – until re-aligned with an honesty of being. Masking from power feared , masking of hateful power in terms of love or social acceptability. The breaking of ‘reality’ is simply waking to that what we believed true – is not. The… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Sep 25, 2016 1:55 AM

Where have you been looking, Anders? After posting my response to Chomsky’s video last night I had further thoughts and am posting a much more comprehensive response below. There are links in it that you can follow to learn about who really was responsible for 9/11. I’d start with the 911hardfacts.weebly.com. Analysis of Chomsky’s video. A 2 minute long straw-man piece stating that the US government benefited from 9/11 (as would many governments) but that doesn’t prove they did it. Identifying motives is always good for your case and truthers will point them out (for example, the Patriot Act came out immediately afterwards), however, no one is saying that’s where the real evidence lies, it just supports it. I would have thought a straw-man argument was beneath Chomsky. I think some people are too silly to even know they’re even using a straw-man argument but you’d think being a smart… Read more »

Anders Peterson
Anders Peterson
Sep 26, 2016 5:58 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

It’s evident that 9/11 has benefited the Military Industrial Complex,however,
that doesn’t take away the fact that planes were hijacked and flown into the towers.

Brian Harry, Australia
Brian Harry, Australia
Sep 26, 2016 9:57 PM

………While NORAD was asleep?…………and, not one scrap of airplane wreckage at the pentagon………………and NO dead bodies or airplane wreckage in the Pennsylvania field…….No matter how you look at it, 9/11 doesn’t add up under close examination.

binra
binra
Sep 26, 2016 10:39 PM

Once hypnotic trance is complete, the subject will only experience in terms suggested – and simply not see anything else. The power of the mind is that of creating its experience of reality.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Sep 26, 2016 11:18 PM

… and it seems that particular floors were targeted and not for any reasons the alleged hijackers would have … and that companies within the towers had technology that would facilitate remote-control of planes. Watch this video 9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk. It’s just so damn obvious that 9/11 was an inside job.

Anders Peterson
Anders Peterson
Sep 27, 2016 11:31 AM

Yes, while Norad was asleep, before and during the Pearl Harbour attck by Japan,the whole fleet was in port and eveybody was enjoying their weekend.
If you affirm that not one scrap of plane was found at the Pentagon,then what happened, was it bombed? By who ?
No dead bodies at the Pennsylvania field,well did they dematerialize? If so,how?

binra
binra
Sep 27, 2016 10:27 PM

Pearl Harbour was pre-warned and those warnings ignored at the highest level. Those highest few willingly made sacrifice in order to enter the war. They did not self-sacrifice – indeed they denied a true account to be investigated or published. As they denied a fair trial to the officers in charge at Pearl Harbour by sacrificing them as scapegoats and silencing their testimony in court-martial when they in fact sought to . After facts come out without being given Media attention – Hollywood makes a movie remake of the original official storyline… That an official theory is proved false or at least grossly inadequate to the facts is not a requirement for those who point to this to prove what did happen or how it did happen. The ‘onus of proof’ is on the Officialdom behind the asserted narrative. Surely millions have died and millions more in misery from the… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Oct 12, 2016 4:43 AM

The planes were probably hijacked but by whom? There’s no proof it was the 19 terrorists – no CCTV, no flight manifest, Mohammad Atta travelled from Boston to Portland the day before 9/11 and then caught an early morning flight from Portland to Boston before allegedly taking the alleged suicide flight from Boston. Why on earth would a terrorist risk flying an early morning flight before boarding a suicide flight due to leave only 30 mins after the early morning flight arrived? And even if planes went into the towers who put them there? They certainly didn’t have to be the passenger airliners which is, in fact, what the evidence suggests. Do some research – the evidence is spilling out of the internet.

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Jan 21, 2017 11:56 PM

No planes….or no brains?…how does an alloy air frame, that birds in flight can tear pieces off.. slice into a steel and concrete building like a hot knife through butter? the great tragic comedy being played out by people who control the world..because they can! is manifestation of Kafkas’ expositions of instinct made artform…a’morality is their truth and the truth is anti-semetic.

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Jan 22, 2017 12:34 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

And if you can’t believe Noamey baby.. someone with a stipend from the CIA…who can you believe? We’ve got a few of his, “tell ’em the bleeding obvious but leave 9/11 out of it”.. types here in Oz as well…Phillip Adams not being the least….be lucky truthers..I mean pariahs.

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Jan 22, 2017 1:56 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

All damning evidence on the false phrophet Chomsky Flax Girl …..being inclined to poetry I would have just said of Chomskys 9/11 swerves……ignoratio elenchi!
be lucky truthers.

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Jan 22, 2017 12:40 AM

Nice bait Anders but..it caught a Thermite …throw it back and wait for a Judy wood.

binra
binra
Jan 22, 2017 6:58 PM
Reply to  pavlovscat7

If you realize that Al Qeada are essentially supported and used as a ‘black op’ proxy force – then you can get closer with that idea. But really you are not addressing the issues so much as presuming a ‘reality bubble’ to still be operating for you – in which serious questioning of the actions and intentions of key institutions of leadership, defence and media cannot be entertained. You are therefore unaware of the nature of transnational corporate cartel capture of its host.

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Jan 29, 2017 4:27 AM
Reply to  binra

Stop trying to impress yourself binra and try and keep up.

binra
binra
Jan 29, 2017 1:23 PM
Reply to  pavlovscat7

Are you talking to me? Or pretending to talk to a proxy of your own imagining? Insofar as you addressed your comment as IF it was a communication rather than asserting a statement of your own world order, I share these reflections of the way a masked intent uses proxies to believe its own spin. Keep up with ??? Or abide AS the unfolding recognition of? To human ‘race’ or human being? Stop the mind that makes the world in its own image – and know the Inheritance it thought to run off with AND wasted. Such a ‘mind’ is a deceiver to a wish to BE deceived. Are you invested in a counter 9/11 narrative or desiring to uncover the truth of your own relationship? – because without relationship – there is no real communication – but only assertion of ‘narrative control’. 9/11 illuminates narrative control writ large. Like… Read more »

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Jan 30, 2017 9:09 AM
Reply to  binra

You are the king binra..Where did you learn that circumlocution aphasia?..it reads like something out of the new age gurus’ coaching course. You deconstruct your own depositions as you lay them down. You build an irrelevant prolix fence and then sit on it. And like an analogue event-horizon..your periphrasis returns from whence it came….where the sun don’t shine. Just for the nonce though.. and In a dialect we can accept..how do you think the WTC buildings were deconstructed. And then go back to your usual schtik. It’s a hoot!

binra
binra
Jan 30, 2017 12:50 PM
Reply to  pavlovscat7

You could just say that you don’t understand me, but it seems you think you understand what you ‘make’ of me – and that is your choice – not mine.
I have no doubt the buildings were controlled demolition – but so what?
I have no doubt that 9/11 was an inside job – but so what?
What is your rant in aid of or purposed to achieve?
What difference to you ‘what I think’? when according to you I am unworthy and invalid?
What is going on for you pavlovscat7?
I see you fighting shadows that are not there – but don’t take it from me. It is what you think that matters to you.

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Jan 31, 2017 4:48 AM
Reply to  binra

I could just say I don’t understand you..as you presume to auto suggest to the audience..but there seems to be a reply veto on your current posts. You say 9/11 was a controlled demolition and then give the Chomsky defence, “WHO CARES?” I was hoping you were simply an intellectomaniac , instructing the students on their subjective ‘reality bubbles’ from your place in the ‘real reality,’.. but I see you are something additional. Your buisness is the buisness of Chomsky and your defence is the Chomsky defence. ………… Your turn Gatekeeper

fotovitamina
fotovitamina
Mar 16, 2017 9:45 PM

This is SOOO infuriating, coming from the “Doctor of Truth’, the ‘dissident activist in Chief’, the author of “Manufacturing Consent”, how can it be??? my best friend says he just simply is NOT the same person, somehow after 911, Dr. Chomsky has been substituted by some body snatcher, a double, a doppleganger of sorts. HOW, can he say the evidence is laughable? HOW can he claim we, the people who are genuinely interested in the truth, ‘are taking away attention from what is really important’? i wonder what is more important than finding out WHO is really responsible for all these past and present and continued innocent DEATHS??? HOW can he say “WHO CARES” about who is responsible for JFK’s death? He is maybe showing is age now. He has become irrelevant. Bye Dr Chomsky.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Mar 16, 2017 11:32 PM
Reply to  fotovitamina

A NIST Scientist has just woken up to 9/11 and is very angry that he had his head in the sand for the past 15 years. Here is a rather brilliant film presenting his view of 911 reality:
Stand for the Truth: A Government Researcher Speaks Out

Dave Lawton
Dave Lawton
Sep 15, 2016 11:04 PM

Georg Monbiot`s opinions are static and gather dust he fell in with the elite awhile back.
“Winning the safety argument is crucial, she says, if the industry is to survive: “As more people understand the processes, and realise that most big accidents have been because of old technology, then nuclear has a future as part of any energy mix.” And with scientists such as Professor James Lovelock and critics such as the environmental activist George Monbiot coming on side, she is now even more confident.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/lady-barbara-judge-japans-smart-nuclear-weapon-8497747.html

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 11:01 AM
Reply to  Dave Lawton

It is worth keeping in mind that most of the Neo-con intelligentsia are ex-lefties. Most people are corruptible, and the few that aren’t can serve as exemplars of how diverse and free your political system is.

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Sep 25, 2016 5:46 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

That’s interesting. What names?

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 25, 2016 8:27 AM
Reply to  flaxgirl

It’s interesting that you find JF interesting. Are you ‘interesting’ too.

Brian Harry, Australia
Brian Harry, Australia
Sep 25, 2016 8:56 AM

“Fryer” is just a “shit- stirrer”……….

Admin
Admin
Sep 25, 2016 9:22 AM

No content-free ad hom please. Be aware we have to delete repeat examples.

Brian Harry, Australia
Brian Harry, Australia
Sep 25, 2016 10:29 AM
Reply to  Admin

I acknowledge you stinging knuckle rap, and offer my sincere apology for offending ‘said person’. I’ll try to do better in future…………..

binra
binra
Sep 27, 2016 10:23 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

“The Power of Nightmares” by Adam Curtis is a series of three freely online BBC documentaries tread a fine line by telling a story rather than the usual critique. Part of that story as was of the disaffection of many left-leaning liberals with the outcomes of their ideas and a switch to the neo-con or a more tightly managed and controlled society. However the premise of the story was that when the dream by which people were unified and incentivised (engineered) fell apart – the power of the nightmare was brought in to ‘control’ the dangerous forces that were seen to threaten society (at least as they define it). Carrot and stick? – or awakened responsibility? Left and right are polarities of relational and individual virtue and responsibility. As I see – we are both – and more! – but tend to be polarised in identity of fear or hatred… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Sep 29, 2016 2:31 PM
Reply to  binra

I just watched The Power of Nightmares. Excellent!

bevin
bevin
Sep 15, 2016 7:45 PM

I’m not sure who was responsible for 9/11. There is no reason to suppose that “19 Saudis armed with boxcutters etc” could not have hi-jacked airliners. Or that, put to the test, the Air Defences would prove to be one of the most efficient means ever devised for transferring money from the pockets of the poor into the bank accounts of the filthy rich. But that leaves most of what happened, from the collapse of the buildings to the presence in one of the aircraft of a CNN reporter and Bush cabinet member’s wife, retailing the ‘official story’ by cell phone as it was happening. There comes a point when, even the most sincere desire to believe that a bunch of justifiably angry Arabs could cause such mayhem in the imperial epicentre, dissolves before that “Come on, now! There are some things (think WTC 7) that are incredible. As to… Read more »

bevin
bevin
Sep 15, 2016 7:48 PM
Reply to  bevin

“But that leaves most of what happened, from the collapse of the buildings to the presence in one of the aircraft of a CNN reporter and Bush cabinet member’s wife, retailing the ‘official story’ by cell phone as it was happening, unexplained.”
Some people complain that they don’t have an editing facility, for my own part, I admit that I’m just too lazy to re-read.

BigB
BigB
Sep 16, 2016 11:23 AM
Reply to  bevin

Of course the sinister twist of the ‘Olson cellphone call’ was that it never happened. The plane (UA 77) was at altitude and the technology to make the call didn’t even exist until 2004. That this was the main source of the hijacking and the sole reference to boxcutters, (not to mention the Pentagon) – what does this tell you about the official narrative?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ted-olson-s-report-of-phone-calls-from-barbara-olson-on-9-11-three-official-denials/8514

paulcarline
paulcarline
Sep 16, 2016 9:49 PM
Reply to  BigB

Exactly so. The FBI has admitted that no calls were made from the planes that day i.e. they were all faked. Only the real perpetrators (like many, I prefer the spelling ‘perpetraitors’) could have done that. By itself it’s enough to knock the whole silly story of hijackers and hijacked planes on its head.

Willem
Willem
Sep 15, 2016 6:46 PM

Actually, I stole part of the following argument from the Saker (the part that relates to the Asch conformity experiment), and from the book ‘the mysterious stranger’ from Mark Twain (where ‘the mysterious stranger’ has a brilliant conversation with a young boy who went to a ‘stoning event’) Many of those who believe the official 911 story do so out of conformity. They know better, but do not dare to say so. People who do dare to oppose the official story are more brave. This is what explains ‘hateful’ looks and conversations that a 911 truther may have with someone who acts as ‘still brainwashed’. For the latter persons, it feels as if a 911 truther is saying to them that they are a bunch of cowards. I would not try to convince others, who still buy the official story about 911, that that story is fake. This is something… Read more »

binraBrian Steere
binraBrian Steere
Sep 15, 2016 5:13 PM

The human psyche tends to be polarized against perceived evil in desire of survival – and validation. When such narrative shifts occur as 9/11 occurring with insider support or connivance the experience is of mind-breaking disturbance whereby those associated with ‘protector’ become associated with terror threat. This is a reversal of forms but still operating the same polarisation against perceived and believed evil. With the official narrative operating as persistent blanket assertions – along with refusal to listen or engage in anything but a war of words – these also shift from protector to predator – along with various insider organisations and power lobbies. In this sense 9/11 is a more effective terror act than that of destroying buildings and 3000 people – along with setting off war and terror in various parts of the world. In Potter-myth-speak it could be translated as Voldemart is back and ‘He’ who cannot… Read more »

rtj1211
rtj1211
Sep 15, 2016 4:44 PM

Actually, the most common reason people can’t engage in this manner is that they that their emotional framework has never faced up to pure evil and accepted that it exists. If your life’s path confronted you with it long before 9/11, the concept that absolute evil exists is just one of those nastry things you have to take as read. Not because you want to, not because you are evil, because experience teaches you that it is so. You get the same about ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’ call it what you will. No-one can conceive that this is a $100bn scam used by the NWO as the replacement bogey man after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. George Monbiot is an adherent to dangerous global warming, so you’d expect him to buy into 9/11 too. Often you simply get very busy people who don’t have the time to investigate things… Read more »

Greg Bacon
Greg Bacon
Sep 15, 2016 4:23 PM

About three years ago, I had “9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB” printed above my name on my personal checks. Most of the time, the clerks/personnel cashing the check just go thru the routine, not even noticing the statement. Sometimes, the clerk will look up with a smile in her/his eyes and I know they know.
The other times, the clerk will stop the transaction, and turn a look of hatred on me that is chilling. Their eyes are flashing hate, their neck veins bulging and a couple of times, thought I was going to get smacked in the kisser. And their voice, which was pleasant sounding, turns angry.
All for exposing some truth about that day on which everything changed.
Is truth so reviled and dangerous that we must keep it locked up?

lagenie24
lagenie24
Sep 15, 2016 9:30 PM
Reply to  Greg Bacon

I am either in a setting where I can discuss the truth about 9/11 (or Zionism, Israel etc) or I am not. If not I don’t say anything at all.Or at least, I don’t open the topic. But when ANYone says something unfounded, I have to offer something factual, not my opinion. I don’t parade my truth anymore. I don’t know, I have come to feel like some people are just unworthy of Truth.

pavlovscat7
pavlovscat7
Jan 22, 2017 1:09 AM
Reply to  Greg Bacon

‘Truth’, these days, is exponent-driven before it is subjective. It is a rank generalization of course but, there are basically three types of citizens. Those that have never known and never will know. And let’s admit we sometimes envy their bliss that abides with its eternal companion. Then there are those that know but, go along to get along ….the shareholder..the serpents’ teeth. Their silence is their complicity, but a sling to charity now and again has them sleeping the sleep of the just. Then companions…there is we. We who piss into the wind over these things. We who are the laughing stock of the people who did these deeds and will continue to do so. They want us to know what they have done and are flipping us the bird and saying to us..”in light of the other two demographics; “what are you going to do about it you… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 1:38 PM

“He was extremely hostile and refused to engage with me on the subject.”
That’s a sad story. The author probably has other, more gullible, friends, though. Maybe he could convince them to join his cult?
Can we also anticipate the editors finding or inviting some submissions of the terrible social consequences of discussing how the Apollo missions were all faked? There are a declining number of ‘truthers’, but I would think there are more than the ‘Moon landing hoax’ community. — [This thread is a discussion of 9/11 and social acceptance, generic ad hom and facile attempts to discredit by association are not part of this debate. Critique the writing, but DO NOT post this type of trolling. If anyone on either side persists the fact-free ad hom will be deleted – OffG ed.]

moriarty's Left Sock
moriarty's Left Sock
Sep 15, 2016 2:16 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Thank you OffG ed, this discussion is too important to be derailed whether by trolls or those with simply no argument left beside abuse.

Incognito
Incognito
Sep 15, 2016 4:15 PM

The only people whose opinions I care about these days who do not agree it was an inside job, simply go quiet when I ask them what their theory is. They simply have known. They know I can explain why any official version is debunked. They know that the official version is continually changing. They just do not want to believe they were brought down by explosives. In fact, their official version is akin to a religious belief. A theory of the gaps.

Incognito
Incognito
Sep 15, 2016 4:21 PM
Reply to  Incognito

They simply have none.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 8:22 AM
Reply to  Incognito

You have that completely backward. Why is the ‘truther’ theory continually changing?
(Or rather theories, plural. The “nano-thermite” assertion seems to be in vogue right now, but it is testable so is likely to eventually be conclusively debunked.)

Tim Groves
Tim Groves
Sep 18, 2016 4:01 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Anybody can invent a “theory”. So it is totally unsurprising that there are many “truther” theories floated around regarding 9/11. There is only one “official narrative” regarding 9/11, however, and that changes only incrementally although it has been shown by many independent researchers to be largely a tissue of omissions, distortions and lies. I’m interested in why and how the official 9/11 narrative remains relatively impervious to falsification by the usual empirical and investigative means that are routinely used by detectives, auditors, courts of law and scientists to try to separate fact from fiction. A working hypothesis would be that the official 9/11 narrative was and still is elevated to the status of an unquestionable truth—surrounded by an “emperor’s new clothes”-like taboo, with the result that the ultimate orchestrators and perpetrators of 9/11 were and still are above the law. When they acted, they were confident that they would not… Read more »

binra
binra
Sep 18, 2016 10:12 AM
Reply to  Tim Groves

Well said. THAT power of such a nature operates our society – our minds – to distort and dictate the currency and framing of our thought… is marked or openly declared by its acts – not just of terror-hate, but of the replacement of any process of discovery, or accountability to truth with obvious deceit that presumes itself un-opposable and effectively untouchable – as ‘gods’ over a sub-humanity that is both seen and cultivated to be ‘programmable’ cattle – to be used and discarded at will. And of course the ‘programming’ is what we take to be our thought – or give allegiance to in place of our true will. The tares are part of the roots of the wheat. Pull them up and the harvest is lost. “Too big to fail”. Pay tribute for the right to exist. Truth is the first sacrifice to the god of the war-mind… Read more »

M.
M.
Sep 15, 2016 12:56 PM

Kavy wrote below: “The libertarians say, leave everything to the market, but there’s nothing more profitable than war (and banking)” Indeed. Followed very closely of course by drug and human trafficking, exploitation of workers, trade of poisonous hydrocarbons, etc. When confronted with the fact that the people that thrive the most in the current system are the ones engaging in the most abject forms of business (legal or illegal), libertarians will point out that those are only a few rotten apples that found their way around the law. When one argues then that, at the very least, the system should be enhanced and regulated to avoid the upcoming of those few rotten apples that murder millions every year, then they will say that that would kill business instead (mind you that 100% of the times they are of course not central bankers or owners of transnational corporations but (quite) small… Read more »

deschutes
deschutes
Sep 15, 2016 7:48 PM
Reply to  M.

Wow, you sure had a lot to say.

mog
mog
Sep 15, 2016 12:28 PM

I can certainly empathise with most of the sentiments in this article. It is one aspect that has fascinated me : the role of taboo in modern society. A political scientists Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann developed a thesis about it : ‘the spiral of silence’- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence It is an often heard counter claim, that if the allegations of 911 research had any veracity that more people would speak out in support of it, however this ignores the fact that there is a lot of social psychology entwined with political discourse. Those who have studied Machiavelli and the like realise that Big Lies keep themselves. There is an obvious pragmatic reason for exposing the truths about 911 : to try to stop the bloodshed, but there is a further reason, that we might develop a deeper understanding the psychological mechanisms employed in the exercising of power. The net, of course has enabled a… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 15, 2016 5:03 PM
Reply to  mog

Indeed, there is a lot of social psychology entwined with any set of orthodoxies. Nietzsche, I think, eloquently also makes the point, albeit on an other issue, and if only because I’ve had his ‘Parable’ bouncing around inside my head these last few days in connection with the resistance I encounter in people I know to the “facts” of 9/11: “Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Sep 15, 2016 9:29 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

I assume you have also read Noam Chomsky who has written on the subject of cognitive dissonance. We in the UK are fortunate in having a blogger by the name of Kitty Sue Jones of Politics and Insights who explains, in lay man terms what Nietzsche would go round the houses with. I feel sorry for the authour of this article because he has only just realized how dumbed down we are, constantly bombarded with propagandist falsehoods, being spoon fed alternative reality as though it were the truth. Veterans Today and especially Gordon Duff are often laughed out of the building by people who choose not to accept a painful truth but his articles are so well researched they are irresistible. One such article on 9/11 was eye watering but well worth looking at: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/09/10/after-15-years-911-unanswered-questions-still-smoldering/ P.S. Noam Chomsky has recently had a serious senior moment denouncing all 9/11 truthers which… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 15, 2016 9:41 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I do hope, however, that this is not too shaming, but I’ve never heard of Gordon Duff. Thank you for the link. I will most certainly follow it up later this evening as time permits.

Tim Groves
Tim Groves
Sep 18, 2016 4:13 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

Gordon Duff’s writing at VT should be read and enjoyed in the knowledge that about 40% of what he writes is disinformation. Gordon has said so himself, so there’s a 60% chance he’s being honest about it.
By the way, Gordon is a purveyor of the “mini nukes brought down the Twin Towers” theory and a critic of the “nano-thermite” theory.

windjammer
windjammer
Sep 21, 2016 8:58 AM
Reply to  mog

The Big Lie of JFK’s “lone wolf” assassination seems to keep itself alive to this day. The success of that false flag crime probably emboldened the perpetrators of 9/11 and several other bizarre false flag events since then, all pretty much designed to inflame public fear prior to the introduction of obnoxious legislation.
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/war-on-terror-intimidating-legislatures/

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 21, 2016 9:35 AM
Reply to  windjammer

The thing that keeps all such lies “alive” is the continued hegemony over our affairs of the liars.

Husq
Husq
Sep 15, 2016 11:55 AM

I think the real question is what do we do? A lot of people go “yeah, alright, but I have to still earn a living.”
So, *What do we do!?”

Incognito
Incognito
Sep 15, 2016 4:19 PM
Reply to  Husq

That is the crux. I think for people who still hold onto the official version, what they are really doing is trying to hold onto the belief that they are good people. And good people wouldn’t live in a country where their government does bad things. For those of us who know it was an inside job, we have simply accepted that we are weak and refuse to do anything about it, and as such, our complicit role in 911 is revealed.

bill
bill
Sep 15, 2016 11:20 AM

i knew a man online who literally gave up his entire life to understand the JFK assassination.He then wrote numerous books of brilliant detailed analysis on until then puzzling aspects of the case,finally settling some.Yes he upset some,including some who believe they have a monopoly of JFK truth.In his last book he even outlined how,thanks to his training, he was able to sidestep a sophisticated CIA sting the purpose of which was to destroy his credibility as an author; this man attended some of the 9 11 Commission hearings and was as meticulous a gatherer of evidence and as fair-minded a person as one could hope to meet. Yet he would not,simply refused to look at any critique of any of the “evidence”,a state of mind similar to that of Georges Monbiot,that he wouldnt examine alternative points of view even if his mothers life depended on it. How to understand… Read more »

joekano76
joekano76
Sep 15, 2016 11:04 AM

Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 15, 2016 10:40 AM

For many people, telling them “9/11 was an inside job” translates as: “YOU ARE A NAIVE AND CLUELESS IDIOT.” It crosses a line of egoic self-regard and other base assumptions into territory that the particular audience will (their behaviour demonstrates) often fight to the very death to avoid exploring. For Jewish people, raised on legends of gentile loathing and genocide of their people, honest investigation of 9/11 issues is particularly difficult. — [this is a baseless and racist assumption – OffG ed.] First research always throws up an unusually large number of Israeli/US citizens close to the centre of events. — [citation needed- OffG ed.] This is nightmare from which we cannot condemn intensively brainwashed individuals from running. Maybe it’s best to assume that the kind of gentiles who exhibit the reactions described in the article have equally valid alibis excusing their fear of facing uncomfortable facts. We can only… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 2:26 PM

“For Jewish people, raised on legends of gentile loathing and genocide of their people, honest investigation of 9/11 issues is particularly difficult. First research always throws up an unusually large number of Israeli/US citizens close to the centre of events.”
That’s because anti-semitism is a serious problem.

Admin
Admin
Sep 15, 2016 2:38 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

@JeromeFryer
@physicsand mathsrevision
Anti-semitism is not the topic. DO NOT be diverted into any such discussion here.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 2:44 PM
Reply to  Admin

Thanks. It looked like you nuked the post, so my later comment has been addressed. (Delete that part of you prefer.)

Peter
Peter
Sep 17, 2016 12:05 AM
Reply to  Admin

Anti-semitism, as you pointed out yourselves, was the issue in the post Fryer was replying to.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Sep 15, 2016 9:45 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

I may loathe what Net is doing but I know that millions of Jews are decent and any comments on any posts regarding the dancing Israelis, although unfortunate, are not indicative of how people feel about Jews. It is time we stopped conflating the actions of a few as being representative of the many. I’m sure I am not alone in my thinking?

windjammer
windjammer
Sep 21, 2016 9:08 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

It would also be useful if we stopped conflating Jews with Zionism. We may not have much choice about our genetic packaging, but we always have a choice about our geopolitics.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 16, 2016 12:12 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Racist am I? That’s a charge usually levelled by the worst racists out there. Maybe you’re a racist? If the following reports below are fact am I still a racist? Be very careful with that charge. You might be addressing someone who is trying to stop racists killing your children.
Citation 1)
Ex- U.S. Army War College Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research, Alan Sabrosky:
U.S. Military Knows Israel did 9/11
Citation 2)
Chris Bollyn … israel did 9/11(loads of undeniable and damning evidence here:
Citation 3)
http://wwwkevboyle.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/frank-lowy-westfield-and-croydon.html

Jen
Jen
Sep 16, 2016 1:20 AM

@ Physicsandmathsrevision: please leave Jewish people out of the discussion regarding the 9/11 attacks if only because by mentioning them (as some sort of faceless mass), you open up the opportunities for trolls like Louis Proyect and Jerome Fryer to derail the discussion and turn Off-Guardian comments forums into escalating race-baiting tit-4-tat fights that come to the attention of governments who then want to shut down Off-Guardian. Which would fulfill the aims of the original trolls in the first place.
If you want to mention particular agencies like Mossad or the Israeli government or its various lobby groups who might have had a hand in the attacks, then fine, but do not treat them as though they are representative of all Jewish people.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 16, 2016 9:37 AM
Reply to  Jen

OK. I will. But it is a dilemma. The safety of these murdering plutocrats is delivered by the almost universal support they enjoy from their brainwashed shield. If the shield falls away they will not only expose the criminals and become kind of heroes but they will avoid taking the blame for the crimes of the international oligarchy. Again.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 10:19 PM
Reply to  Jen

Needed to be said, Jen. Thank you.

deschutes
deschutes
Sep 15, 2016 7:45 PM

Regarding the moderator’s ‘citation needed’: really? A preponderance of Jewish people were in key government or corporate positions during 9-11. This isn’t an unusual claim that would need documentation. To the contrary it’s quite obvious. For example: Philip Zelikow, Larry Silverstein, Dov Zakheim, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Chertoff, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, etc. The list is quite long. Not to mention the ‘5 dancing Israelis’ arrested by the NYPD who were seen filming the towers and cheering and hi-fiving each other, posing in front of the burning towers and taking snaps–who all turned out to be Mossad agents. They worked for ‘Urban Moving Systems, a false front Mossad operation. After 9-11 the company’s ‘owner’ Dominik Otto Suter fled the country back to Israel, and the company hurriedly shut down. Or how about Odigo (had 2 hours’ advance notice of the 9-11 attacks from their Israeli offices), and Comverse Infosys (Israeli spy… Read more »

Jen
Jen
Sep 16, 2016 12:51 PM
Reply to  deschutes

It has to be said that the people mentioned in Deschutes’ comment would throw their fellow Jews as well as all of us gentiles under a bus. Their loyalty is to themselves first and then the Israeli government. The Israeli government for that matter acts in the interests of whatever deep state (native or foreign) controls it and finds it useful to exploit past Jewish history, especially those episodes of Jewish suffering at the hands of others, to brainwash Israeli citizens and Jewish people outside Israel, instill fear into them and encourage them to identify their interests with its own. It’s not anti-Semitic to call out the Israeli government (along with its allies in other countries, particularly organisations within those countries’ Jewish communities) on its manipulation or brow-beating of its public and the global Jewish community to agree and support its policies against Palestinians and others. As long as people… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 8:31 AM

Do you understand that just because somebody throws their racist ideas up on YouTube or a website, it doesn’t follow that they’re credible?
The same holds for anything.
Some arguments rely on testable claims or alleged facts, while others don’t. The physical facts of the 9/11 events are testable, while what government agencies and other actors did (or failed to do, more to the point, since we had the 9/11 catastrophe — at least in this version of reality, not the alternate one with holograms and missiles) are much more difficult to pin down.
If the ‘truther’ quest for the proof to their alternate theory of the physical events carries on for a bit longer then those culpable for the mistakes (and policies) that created the conditions for Al Queda to pull the attacks off will be dead and beyond being held to account.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 16, 2016 9:14 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

There you go. A post predicated by name calling and content free (excepting for the supercilious posturing).
Do you understand that calling people racist can only reasonably be a follow-up to inspection of their evidence and interpretation of that evidence.
You obviously did not listen to Bollyn, nor Sabrosky nor did you read Boyle’s article.
There is one group that specialise in using racist abuse as a precursor to engaging with any issue. These people demand submission to their agenda before debate has even begun. They refuse to look in the mirror and recognise their own part in anything, particularly that their world-view is a direct consequence of accepting propaganda and a refusal to even look at contrary FACTS.
Are you such a racist?

Husq
Husq
Sep 15, 2016 10:02 AM

“Love your friends. Love the truth more.”

paulcarline
paulcarline
Sep 16, 2016 10:00 PM
Reply to  Husq

I recall another version of this, from St. Jerome I believe. “If the truth should give offence, it is better that the offence be given than that the truth should be concealed” (quoting from memory).

binra
binra
Sep 19, 2016 3:12 PM
Reply to  paulcarline

Can truth give offence if truth simply is what is? But true messengers – can and often will be seen as a cause of offence when not supporting an investment of face or identity. And so we may CHOOSE to TAKE offence, because we feel threatened, attacked or slighted – and believe our interpretations true and act accordingly from a sense of self justification. At least, while wanting our face to be true rather than lose it to a self-honesty that reveals about us what they do not wish to be known. True or honest feelings are not often acceptable – but are seen as weakness. Controlled ‘feelings’ are generally ok because they support the mutually agreed script. Loss of control is considered shameful in a mutually agreed masquerade – but of course is an opening of space for an honesty of being to the desire to know and be… Read more »

Brian Harry, Australia
Brian Harry, Australia
Sep 15, 2016 7:53 AM

I recently showed a friend some You Tube videos from the Architects and Engineers, and he refused to accept that “The Government” would be involved in the total fraud of 9/11. He couldn’t accept that the ‘ruling elite’ would be involved in killing 3,000 people. Of course, not “everyone” in the ruling elite was privy to who/what actually happened.
If you have ‘convincing video’ footage of planes hitting Twin Towers you automatically believe you saw it, despite “Hollywood” spending the last 60 years(that I’m aware of) convincingly getting people to believe their audio/visual trickery.
“Cognitive Dissonance” simply won’t allow, in so many cases, for people to actually accept the “Bleeding Obvious”..

kavy
kavy
Sep 15, 2016 7:40 AM

This film had a big effect on me. Even if it is only 70% right it explains why there are so many wars in the world. War is big business. The libertarians say, leave everything to the market, but there’s nothing more profitable than war (and banking), so god help us of we go along with their ideas.
JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick
Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Sep 24, 2016 1:58 PM
Reply to  kavy

Both my sister and the person I share a house with did not believe the official story, however, I simply labelled them as conspiracy theorists – I shy away from that term now although I still think they tend to think just about everything is a conspiracy based on only a little information. However, after watching this film I started to investigate 9/11 for myself and came to the conclusion that indeed it was an inside job.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 24, 2016 2:11 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

The problem is that once you realise that it is possible for the establishment to inflict, impress and sustain such a breathtaking and colossal on the minds of the western public, it is impossible not to reflect on this question:
“If they can get away with a lie regarding something as serious as this, is it not certain that there are many other big lies out there?”
And there are.
Here’s just one:
http://wwwkevboyle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/fair-questions-for-any-british-mp.html

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Sep 24, 2016 3:25 PM

Oh yes and that’s why they have to be exposed otherwise false flags and similar will just keep going on. There’s strong evidence suggesting Charlie Hebdo is a fraud, too – google it. I know now that whenever the alleged perpetrator is identified by an ID card left behind (Charlie Hebdo) or a passport fluttering to the ground (9/11 – I mean, seriously) you can bet it’s some of kind of fraud.

binra
binra
Sep 24, 2016 6:37 PM
Reply to  flaxgirl

I feel it important to learn to discern the true – at least by being able to tell when it is not being presented or communicated – but these kind of operations do not stop happening as a result of exposure OUTSIDE any mainstream acceptability. Whether the ‘Internet Reformation’ is occurring or a more pervasive psycho-bio technological control system is institutes is anyone’s choice. I embrace being me and don’t want to trade it for a compelled robot – but those who do not have acceptance for themselves can be and are necessarily programmed. I feel we are in the Time of Choice. But that if that choice were clear to us – there would be no real choice. Only in the dark does it seem to make sense – and conflict is the way to keep a condition of darkness – for there’s no free awareness to realise the… Read more »

Wolfe tone
Wolfe tone
Sep 27, 2016 11:46 AM

We in Ireland endured a ‘low intensity’ conflict for 30 odd years. Unfortunately even to this day a lot of people simply don’t want to face up to the notion that the state(uk) may have carried out by their own hand or proxy, some of the worst atrocities in Ireland, allthewhile claiming it was merely there to keep the peace between two sectarian tribes. The evidence continues to mount but the state continues to stifle and suppress any investigations into it. Just like the 9/11 situation, if the state, be it Uk is US admitted they were involved in acts of terrorism on its own people it would rock the establishment to its core. Maybe even result in the entire establishment being removed. One thing is for sure the state would never have the trust of its people ever again and that is the be all and end all, because… Read more »

Kavy
Kavy
Sep 15, 2016 7:34 AM

I’ve had the same problem, but to cover myself I wouldn’t go so far as to say the government did it. I just say it is a mystery and I’m open minded.
If you are a liberal then your don’t entertain conspiracy theories at all, except the climate change denial scam.
If you are slightly more left, then you know that the ruling class are capable of anything. Sadly, it’s the psychopaths that seem to get to the top of society. They’re the ones who don’t want to work but like to get as much money as possible.
Two atom bombs on Japan, WW1 and WW2, wars by the ruling class over power and wealth. The ruling class are capable of any treacherous and diabolical thing.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 2:20 PM
Reply to  Kavy

“The ruling class are capable of any treacherous and diabolical thing.”
In principle, yes. It’s good to be King.
Feeding disinformation to people in order to create crackpot conspiracy theories is a good way of providing cover for your actual misdeeds.

kavey
kavey
Sep 15, 2016 7:23 AM

I’m a conspiracy theorist, I believe that global warming denial is a hoax – a massive, well funded conspiracy against the general public.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 15, 2016 10:16 AM
Reply to  kavey

This is the kind of totalitarian troll post with which many of us are very familiar. The Hasbara strategies are failing. You’ll have to be cleverer than that.

Admin
Admin
Sep 15, 2016 11:32 AM

Stay on topic.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Sep 16, 2016 4:59 PM
Reply to  kavey

I’m not a conspiracy theorist as a rule but I do fervently believe in the threat of global warming and that the DENIERS are the hoaxers who will ultimately profit. Is this what you meant when you posted “I believe that global warming denial is a hoax – a massive, well funded conspiracy against the general public.”?
If so, then the 8 people who have given you a thumbs down are at odds with both of us, if you meant global warming is a hoax, then you and I are on opposite sides of the argument and I would be giving you the thumbs down. I’m not sure whether they or I have understood exactly what you meant.

Admin
Admin
Sep 16, 2016 5:46 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

Stay on topic.

archie1954
archie1954
Sep 15, 2016 6:43 AM

I’m sorry to say this about your friend but honestly anyone who refuses to listen to another side of an argument is a fool and hurting himself more than he’s denying the person on the other side of the argument.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 2:49 PM
Reply to  archie1954

Do you have to hear the same argument over and over, though? If you have heard it, could you just say “I’ve already heard that conspiracy theory, and I am not persuaded by it”?
People aren’t completely rational, but that shouldn’t mean that you’re obligated to give the same stuff a re-hearing whenever someone wants to air their conspiracy theories.

binra
binra
Sep 24, 2016 7:10 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

If this is not the pot calling the kettle black…! You prove you are well aware of the strategy – though that does not prove you connect the dots to yourself. You do not have to hear anyone else over and over, unless you either give them your persistent attention or give them the power to force your attention. To claim otherwise reveals your desire to take offence as justification for attack – for your own reasons. They are your reasons which you might be curious about or may be asserting as your official narrative regardless evidences to the contrary. You are ‘here’ by choice – perhaps for as long as you can attract attention and present the appearance of an argument without actually engaging in anything but obfuscation, denial and evasion. If there was not ‘plausible deniability built into our mind – it would not be a mind –… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Sep 15, 2016 5:50 AM

Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:
In US polling some 30% polled stated that they did not accept the government’s “story” and 30% believed they had been deliberately lied to and that the Government was involved. Thirty percent is a lot of people – representative of some 100 million people, that’s an awful lot of conspiracy nuts.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 2:50 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

Do you have a source for that poll?

mohandeer
mohandeer
Sep 15, 2016 8:49 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/09/911poll/
Found this one but not the original. This one shows even more people don’t believe Washington. Will keep searching.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 8:36 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

Thanks. I found the actual poll from your source (it is linked in the article).
http://rethink911.org/docs/ReThink911_YouGov_Poll_Results_Summary.pdf

Admin
Admin
Sep 15, 2016 4:23 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

Can you – indeed – post a source for the poll?

mohandeer
mohandeer
Sep 15, 2016 8:29 PM
Reply to  Admin

The source of the poll was an embed link leading directly to the published findings of one of the US biggest polling groups and the article was probably Veterans Today and the Picture at the top of the article was a busy street with people going to and fro. The article was about the perception of ordinary people on the way the government (US) depicted the justification for interventions – any, that cost money and military lives and whether they believed what they were told about amongst other things, 9/11. The poll was a series of questions and did not seem to be biased in favour of Dems or Reps – but then I’m not sure if I would have recognized if it were. The people who declared they did not trust the government was over 30%, the people who said they did not believe that they were told the… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Sep 15, 2016 8:50 PM
Reply to  Admin

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/09/911poll/
Found this one but not the original. This one shows even more people don’t believe Washington. Will keep searching.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Sep 15, 2016 9:35 PM
Reply to  Admin

Sorry Admin but I don’t think the original came from Veterans Today which is a shame because it looked the real McCoy. I have over 70 news feeds every day so chances are I won’t find the original post with embedded link to poll Q and A.
Can’t and won’t retract earlier statement because I spoke the truth even though I can’t prove it now. If I kept everything that was interesting I would have filled terabite sticks many times over.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 8:41 AM
Reply to  Admin

http://rethink911.org/docs/ReThink911_YouGov_Poll_Results_Summary.pdf
The poll doesn’t really support the assertion, but see what you think. (Note the leading questions in the later half, and the “footage” mentioned is not identified.)

mohandeer
mohandeer
Sep 16, 2016 5:19 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Yes agree – followed the link(thanks) but that is not the poll I viewed, am sure the embedded one I followed was by an American agency who poll for think tanks, government and either but not both at the same time Democrats and Republicans so they have a large database they can access. Haven’t been able to find the news feed article I was reading and have had to admit defeat – my “library” is scattered across several memory sticks as my computer and laptop have both been down and I lost a lot of information. The YouGov poll definitely was not the one I saw it looks small potatoes compared to the US poll.

Nerevar
Nerevar
Sep 15, 2016 4:36 AM

I am afraid 9/11 is not the main problem. Was someone here in very similar situation when a calm discussion went wrong when it came to any conspiracy? Some (more and more) topics as turning into unspeakable taboos decent people just do not talk about.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 1:46 PM
Reply to  Nerevar

Few people deny that there has never been any such thing as a conspiracy. There are plenty of historic examples.
But if you’re going to spin a fantastic story to explain some event that doesn’t require the extra elements that you add, then you have to be able to make an argument in support of those extra elements.

moriarty's Left Sock
moriarty's Left Sock
Sep 15, 2016 2:11 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

The theoretical physics of the tower collapses as proposed by NIST are a) incomplete and b) contradictory of known physical laws in certain particulars. It’s not necessary to believe in conspiracy theories to get behind the call for a new investigation. Like most public enquiries NIST fell short of full transparency. It refused to release its data sets so that its models cold be verified. Given how much credibility in the neocon establishment was vested in the outcome, and given how damaging could be any admissions the towers had been even partially sabotaged with explosives (talk about lax security!) there’s too much obvious motive for a whitewash for these problems to be brushed aside. The truly puzzling thing is why anyone with no vested interest in protecting NIST would bother to oppose this. We need full transparency, and a new and thorough investigation and the calls won’t stop until we… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 2:29 PM

“This thread is a discussion of 9/11 and social acceptance, generic ad hom and facile attempts to discredit by association are not part of this debate.”
[the comment you are replying to contains no ad hom and no attempts to discredit by association, consider that the more trolling comments such as these you post the more you undermine your credibility and thereby your ability to influence your readers. – OffG ed.]

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 2:59 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

There isn’t anything in the post about social acceptance issues, unless the part “The truly puzzling thing is why anyone with no vested interest in protecting NIST would bother to oppose this” concerns the people at NIST having to put up with ‘truthers’. This does work both ways, presumably.
I’m not interested in “influencing readers”, I’m interested in putting forth a counterpoint to the woo and leaving a record that, contrary to what future detractors or your site will claim, not all of your readership are ‘truthers’. (Ref. the George Monbiot article referred to in the tale of woe you’ve put above.)

Admin
Admin
Sep 15, 2016 3:05 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Then put forth a credible counterpoint. Generic denigration by invented association and employment of fact-free descriptors such as “woo” is trolling and conveys a want of genuine argument on your side.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 3:26 PM
Reply to  Admin

When one side is employing nonsense arguments and dishonest tactics it doesn’t make sense to spend a lot of effort to address it. Consider the ‘free fall’ fiasco, where despite repeated attempts to get a clear explanation of what was being asserted (the original claims were that entire buildings had collapsed at free fall speed, but the new truthers normal is that any part of the collapse occurring at free fall is now “the building fell at free fall”, apparently) I was unable to move past that ‘roadblock’. If you are not putting your point across clearly, and repeatedly refuse to clarify, then that is your fault. Dumping a link then running is pretty pointless, by the way (“backing up” your assertion with a link to something that is woo, or simply too complicated to be usable). Also remember that you can’t prove a negative — e.g. prove that there… Read more »

moriarty's Left Sock
moriarty's Left Sock
Sep 15, 2016 4:09 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

What nonsense arguments? I for one have not made any arguments, nonsense or otherwise, I’ve confined myself to pointing up the known shortfall in NIST’s report and suggesting the need for a new enquiry. About free fall – NIST’s original summary for WTC7 in mid-200s claimed it fell at considerably under free fall speed. This was the official position for some while and would probably be so now had David Chandler not entered the picture. Chandler’s measurements (can the admin link to the video on here about that? – [see it here – OffG ed.]) showed that the portion of WTC7 visible in collapse videos did not fall in 5.4s as NIST originally claimed, but at around 3.9, indistinguishable from free fall. Chandler was able by a fluke to have his measurements read out in public in front of NIST spokesperson Shyam-Sunder, who can be seen visibly flustered by this… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Sep 15, 2016 8:55 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

On the eve of the 12th anniversary of 9/11, nearly half of the American people suspect their government is lying about what happened that day. A recent scientific survey by YouGov, sponsored by ReThink911.org, found that only 40% of Americans are fully satisfied with the official account of 9/11, while 48% either doubt the official story or do not believe it at all. Shockingly, only 23% of Americans believe the government’s story about World Trade Center 7 – a 47-story highrise that imploded for no apparent reason on the afternoon of 9/11. (What is truly shocking is that almost one in four Americans actually believes the government’s claim that WTC-7 imploded in 6 1/2 seconds due to office fires.) The poll data shows that there is still no consensus among the American people about what really happened on 9/11, despite the government and mainstream media’s all-out efforts to reinforce the… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 9:03 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

This isn’t on topic, but I’m responding to your off topic (?) post. You write: “NIST’s original summary for WTC7 in mid-200s claimed it fell at considerably under free fall speed. This was the official position for some while and would probably be so now had David Chandler not entered the picture.” The NIST draft report gives the descent time for the 18 stories measured of the north face to be 5.4s. The final report has not altered that: it is still 5.4s. This brings up the semantic games with what “free fall” means when statements such as “WTC 7 collapsed at free fall”. It took — at least — forty percent longer to collapse than it would have if it had collapsed due to free fall. This means that the structural support did not fail as comprehensively as in a controlled demolition. (It also didn’t fall particularly neatly, given… Read more »

James Carless
James Carless
Sep 15, 2016 3:49 AM

I too have lost friends of 30yrs standing,it is painful to have to choose, between what I consider so fundamental to any understanding of how the the neo-con deep state has taken over the historical narrative,and the apathetic dismissal of those who you have loved and respected. I cannot keep my silence,it has become part of my DNA,like challenging climate change denial.Some issues have to be raised again and again,I do so with neighbours,total strangers,the postman,chimney sweep,my GP, relatives that I only meet every few years at a funeral,even invite witless Jehova witness in for a chat under the pretext that I am interested in talking to them about my ‘religion’ (they sit politely for up to an hour before attempting to escape !) My 9/11 evangelism has cost me the witnesses of past years of shared laughter and tears, it bothers and hurts me like an unwanted divorce,but at… Read more »

paulcarline
paulcarline
Sep 15, 2016 9:34 AM
Reply to  James Carless

It’s fascinating to see that even those ‘awakened’ people who have had the passion for truth and courage to push through the official disinformation campaign about 9/11 – even when it means losing close friends who are unable to put aside their prejudices and fears and look at simple facts … fascinating then to find many a 9/11 truther still believing the human-caused climate change lie which has become as big a tabu subject as the Holocaust. If we as ‘truthers’ accept the evidence that planes and fire did not bring down the Twin Towers and that there is in reality no evidence for hijackers and hijackings, we should also be prepared to consider the evidence that there has been no appreciable rise in average global temperatures for some 18 years. The indisputable fact that there is less Arctic ice is balanced by the fact that there is significantly more… Read more »

Admin
Admin
Sep 15, 2016 10:12 AM
Reply to  paulcarline

Stay on topic. No Holocaust. No climate change. Just 9/11.

binra
binra
Sep 16, 2016 6:20 PM
Reply to  Admin

Mind control unites all three – regardless of whether they are part or wholly contrived – why? Because of the use to which they are put – by whom? By those who look to their (conditioned) mind for control. 9/11 is a mindbomb. Not unlike trojan code designed to infiltrate and usurp or undermine system integrity. One can assert or argue all kinds of points as if the event was n the past – but in terms of its payload it is ongoing. However, I appreciate your moderation with regard to ad hom in particular. Nip it in the bud. Fixed identity automatically disrupts and blocks communication deemed coercive or threatening – but can be itself disrupted and blocked or indeed manipulated. True identification rises as a result of communication – for we recognize ourself in Spirit or true purpose – just as we lose our self in defensive reaction… Read more »

paulcarline
paulcarline
Sep 16, 2016 10:13 PM
Reply to  Admin

Sorry! I wasn’t intending to open up a different subject. I merely wanted to make the simple point that most of us – maybe all of us – have beliefs that we find extremely difficult to give up even when solid evidence is provided against them.
Maybe you can start a climate change thread sometime. I’d love to quote the letter 31,487 US scientists sent to the government.

Husq
Husq
Sep 15, 2016 10:12 AM
Reply to  paulcarline

Personally. I’m with James Lovelock who was originally an AGW fanatic but now says nobody really knows what is happening. The Earth itself is in an environment and will be affected by that.
This I find quite interesting:

Admin
Admin
Sep 15, 2016 10:56 AM
Reply to  Husq

STAY ON TOPIC.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 1:48 PM
Reply to  Admin

You’ve opened the door to this.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 15, 2016 4:02 PM
Reply to  Admin

Just a suggestion, and not that I disagree with your admonition: it would be great if, in the future, OffG did with the topic of AGW what it is now doing with 9/11. The only thing that I would change is the amount of time allotted between requesting submissions and the days or weeks during which posting would focus on that topic: I’d call it at least a month or so ahead of time, to give people time to gather up and organize their material. Entirely agree: apart from the fact that it is almost impossible to avoid mention of the anti-Semitic slur that — like the accusation of being a “conspiracy theorist” — is used as a blanket indictment to discredit without distinction the entire spectrum of viewpoints of those who are 9/11 skeptics, people should make an effort to “stay on topic.” On the other hand, anyone who… Read more »

flaxgirl
flaxgirl
Jan 22, 2017 1:27 AM
Reply to  James Carless

Love the example of the Jehovah’s witnesses. It’s reassuring to know that other people are fanatical about 9/11 too. It’s funny – so many of my friends treat me as nutty and tend not to believe what I say but I got a big shock the other day. Because I anticipated extreme skepticism (and also I guess because the burden of such horrible truth is something to bear) I was reluctantly telling friends who are a couple about Linda Barnett, a woman raised in Engadine, Sydney, whose Lithuanian Nazi step-grandfather and local Lithuanian Nazi doctor, “hired” her out to VIP paedophiles/satanists, including extremely prominent politicians. I said that she said that the worst one was Antony Kidman, Nicole Kidman’s father, ironically, a highly-respected academic in the fields of psychology and bio-chemistry. The wife’s response was, “That doesn’t surprise me.” You could have knocked me over with a feather. My immediate… Read more »

wj2
wj2
Sep 15, 2016 3:29 AM


Watch this recently published series om 9/11 suspects and then tell me how you could not at least believe that the US government let the attacks willfully happen.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 1:55 PM
Reply to  wj2

Do you mean “believe after proof has been supplied that appears to be convincing”, or just “believe” because the government / elites can and have done horrific things in the past?
Just as you should never believe something important because it is officially sanctioned (Iraq’s WMDs), you should also not believe something because it fits in with your view on the nature of the system of power in place — particularly if it is not required to fill any gaps that require explanation.

moriarty's Left Sock
moriarty's Left Sock
Sep 15, 2016 2:30 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

But the gaps that require explanation in NIST’s story have been shown you again and again.
1) the assumption of zero TC for steel in NIST’s models makes the model physics completely unrepresentative of real-world physics. See here:
http://911blogger.com/node/17704
2) There’s no explication of how the asymmetrical damage produced symmetrical collapse. In fact NIST does not model the collapse as such at all.
3) NIST will not release their model data so no independent scientists can replicate their studies. This is a fundamental failure of basic scientific protocol.
http://911blogger.com/news/2012-07-20/requesting-release-nist-computer-model-wtc7
These are staring gaps the require to be filled. Guesswork – yours or anyone else’s – can’t fill those gaps. Only a new enquiry with open access to all data can hope to do that.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 15, 2016 3:10 PM

“But the gaps that require explanation in NIST’s story have been shown you again and again.”
No, the assertionthat there are gaps has been made, and I don’t find them credible.
Try reading a debunking site such as ISF (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64) where people with some expertise swat down these ‘theories’.
To keep this on topic, note that the ISF people are not being respectful and tolerant of the ‘truther’ posters, unless they stick to their point. (They treat liars as liars, honest rubes as honest rubes, etc.) This is, in my view, perfectly fair.
(Also often very funny, because people resort to humour when faced with repeated stupidity.)

moriarty's Left Sock
moriarty's Left Sock
Sep 15, 2016 3:35 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Let’s try to draw a line between facts and opinions. That NIST refuses to release its models is a fact. Well-documented. I posted one source, you can find others easily. That NIST has declined to explicate the collapse process or how asymmetrical damage produced unique symmetrical collapse three times in one day is also a fact. I don’t link to it here, but I have elsewhere, and NIST explicitly affirms it That NIST assigned a thermal conductivity of 0 for all the steel in its model is also a fact which NIST acknowledges itself and which has also been linked to and is easy to verify. So, these things are facts, and you can’t brush them away as if they were not. And these facts are the basis for increasing numbers of scientists to support the call for another and more thorough investigation. It’s entirely separate from any theories or… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 10:48 AM

“That NIST refuses to release its models is a fact.” They have refused, so far as I know. The reason they gave, is, I think, BS. The real reason, in my opinion, is they saw what happens when every idiot can get their hands on specialised data, by way of the ‘climategate’ nonsense. “That NIST has declined to explicate the collapse process or how asymmetrical damage produced unique symmetrical collapse three times in one day is also a fact.” No, that isn’t factual at all. 1) They have explained the collapse initiation for the towers — after the initiating event, gravity took over. 2) Neither of the towers, nor WTC 7 collapsed symetrically. Part of WTC 1 gauged a huge hold down the side of the south face, and other debris took out one lower corner, in the case of WTC 7. That the towers didn’t fall over sideways (or… Read more »

Loop Garou
Loop Garou
Sep 16, 2016 11:38 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

You believe NIST is keeping its data secret because it’s worried stupid people will get hold of it and do stupid stuff? You don’t think it just might be because it’s worried smart people will get hold of it and do smart stuff? Are you ok with this kind of censorship? Is it ok to suppress any amount of data about anything if the alternative is letting dumb people see it? Where’s the line to be drawn there? When you say the fact NIST set the thermal conductivity of the steel to zero is not a problem because NIST did physical tests prior to modeling, are you claiming NIST did actual real-world tests that found a thermal conductivity of zero for the steel it was testing? You are saying NIST found real steel in the real world that had NO ability to conduct heat? To quote the OffGuardian mods –… Read more »

Loop Garou
Loop Garou
Sep 16, 2016 11:53 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

And it’s already been pointed out the ARUP data didn’t confirm NIST, ARUP produced its own analysis prior to NIST and drew its own conclusions focused mainly on the fire-proofing on the steel. We won’t get confirmation of NIST’s claims until it releases its models for duplication.
Regardless any amount of special pleading it’s a scientific disgrace they have yet to do so.

moriarty's Left Sock
moriarty's Left Sock
Sep 16, 2016 1:19 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

@ JeromeFryer Loop Garu has already covered most of your frankly quite bizarre claims. 1) censorship of scientific data is never justified 2) “After that gravity took over”? I don’t know whether this claim is based on ill-informed but honest faith in NIST or an intent to troll [no ad hom – OffG ed]. What do you think this means? That there is literally nothing left to explain beyond “initiation”? In scientific protocol the fact no building has ever before or since collapsed due to fire means any theory that these three buildings – of two different designs – DID collapse due to fire needs explicit and careful explication – not just a summary of “initiation”. It’s a claim that an event heretofore considered improbable to the point of exclusion happened, not once but THREE TIMES, on one day in one place. This is by any stretch an extraordinary claim,… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 3:49 PM

Please address my point about the model being calibrated to fit the physical tests. It appears that you ether can’t grasp that fact (and why it makes the quibbling about the design of the model irrelevant) or are deliberately avoiding answering the point because you do understand it. I want to know which it is. As to your other rehashed points: look at ‘evidence’ provided by sceptics and the debunkers, or go look for yourself. I just posted in the latest article (with the “Steve Spak” video that the editors here seem to feel represents WTC 7 ablaze) a couple of videos and a map of the area that don’t fit the narrative that you’re using to create your “we need” points. NOTE FROM ADMIN: OffG is notclaiming the Steve Spak film shows WTC7 ablaze. A commenter and proponent of the official theory posted the video here in a comment,… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 12:16 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Dear Jerome, You play with the word “assertion.” No one can say anything without “asserting” what they say, eh. But there are different kinds of “assertions,” in quality and intent. There are “assertions” that are unwarranted and those that are. The kinds of assertions that you habitually make are unwarranted, as indeed you are here making. Here is an example of an “assertion” about “gaps” in somebody’s else’s work that is left completely unsubstantiated as it stands by itself and that is therefore unwarranted: Quote begins: “@Anonymous: The errors and omissions in the Harrit paper are so large and stunning to any materials scientist that there is no reason to repeat experiments because there is no credible evidence for nanothermite.” Quote ends. Denis Rancourt, November 15, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Furthermore, Rancourt draws the logically spurious conclusion from his “assertion” that because the Harrit paper is full of “gaps,” no… Read more »

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 10:54 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

“Why, for example, is it not problematic to model an implosion of a steel framed building on the assumption that steel does not act as a heat sink when in reality all steel conducts and dissipates heat?”

I explained, at length, why that is a red herring.
Perhaps you could explain why you believe that the model was defective, if it was able to reproduce the results obtained from the physical tests performed?
[the alleged problems with the models have been extensively explained and sourced in direct reply to you, see here and here , no point in asking again and again for sources provided – OffG ed.]

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 16, 2016 10:58 AM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Two Hasbara trolls disrupting the thread. How does it feel to knowingly serve the interests of mass murderers? Bit of luck for you that there is no God, eh?
….you’re wrong about that too.

Admin
Admin
Sep 16, 2016 12:00 PM

No content-free ad hom please. It in itself is serving the trolls.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 16, 2016 1:03 PM
Reply to  Admin

To Admin: Please delete this post if you wish. The thing I find distressing about the presence of these people is the fact I know they are highly organised, probably sitting in offices being paid for their activities. I discovered this during heated exchanges on a YouTube Comments thread (not about 9/11 but after a video with about 1.5 million views wherein well-known British comedians attacked “stupid Christians” … it was a ‘War against God’ thing). I took on a bunch of the foul-mouthed atheist mockers and (though I say it myself) they were having a serious problem getting the upper hand. Next thing, about 6 of them were attacking a ‘Christian idiot’ they called Scott Zimmerman and the threads became filled with comments relating to this person’s foolishness. There were many hundreds of comments posted and I went through them all to find what these people were on about.… Read more »

binra
binra
Sep 19, 2016 4:01 PM

I feel to USE the opportunity of baiting to develop discernment as to the ways conflicts are introduced, insinuations and invalidations slipped in, and all the trickery of intent to undermine, confound, confuse and disseminate disinfo – regardkless whether the instigator is paid of a volunteer – for anyone can for example become polarized against ‘truthers’ as if there is one thing under such a name and then they feel validated in opposition. Indeed that is something that many who identify with ‘truthers’ attract – if they try to force upon others without consent – which they may at times because the horror of the predicament of being killed, lied to and covered up on such a scale and in such a way, by those who were trusted to serve the common interest – taps into the rage undercurrent in the acts – and the lies – themselves. I don’t… Read more »

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 19, 2016 4:12 PM
Reply to  binra

I can’t work out if you’re trying to stimulate my better nature or my haemorrhoids.

Jerome Fryer
Jerome Fryer
Sep 16, 2016 4:52 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

OffG Ed:
Repeatedly claiming that ‘the model is wrong because of [some simplifications noted by NIST]’ is not addressing my point that the model is correct — fit for purpose — because it is specifically calibrated to ensure that it reproduces physical testing. Unless reality (in the form of that testing) is ‘wrong’, the model can’t be wrong.
The only way the model could be deficient is if it didn’t match the results from the physical testing. If you wanted to assert that the models were wrong then your best line of attack is the physical test processes — but, oddly, that is ignored.
This shouldn’t be a difficult point to grasp: model matches reality, therefore model works.
(NIST also noted several other simplifications in their models, but those don’t appear to have gripped the minds of the ‘truthers’ for some reason.)

Loop Garou
Loop Garou
Sep 16, 2016 5:11 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

Turning the thermal conductivity of steel to zero is a “simplification” ?
Denying a fundamental physical property of metals is a “simplification”?
LOL!
Jerome, this is like saying “gee building this airplane is so hard, I know let’s simplify it and adjust gravity to zero”.
Steel conducts heat. It always has and it always will. If you turn that property off in your model, your model will be wrong.
Regarding these physical tests you keep talking about- what do you think they involved? Do you think NIST made a scale model of the towers, burned them, produced collapses just like the ones seen on 9/11 and built their computer model on that?
Holy Hell, I think you actually might think that.
Oookay….When I have more time I’ll talk about the “physical tests” NIST actually did.

physicsandmathsrevision
physicsandmathsrevision
Sep 16, 2016 5:54 PM
Reply to  Jerome Fryer

These posts are insincere designed to drive casual visitor from page. Familiar activity.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Sep 16, 2016 5:36 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

“So again, I’m calling you out as a troll because that is what you are doing in effect. It is high time that you left the scene, in my opinion.” I wish to retract that statement, or at least a part of it: I still think that Jerome is a troll, but he is actually very useful to the cause of unraveling the ‘official narrative about 9/11’ and for elucidating and making the actual “case” for the need to formally and legally re-investigate the crime of 9/11. In his persistence, he certainly brings up a lot of issues that would otherwise not get aired, discussed and rebutted. My exasperation, then, with Jerome has less to do with the “points” he thinks he’s making than with the “repetitiveness” with which he makes them. Please, for the love of Gautama Buddha, say it once, maybe twice, and then get on to the… Read more »