9/11, 9/11 fifteen years on, latest
Comments 95

OffGuardian’s 9/11 Articles: A Reader’s Point of View

by Mog


I started reading OffGuardian shortly after it set up, following a link from the Medialens forum discussion board. As someone who has both sought out non-mainstream sources of news, and followed the 911 debate closely for about ten years, I was both surprised and fascinated that the OffG editors decided to mark the 15 year anniversary by taking on this controversy. I think it is indisputable that there is a definitely identifiable taboo that surrounds any critical approach to examining the events of 911, and in light of the general silence amongst most alt media commentators, my first thoughts were that OffG have been admirably brave to break that ‘spiral of silence’.

It is interesting to read how this recent anniversary has been marked. The mass media has been relatively quiet about it, and so have many dissenting voices online. It is as if the elephant in the room has reproduced into a small herd over the past decade and a half.

The position that is defined by unreserved acceptance of the official version of 911- that laid out in the 911 Commission Report, the NIST reports and the FBI Amerithrax report, is rigid and brittle. We know that the Commission Report was compromised to the point of making it a glaring cover up, we know that it was essentially a creation of a fanatical Neoconservative, and we know that Neocons ‘have form’ i.e. that they lied us into terrible wars. We know that the Amerithrax case is shattered, that its fundamental premise is disputed by the highest scientific authority in the US, and we know that the FBI is rivened with disputes about the case against Ivins. We now know that the NIST reports omitted vital details, and classified others, and were closed to any meaningful review process, thus rendering them outside the category of ‘scientific’.

So the only legitimate position is to at least accept that the truth about 911 has not come out; to acknowledge that the usual adversarial processes and institutions that vet what we call ‘true’, have completely broken down in the case of 911. There has undeniably been a cover up – for whatever reason that may be, so the moral obligation must be to demand a reversal in that cover up. The comments read here this past week, that, point blank, refuse to see ‘911 Truth’ as a call for truth, but insist instead that it is a claim on ‘truth’, (i.e. a predetermined conclusion -the essence of which these pseudosceptics dispute) hold a very fragile opinion, one that crumbles to nothing at the first touch of genuine critical thought. If those who have been engaged or supportive of 911 research are ‘Truthers’ then their opponents are surely ‘Bunkers’- steadfast in their almost religious insistence on the veracity of official statements made by known liars.

The fact that the vast majority of dissenting writers in the West are unable to make statements that go at least as far as pointing out the failure of the official accounts is troubling. The most interesting discussion for me in OffG was that about Chomsky’s pronouncements that are emblematic of this inability to merely point out that (in line with standard form) the government lied about 911. In this, again, OffGuardian must be congratulated for not shying away from controversy.

It is as if the pricking of that bubble, the touching of a façade, would open a discussion that would, in its conclusion, bring the whole fictive locomotive to a screaming halt. Chomsky, Cockburn, Monbiot are ‘gatekeepers’. Whether we understand that term functionally in the sense that they are unwittingly blinded by their unconscious preconceptions about deep events, or whether we think that there is some more Machiavellian interference in their strange break from reasoned arguments, the effect is ultimately the same: many critical thinkers have been put off looking into 911 by the a priori position of high profile public intellectuals. This position says that 911 research is all distracting nonsense, period. Personally it took me a very long time to close the rift that was opened up when I started to question ‘the rational boundaries’ of questioning itself – as policed by public thinkers whom I had long admired and trusted.

If we do start to question the 911 story in earnest, we end up with a small encyclopaedia of facts that should be of interest to any who might have the power to investigate further; the articles that have appeared in OffGuardian have barely scratched the surface. For the obvious reason that most of the fatalities occurred due to the WTC building collapses/ demolitions, there has been an understandable focus on this element. However, just about every single aspect of the crime is, on closer inspection, problematic. If we question:

  • The origins of the organisation alleged to be responsible, Al Qaeda, and its subsequent history since the events of 911,
  • The source of the expertise in training AQ operatives,
  • The accounts of how the alleged terrorists got access to USA,
  • The tracking and surveillance by intelligence agencies,
  • Where and with whom these alleged terrorists lived,
  • Who funded their stay, their travel, their training,
  • Who ran the flight schools where they were supposedly trained,
  • How equipped they were to carry out what was attributed to them,
  • What were their real motivations,
  • The evidence that they actually boarded and hijacked those planes,
  • The companies and individuals who were responsible for stopping terrorists getting on those planes at those airports,
  • The responses of the US command structure in face of the attacks,
  • The details of the flight paths, altitudes and speeds of those planes,
  • The phonecalls that allegedly originated from those planes,
  • The details of the crashes themselves and the procedures for evaluating them afterwards,
  • The occupants in the buildings, the crash zones of the buildings, the owners of the buildings…the fate of the buildings,
  • The people who destroyed evidence and thereby covered up the crime of 911,
  • The money trails

…and on, we find many threads leading back to state intelligence actors and agencies (US, Saudi, Israeli, Pakistani). Pseudosceptics allege here a ‘cherry picking of evidence’ in the support of an absurd hypothesis. I think it is more like pointing out an orchard of cherry trees along with the US Government sign that boldly reads, ‘This Is A Hill Of Beans’. The sheer weight of evidence cannot reasonably be written off as co-incidences and cock-ups, and I would assert that only a tiny minority of those who thoroughly wade into the deep waters of 911 research emerge the other side not at least suspecting US insider involvement.

What have we learned from any of this? What use is it? If not mere distraction, then what? For me it points to a fundamental shortcoming in most that I read in politically dissenting journalism. In light of the deep political analysis of such things as 911, we can conclude that the greatest problem with our society is uncontained, unaccountable, secretive power; power that acts to promote agendas that serve elite interests at the expense of humanity at large.

This needs to be repeatedly acknowledged front and centre of any critical writing on politics, economics and geopolitical conflicts . If one accepts that the US Gov/ Neocon version of 911 is not complete, or if one goes so far as to accept the prima facie case against US insiders, then it must, obviously, colour all analysis that follows. This by and large has not happened, and so we have tens of thousands of articles critical of the way the world situation has developed in the aftermath of 911, that almost all unquestioningly accept the official story as true and complete. If we hold any hope or desire for a more peaceful and just planet then the essentially criminal aspects of the ‘overworld’ of state and private intelligence needs to be brought under public control.

The extent of their lies must at least be acknowledged. I am heartened to read that reputable online media like OffGuardian are trying to open this debate in parts of the internet that have for too long disregarded it out of hand.


  1. kimcarsons says

    Networks of promotion/control slide imperceptibly into networks of
    surveillance/disinformation. Formerly one only conspired against an
    established order. Today, conspiring in its favor is a new and flourishing
    profession. Under spectacular domination, people conspire to maintain it,
    and to guarantee what it alone would call its well-being. This conspiracy is a
    part of its very functioning. Provisions for a kind of preventive civil war are
    already being made, adapted to variously calculated future projections’

    Guy Debord – comments on the society of the Spectacle

  2. rtj1211 says

    THere is an implicit assumption in this article that ‘high profile’ ‘public intellectuals’ are capable of being gatekeepers on an event as complex to carry out forensic analysis on 911 is extremely naive. None of these people have the scientific or engineering firepower to remotely interrogate technical analysis. They are professional writers/philosophers, not scientists.

    There are, after all, various experiences you have to go through to be capable and confident in challenging the most powerful people on earth:

    1): You have to have experienced betrayal by those you had a right to trust. THat makes you question everything.
    2): You have to have pursued something to a world-leading level, whatever that is. You see the world holistically if you reach that level…
    3): You must put truth before narrow ambition, since you will be blacklisted by those your investigations threaten. That implies you must be financially secure or backed by financially independent players.

    You don’t usually find that trio of attributes in hierarchies. Fitting in, loyalty etc are paramount there.

  3. I don’t think that anyone would argue with Mog that suspecting the US gov of knowing more about 9/11 than it’s letting on is reasonable. I think Mog makes many good points. And I am no more against continuing to look into it than I am against continuing to look into the death of JFK, another big society-shaking event. But we can disappear into these black holes. I’m not saying we are, but…

    It’s a little like knowing whether George W is a Freemason or Skull & Bones (I forget which it is, but many of the presidents were Freemasons). Do we need to know, specifically, that GW is a Freemason to know what to make of him? Do we need to know specifically whether GW is a Freemason in order to draw a conclusion about whether he represents something that we can get behind? Can we indict him if we are uncertain, or entirely ignorant of, his Masonic membership? I am not uninterested. It’s interesting. But balance is important.

    Know, not in order to know, but in order to know what to think. Knowing what to think means more than knowing details. It means possessing enough info to allow you to follow or oppose. I have no problem with those who strive to become experts. That’s great, especially if it’s in the service of something greater than oneself. And I used to think that I’m not a perfectionist because imperfect humans, which is all of us, can’t be perfectionists. And yet, In areas that I focus on out of interest and concern, I ‘do’ constantly try to make improvements. Sometimes I’m quite frustrated when I bump up against the reality that we don’t always possess the control over our own lives that would allow us to pursue this or that course. So it’s not quite the case that I’m not perfectionist, if you define it with those parameters in mind. Let those who delve into 9/11 (with impressive results, I see) continue to do so, but let us not get lost down any rabbit holes.

      • Loop Garou says

        No idea why you received a down vote. I think you make an excellent and nuanced point.

        • Thanks Loop. This is why I would never use a ‘like’ feature were I to host a discussion forum. I use them as a participant because, at the same time, they are there and you want to support what you want to support, sometimes urgently. But I do think that they are open to abuse. Someone disagreeing or agreeing with you can say why, in my opinion. Or at least, in ‘person’ say that he (or…) agrees or disagrees. Just goes to show, Imperfect humans can’t create perfect systems.

  4. BigB says

    Hey Norman, I’m with you!
    So what is this bona fide case/ official narrative that the debunkers are defending? Based on a violated crime scene – disappeared primary evidence; an underfunded (and unwanted) cOmmission (‘set up to fail’); ignoring testimony of first responders (who reported explosions, molten steel etc); based on third party accounts of ‘evidence’ acquired by torture; ‘translated’ (in part) by a translator that spoke Turkish – but not English (see Sibel Edmonds); written into an outline provided by a regime insider whose role is Public Myth Making; which proceeded from its foregone conclusion (al Quaeda did it); didn’t look into conspiracy; did’nt follow the money; limited metalurgic analysis performed by Fema that found a beam that had previously had been molten but was not followed up by NIST; NIST? toilet paper; show trial 1 (Moussaoui – not a nice man – deserves life in prison – but accessory to the crime?); rather than accept his guilty plea they (FBI) instead admit Olson lies (no boxcutters, no hijacking – a very big part of the narrative dies); show trial 2 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (et al) – self confessed architect of 9/11 (after 130 waterboardings I would admit to being the architect!); a mistrial waiting to happen after Judge forced to admit Obama regime destroyed evidence…
    I’ve left out more than I put in – you can see where I am going – is there any real credible evidence left to support the official narrative? And its ‘Truthers’ that get accused of building a case not supported by fact? Seems to me its the government lies that are falling faster than WTC7 in freefall.

  5. Jerome Fryer says

    There is an answer from one of the members of the ISL forums here:

    “Mog” seems to be setting up a Gish Gallop, here. None of his points bear fruit in terms of discrediting or even challenging the consensus understanding of events.

    It is weird how ‘truthers’ and other cranks are happy to believe that a government can create a massive conspiracy theory involving a lot of completely unecessary complications, when they can’t even manage to — for example — create some fake evidence for WMDs in Iraq.

    • Everyone, do take cover! Here comes Jerome, again, intrepidly piloting his B-17 Flying Fortress, busy as can be in the midst of all its antiquated controls, with another load of rebuking well researched responses with which to carpet bomb the comments of anyone doubting that some among 19 Arabs from the Middle East, after easily defeating NORAD while flying multi-ton airliners for the first time in their lives with passports safely tucked into their back pockets, took down the Twin Towers and WTC7 with only two planes, office fires and nothing but gravity, thereby proving the impossible but truly miraculous, that asymmetric chaotic damage to steel framed buildings can indeed cause them to collapse in perfect symmetry, all the while pulverizing concrete well in excess of the available gravitational potential energy of the first two buildings to collapse and managing, yet, to heave enough debris across impossible distances at a building only to set it ablaze and also and in turn and in the end to cause it to implode just as symmetrically, only this time right into it’s own footprint in a condition of ‘free fall’ that lasted no less than 2.5 seconds or over the equivalent height of an astounding 8 stories.

      Jerome’s story will sound incredible, do be warned. . . because, of course, it is . . .

      • Jerome Fryer says

        Yes, because tons of magic explosives (1), having been carefully installed into three of the WTC buildings (but only three, for an unexplained reason — ran out of money to buy more explosives?) by a team of ninjas (2) over the course of weeks to months, using a detonation method that left no trace (let alone the explosives themselves) — and all to ensure…

        Well, what is the reasoning? Unless the towers were completely collapsed, the conspirators would be unable to convince the public to start a ‘War on Terror”? No support to attack a country not at all connected with the attacks? Why was the “WMD” fantasy required, then?

        On the one hand: governmental incompetence and an unprecedented event (one that building designers hadn’t really considered).

        On the other hand: a mega-conspiracy with a huge number of potential points of failure and chance for exposing, using non-existent materials and technology, to ensure an outcome that would not have been significantly different from lunatics ramming aircraft (full of people) into towers (full of more people).

        Is there some kind of ‘murder count’ that has to be reached before the public can be convinced that something should be done? “Oh, well, Al Queda did murder eight hundred people; but really I think we should ignore them unless they can murder at least a couple of thousand people in one terrorist attack.”

        (1) Explosives capable of hurling enormous sections of debris outside of the ‘symetrical’ footprint that ‘truthers’ are so infatuated with, but are also incredibly quiet and produce no flash of light.

        (2) Ninjas able to remove wall cladding, emplace explosives, then put up new cladding, all without detection.

        Seems credible. To a ‘truther’.

        • You surpass your usual level of illogic this evening, Jerome. You should take a nap and come back when you feel more alert and have another go. (If I may make a suggestion: you should exclude this particular come-back from your list of comments to include in your upcoming anthology.)

          Let me try to help you formulate the point that I think you are trying to make:

          “The sequences of events, as they actually happened, are so complex and improbable, that there is no way that the world’s most logistically and technologically advanced nation on the planet could have made them happen although, it’s true, 19 Arabs with box cutters did make them happen.”

          The foregoing is a “reduction” of:

          “. . . a mega-conspiracy with a huge number of potential points of failure and chance for exposing, using non-existent materials and technology, to ensure an outcome that would not have been significantly different from lunatics ramming aircraft (full of people) into towers (full of more people).”

          Gees, that kind of reads a lot like what I wrote in the original comment to which you responded.

          Seems like a lot of repetition and redundancy, to me. What about your, Jerome?

        • Full access to structural core columns by way of elevator shafts, combined with scheduled elevator upgrades, unusual powerdowns and removal of “bomb-sniffing” dogs prior to 9/11, suspicious entities in charge of security, and a whole host of other well-documented facts I won’t get into here, provide fertile grounds for a real investigation of real people with real names and addresses.

          All three towers exhibited complete loss of core column integrity , and it’s no secret that wireless near-silent thermite cutters could certainly do this damage, to facilitate the buildings falling fast into their own footprints. The many witnessed sounds of explosions going off just add to the timeline mystery.

          Obviously the WTC7 collapse was nearly miraculous in it’s symmetry, and was most successful at limiting damage to neighbouring buildings. It was also the first pile of crime scene to be “cleaned up” inspite of no potential survival of occupants since it had been fully evacuated by 3pm. The twin towers, being over twice as high, jettisoned a lot of perimeter strutcure as the cores collapsed, but then nobody in the world really had much experience with CD on this size of building before.

          One possibility is that the buildings were wired for CD as a legitimate public safety measure, since everyone and their dog knew that these buildings were iconic targets, and the chance of a collapse proceeding like a tree cut down had to be reduced or eliminated. This scenario provides for CD technicians doing the work for a positive reason, and secrecy about it is also in the public’s interest since the same “fallback” probably exists now in many other skyscrapers. Keeping secrets is hardly an issue when things like a Manhattan Project “to save the world from fascism and communism” could be accomplished without any public knowledge. We even have NIST witholding information now for “public safety reasons”.

          Why my interest in all this? I’m a structural engineer and my father was a fireman.

      • Questions says

        What’s incredible is after 15 years you can’t accept the basic tenants of the Truther movement have no basis in fact. Every major talking point of Trutherism was invented by someone in the alt right, then repackaged for mainstream, or at least alternative left, consumption.
        Thermite? Invented by Steven Jones, fraudlent archaeologist and pseudo science free energy woo-miester.
        Space beams and other wacked out theories? Christopher Bollyn anti semite/holocaust denier “journalist”
        AE911truth? A fraud run by one guy that funds at least one 911 truther website, while said website claims to get no funding.
        Scholars for 9/11 Truth? Founded by patriot/antisemite loons working with other loons spreading the delusion ” elements of the U.S. government, not Osama bin Laden, masterminded the deadly attacks that killed almost 3,000 Americans.”

        Its been 15 years. No one is in the streets anyone. There’s a reason why. Trutherism is a fraud and it’s dead. Good riddance. Now get on with your life.

          • Jerome Fryer says

            The “argument” being asserted is that the people behind the ‘truther’ movement are credible, and that there is significant support.

            The numbers claimed by AE911T, even if completely accurate, are a very small fraction of those engaged in those areas of occupation. Then there is the questionable behaviour of some of the main drivers of ‘trutherism’. While charlatans could be promoting something with validity, it is less likely to be the case than if they were not so inclined.

            • Scientific claims stand or fall on the science. They do not stand or fall on the numbers of people who agree or disagree. Nor do they stand or fall in the basis of ad hom attacks.

              If you believe AE9/11Truth or any of its members or any other scientists who have produced key evidence have engaged in fraud or deception then you need to provide evidence for this.

              Please provide the data if you have it, or in all conscience withdraw the claim.

            • Not to mention the Gov funded ‘cyber defence’; astroturfing and disseminating of disinfo that dilutes, obfuscates diverts and divides the Enemy. All clever stuff.

              Discernment is essential. Discernment is the recognition of where something is coming from – not in terms of an address – but in terms of purpose. Of course if I am coming from a dis-integrity I will not ‘see’ anything but only scan for threat and for ammunition to counter it. In my being, truth is a matter of discernment – but in mind framing, truth is determined by appeals to external authority to support it – or indeed to external invalidity to undermine a rival so as to appear stronger in one’s case. But the fact is that truth is alive and beliefs are self defining identity from which we act until we change our mind.

              I can tune into a signal amidst noise – but where there is only noise there is only a noise in the form of a signal.
              I call it noise because it is an intent to block, filter or distort the communication – and to subvert and corrupt and reframe it to operate in support of a blocking agenda. Noise doesn’t have to be ‘paid’ to serve such agenda – it can get off on fantasy associations that gratify an otherwise lack of feeling with a sense of power that loves to hate.

              A factual or true account of what happened on 9/11 must currently include that such an account was not given or allowed to be given by official channels. Narrative control is dictatorship regardless it demonizes or sets up hateful ‘others’ to justify its grip on power. Who is able to dictate to the Media – has significant infiltration and agency within US and international institutions and has the power to prevent being openly criticized by anyone in public without fear of penalty? A bunch of ‘Muslim’ mercenaries?

              • I’m beginning to hear you, binra. At first, your voice was a bit foreign and strange to me, but now I’m growing accustomed to your style and well, wow, man, there is indeed depth of insight to what you write. Keep it coming.

                • Thanks for the ‘touch’ Norman, and for willingness to keep a part of your mind open amidst the initially strange and foreign. I feel that is a key to growing perspective – abiding through the perhaps temptations or reaction to judge against with a little willingness that finds its timing in some unexpected moment that has an entirely different quality than being coerced, tricked, persuaded or enticed or played for agreement, validation or attention. And of course our own thinking can operate like that whenever we limit identify to struggle within it’s framing rather than relax that to come back into alignment with a core honesty of being. There’s a tone or quality of presence to integrity that is within or through the form yet not defined by it – yet the form embodies it without hype or spin of personal assertions or personal neediness as a witness and perhaps like a tuning fork by which to shift vibration from a habitual default mentality to an appreciation. I don’t say this to suggest what I write should or need be relevant to anyone else – for it may not be or only a part might be. One has to feel within as to what resonates with and is relevant to who we currently feel and know ourself to be, and the themes we are exploring as our life. Without this inner responsibility power is given away to others or institutions or ideologies or parental upbringing and etc. Systems set up for safety and protection, themselves become captured or subverted – and operate an excellent cover beneath which to operate malign intent in broad daylight – unseen.

          • Questions says

            Only in tinfoil cuckoo land does anyone suggest the public is obligated to engaged facts with obviously unqualified people. In the real world, first on establishes credentials and a body of work before one’s so called evidence is given a hearing.

            This is why the US patent office has an automatic moratorium on perpetual motion devices. Most submitters are conman, some are self deluded, but none of them get to waste anyone’s time anymore.

            And neither should the conmen who invent “Truther” theories. If there was anything to Trutherism, it would have been mainstream news years ago. The only people pushing at-right, anti-semites conspiracy woo now are the fringe alt-right.

            And you’re badly mangling the logical fallacy critique, which only applies to people debating each other, not entire groups or political interests. If the only interests pushing a theory are fringe right racists, you don’t need a logical fallacy check list to conclude the ideas come from and were possible invented by, fringe right racists.

            • CloudSlicer says

              Eh? Do you think you could please explain that again, but calmly and carefully this time, in simple English? And preferably without all the ad hom – all it does is expose your obviously irrational bias.

            • A premise for elitism: the public are unqualified and their communications are invalid. Technocracy will tell them what to think. But mostly, they will be relieved of the capacity to think.
              An elitist cartel-protecting ‘educational’ process will confer credentials of official sanction via corrupted institutions.

              Invalidation of other human beings is used to justify denying them a voice or indeed their humanity in a call to join in hate – which is first to shout blame at everything it embodies… in the ‘other’.

              But where there is no willingness for humanity – for an outcome arising from communication and relationship – there is no conversation to be had.

              Jesus called it the lie and the father of the lie – for it is a self-replicating negative loop. A sort of perpetual war machine. “Just don’t go there!” Not that it is truly forbidden or it COULD not be chosen, but if you partake of that apple you forfeit sight and feeling of your core sanity and will experience and believe you are denied and rejected and model yourself on denial and rejection as if it protects you from loss of self and power – as if it IS self and power – when of course it feeds upon your true power in support of its addictive evaporation.

              But you wont see it until you forsake addictive power to partake of the tree of life – which also is not forbidden – though false mind frames it so and attacks or ridicules and excludes those who move away from the dark in willingness for light of a true reconciliation – because hate exchanges ‘Everything’ for pain and loss in grievance – that it thinks to ‘outsource’, so as to justify its illusion of power in self-specialness and vengeance.

              Joy is never a waste of time – and aligns and integrates true – without coercion of a carrot or stick.

        • CloudSlicer says

          @Questions: “Trutherism is a fraud and it’s dead.”

          It seems that all people like ‘Questions’ can do is make constant pejorative references to ‘Truthers’ and ‘frauds’ – whilst blithely ignoring the sound scientific research and evidence which indicates very strongly that the official story has no reasoned foundation which fits the evidence.

          Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth ( http://www.ae911truth.org/ ) has well over 2,600 qualified, highly experienced and professional architects, engineers and scientists who really do know what they are talking about, and who are calling for a new independent investigation into the events of 9/11. Anyone interested in the science of the destruction of the WTC buildings can download and read a free copy of their booklet “BEYOND MISINFORMATION : What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7” from this link:

          • Questions says

            “AE911truth? A fraud run by one guy that funds at least one 911 truther website, while said website claims to get no funding.”

            Perhaps you’d like to ask for more information on this subject? You can start with Richard Gage’s tax returns, and an interesting notation that strongly implies his organization funds the conspiracy website 911blogger.com, which claims to get no funding.

            You seem to think you know how to fact check, so I’ll let you try first. Later, if you’ve had no luck, I can direct you to the information. Or someone else might.

            Gage is a conman. Keep your money in your pocket.

            • From the “facts” of 9/11 to Richard Gage’s tax returns. Do you not see the relevance? Another absolutely crucial detail that we “truthers” have been leaving out of account. Thank you, Mr. Questions, for helping me focus on the essential issues of the matter at hand.

            • Smear? Gage could have made a LOT more money just maintaining a lowly architectural biz in SF these days. But some people act on their conscience even if it costs them a lot.

        • “Every major talking point of Trutherism was invented by someone in the alt right, then repackaged for mainstream, or at least alternative left, consumption.”

          This just in: a guy from the alt right who goes by the name of Antoine Lavoisier claims that careful observation and experiment proves that matter is neither created nor destroyed, that is, that energy in any isolated system of interactions remains constant. He then went to mumble something beneath his breath about his “truther” and loyal sidekick, Sir Isaac Newton, claiming that he long ago proved that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. He then blurted out that he simply could not comprehend how, taking these two empirically well grounded assumptions as fundamental premises, everything that is claimed to have happened on 9/11 could have happened.

          He was then pilloried by one Jerome Fryer, a Mr. Questions, and a Joe Asskicker, (the latter of whose online behavior falls quite a ways short of what his online moniker would at first blush suggest in terms of his debating skills, and would be more aptly named ‘Joe Asslicker’), who together accused him of being a scientific fraud because of his obvious “truthism.”

          Antoine would gladly have engaged his tempestuous and vitriolic interlocutors in rational debate, and indeed did try, but the trio were so incensed by the thought that anyone could not “feel as deeply” as themselves the incontrovertible and virtually divine truth professed by the church of NIST that an exchange of information and ideas was simply impossible. Antoine quietly retired from scene without the loons even noticing his departure.

    • marc says

      Jerome, can you provide us with some strong evidence as to how the AlQaeda jihadists secretly and successfully carried out this massive, complicated conspiracy on foreign soil: how did they successfully conspire to simultaneously hijack four planes and skilfully fly them into iconic targets?
      How did they know that no jets would scramble (as they always very effectively did) to ruin their precision plans?
      How did Al Qaeda know about the 90 minute stand-down of US air force that very morning – the exact window of opportunity they required?

      • Jerome Fryer says

        There is plenty of material that goes into all of that.

        For example, the FBI already knew that some of the group were planning on aircraft hijack, for example, but they did not know anything about the scope of what was being planned. The CIA may have, but failed to pass this information on to the FBI (and vice versa). So was that more likely to be 1) the usual beureucratic screw-up and turf-protecting behaviour, or 2) part of an enormous conspiracy.

        It simply doesn’t make sense to dismiss a simple explanation that does, if you bother to look into it (instead of allowing yourself to be bamboozled by woo), make perfect sense. Why assume a hugely complex conspiracy with extraordinary elements?

        ‘Truthers’ will accept that a massive conspiracy with high complexity (and no obvious benefits to the conspirators) is feasible, but then turn around and claim that buildings collapsing due to fire isn’t. If you require a precedent for the building collapses prior to 9/11 then these can be found in many partial collapses (arrested by fire fighting) — what is the precedent for the mega-conspiracy? And allegedly carried out by an administration so on-the-ball that they didn’t bother to even consider how Iraq could be governed post-invasion.

        • CloudSlicer says

          It seems, Jerome, that you cannot resist repeatedly using ad hom references to ‘Truthers’ (a known pejorative) and how they try to ‘bamboozle people by woo’ into some false and fantastic view of the world. And all because you refuse to accept the sound and reasoned objections some people have made to the ‘official conspiracy theory’ about 9/11. Your intention is clearly to try to paint people who attempt to work out what actually must have happened, as individuals who are somehow mentally deficient or deranged in some way, in the hope that this will persuade others not to take what they say seriously. That clearly seems to be your personal agenda here.

          But, 9/11 is a very serious issue which has not been properly examined or investigated because the US government prevented such taking place. The two co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton,said that the government ensured that the commission was “set up to fail”. It therefore falls to us, citizens of the world, to try to make sense of what happened by reasoned argument and deduction based on known and observed facts.

          Numerous scientists and engineers have used reasoned deduction and scientific knowledge to conclude that the WTC building MUST have been destroyed by controlled demolition, and that this method of collapsing a building is the only hypothesis which accounts for ALL the known and observed facts, features and characteristics of the collapses. They also conclude that the fire-induced collapse hypothesis accounts for NONE of the observed collapse features and characteristics.

          I note that you seem to have a particular problem accepting the idea that building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, and you continue to believe that fire damage was enough to cause it to suddenly collapse completely, at free-fall, vertically and symmetrically, and in violation of both the laws of physics and what is known about the behaviour of very robust structures such as steel-framed buildings.

          Let’s try to help you overcome this mental blind spot. We can use a simple definition and an analogy:

          This refers to the motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. If I climb a ladder in my garden and drop a golf ball, it will fall to the ground with a steadily increasing velocity because of the force of gravity, and it will do this at a known rate, picking up speed until it hits the ground. If something impedes the fall of the ball (lets say it hits the leaves and twigs of a bush on its way to the ground, then the speed of its fall at that point will be altered because of the resistance to its downward motion – and in that situation the ball is no longer in free-fall. The ball may continue to accelerate as it travels trough the obstructing bush, but at a rate less than free-fall.

          We know that building 7 was in free-fall for initially for 2.25 seconds, which amounted to a fall of 32.0 meters (105 ft), or the equivalent of 8 stories of the building. It then continued to fall, but at a rate somewhat less than free-fall as it met some amount of vertical resistance, but still continued to pick up speed as the collapse progressed.

          A simple analogy of the structural collapse:

          Imagine you have a simple 3 legged table – a flat horizontal surface (table-top) supported by 3 equally spaced legs (vertical supports). Onto this table you place a heavy box in the centre of the table-top. Let’s say it’s a box filled with books.

          Now imagine you have some special device which can instantly cut through a table leg; something like a light-sabre from the movie Star Wars.

          Q: Let’s say you use your light-sabre to cut through one leg. What will happen?
          A: Well, the table will obviously topple sideways along with the box of books.

          Q: What happens if you have 2 light-sabres and use them to simultaneously cut through 2 of the 3 legs?
          A: the table will obviously topple along with the box of books.

          Q: What must you do if you want the table-top to retain its horizontal orientation but you want it to fall vertically downwards (along with the box of books resting on it) at free-fall speed? (hint – you have 3 light-sabres to play with now).

          A: That’s right Jerome, you have to cut through all 3 legs at the same time, to remove all vertical support simultaneously. Nothing else will do it. Also, it doesn’t matter how many legs the table has; all of them must be cut simultaneously if we want to make the table-top and its contents fall vertically downwards at free-fall.

          The same analysis can be applied to a steel framed building, like building 7. All of the many columns (vertical supports) had to be cut at the same time for the building to collapse as it clearly did. Fire damage cannot manage this simultaneous removal of all vertical support and NIST has not been able to convincingly show how fire did so, despite insisting that it must be the case.

          30-Second Reel of Building 7 Collapse Footage:

          • Jerome Fryer says

            The ‘Gish Gallop’ doesn’t work well with me. I have limited time, so if you don’t get to the point I assume that you’re editorialising and just read the first and last paragraphs, and scan the rest.

            Some ‘truthers’ embrace that term, some don’t. Everyone knows what it refers to.

            Your thirty seconds of several edited snippets omits the east penthouse collapse in every single example. Here’s a full shot:


            Note that the east penthouse falls in (7:20) a full seven seconds before the outer perimeter starts to collapse (7:27).

            What do you think was going on during that seven seconds? Notice the daylight visible through the top Windows on the left, after that huge engineering section goes for a trip somewhere lower down in the building. Did you ever see that noted in your ‘truther’ sources?

            • CloudSlicer says

              That’s an interesting debating technique Jerome; you are one of the people spending a lot of time on these threads, but when someone takes the trouble to refute some of the points you make you quickly pull out a new label (Gish Gallop) to conveniently avoid the argument, and say you don’t have the time to read what has been said. That’s really quite lazy, as well as being deceptive and disingenuous.

              With reference to your posted video:
              The east penthouse falls first, true. It is soon followed by other structures visible on the roof, before the whole perimeter structure goes into a free-fall collapse. This is typical of a well known controlled demolition technique called ‘implosion’, whereby some of the core/inner columns in a building are cut first (the ones under the east penthouse, for instance) in order to first weaken the overall structure and to place the outer, perimeter parts of the building’s structural framework (to which the inner collapsed sections are still attached) under inward acting tension. This ensures that the outer parts of the building will tend to fall inwards (not outwards) during the subsequent collapse when the remaining perimeter structural columns are simultaneously cut. Hence, the building falls neatly ‘into its own footprint’ with minimum damage to other nearby buildings.

              There is a very interesting explanation of why NIST’s fire-induced progressive collapse hypothesis is bunkum here:

              And another article on how buildings are actually imploded by controlled demolition here:

              Perhaps you can take the time to read them.

              • Jerome Fryer says

                “The east penthouse falls first, true.”
                Yet this is always omitted from ‘truther’ edits.

                “This is typical of a well known controlled demolition technique called ‘implosion’”
                If this supports the ‘truther’ controlled demolition assertion, why is it edited out?

        • Iraq’s post-war (sic) situation can be plausibly denied as a failure of post war vision – and it can be seen as executed by design.
          Destructive agenda has no intention of fulfilling any of its war-justifying calls for freedom and democracy and no more than a few token exceptions of any care for the people involved. Love dies, hate laughs.
          Deceit pervades like a fungus below the ground and 9/11 is like a toadstool to spore another phase of the takeover from within… our own minds.
          Deceit is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

          But why should “mega-conspiracy” not operate through the cover of “usual bureaucratic screw-up”. No one but the fewest need actually be in the ‘1%’ insider circle. Everyone else is manipulated through the usual means and knows only what they are allowed or deceived into believing.

          Why? Because they CAN – and declare it in the act.

          The pervasive parroting assertion of an “official” narrative and its primary derivatives – makes any deviation or difference stand out as dissonant – (THAT is its purpose). And the dissonant are then to be associated with and helped to be associated with woo – or any other derisory invalidation that serves the same purpose. Disinfo agents are trained and paid to engage in fruitless futile fuzzying of communications contra to or marked as threat to official narrative control.
          This is just like an autoimmune disease where the mechanisms of protection turn upon one’s own natural function destructively. 9/11 is one strand in a globally destructive agenda.

          How to seem powerful?
          Set everyone else into self-destructive and other-destructive conflicts from which weakness and dependency seek to hide their shame – and then allow them to be led like captive cattle. Deceit feeds like a parasite on a willingness to be deceived.
          The deceit of power blindly uses those who believe it gives them power – just as they use others. Hollowed out and blinded in denials that serve a loveless dictate.

          Reading that last paragraph carefully identifies where freedom, responsibility and power are to be lived and shared. That’s the difference from fear-driven elitism of self-specialness that is so set in mind as to have no receptivity – only taking and getting. Willingness to receive – within a discernment of purpose. If we open to conflicted purpose we open to corruption of our thought. Watch and see for yourself. Use the experience of being deceived as an educative exposure of the devices and tricks. Then you are no longer deceived – but educated regarding your own responsibility and ability to respond or act from a conscious sense of integration rather than an unseated out of balance attempt to get back what you have not in fact lost – but lost sight of.

        • Seems that communications in the standard military chain of command are only as strong as their weakest link. This is why we have the old wartime yarn that “Send reinforcements, we’re going to advance” can easily turn into “Send three and fourpence, we’re going to a dance”.

          Nearly everyone in the FAA and the Air Force exhibited a profound pandemic of confusion that day, a confusion that is so easily engineered and then covered up, with false blips on radar screens, war games that “went live”, and key people in command that went AWOL but still got a promotion later.

          Pilots for 9/11 Truth have amassed a lot of data worth examining.

      • john miller says

        Wow, the massive complicated conspiracy on foreign soil… What?
        Gee whiz, they bought tickets to fly.
        And then they did the most complicated plot ever… it has many steps…
        1. Take planes.
        2. Crash planes.
        Imagine the massive training, learning to cut throats. What a skill set.
        Imagine the massive funding, 5 dollar knives. Wow.
        Imagine that most America kids off the street with no training can fly a 767/757 better than the four failed idiot terrorist pilots.
        9/11 truth claims are based on the overwhelming ignorance of the believers. Sums up the movement based on lies, failed opinions, zero science, and a lot of BS.
        The plot, too complicated for…
        How did they secretly buy airline tickets to fly that day? Paid cash. They did not tell the crew or the airline they were going to stab crew members, kill pilots, and take planes. Keeping it a secret by not talking.
        They picked flights that took off at the same time, you ask simple question.
        There were no great flying skills, crashing a plane is the easiest maneuver because it can be done at any speed, landing is an exact target speed, crashing at any attitude, even upside down, landing has to be a set attitude; thus you see crashing and flying big jets, it is much easier to hit a 900 foot wide target in a very stable 757, vs a single engine prop on a 40 foot runway, where Hani flew for practice once, and he could care less if he could land properly, he was planning on crashing. There were no skillful flying on 9/11, you are fooled by bogus opinions.
        Playing the old NORAD card. The airspace over our cities was not patrolled by NORAD, NORAD patrols the coast in the ADIZ (look it up). NORAD cannot intercept planes over the USA before 9/11 because the FAA controls the airspace. NORAD is not the police, hijacking, the fake hijackings are crime, thus you might ask for NORAD to watch a hijacked plane, and it could take an hour, or 80 minutes like when Payne Stewards plane stopped talking. On 9/11 it took time to figure out it was an attack, and yet, planes did launch. Which plane do we shoot down. The plot by the terrorists was a Catch 22… NORAD did not automatically intercept planes over the USA, they did their intercepts in the ADIZ for planes coming to the USA.
        There was no stand-down on 9/11, I was on active duty, a pilot on 9/11, zero stand down. Falling for the lie of stand down is not indicative of critical thinking skills – the stand down is a massive lie by 9/11 truth, based on what?

        • CloudSlicer says

          Wow! Now I think I know what Jerome means by a ‘Gish Gallop’.

          • Yup, that certainly is a lot of galloping bullshit . . .

            We really should brace ourselves. I fear an avalanche may be in the offing.

            Everyone, do have your Japanese nose pinchers at the ready!

            You are going to need them . . .

              • Jerome Fryer says


                “Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the galloper’s part to make each individual point before skipping on to the next (particularly if they cite from a pre-concocted list of gallop arguments), a refutation of the same gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it’s always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again).”

                An example would be copy-pasting from your personal website, or other store of pre-fabricated woo.

        • @ john miller the pilot,

          “Imagine that most America kids off the street with no training can fly a 767/757 better than the four failed idiot terrorist pilots.”

          Ah, yes, idiots pilots and our exceptional American kids. And you are a pilot, no less . . .

          Yes, well, here’s what other pilots have said about being able to pilot the jets in question:

          “Unlike a small private plane where pilots generally fly visually, a commercial plane like those hijacked [on September 11] requires a vast command of navigation techniques as well as in-depth knowledge of their myriad systems, from hydraulics to the autopilot.” [7] Michael Barr, the director of aviation safety programs at the University of Southern California, and several commercial airline pilots told the Boston Globe that “they assumed that the terrorists were skilled pilots who had to have received some training in flying transport jets, particularly the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft.” [8]

          Notes for the foregoing:

          [7] Jon Hilkevitch, “Hijackers Flew Skillfully to Targets, Experts Say.” Chicago Tribune, September 13, 2001.


          [8] Matthew Brelis, “Pilots Say Crews Likely Overpowered, Slain.” Boston Globe, September 12, 2001.


          And then this:

          Kieran Daly, the editor of the Internet publication Air Transport Intelligence, said, “Flying an aircraft into a building is not as simple as it appears.” He said the hijackers “would have needed some experience to have been able to steer the planes into the World Trade Centre.” [10] Robin Lloyd compared the targets of the WTC towers to “narrow runways tipped vertically.” From “switching off the autopilot,” the hijackers “would have to know how to control the aircraft and be able to find the target,” he said. Lloyd said that “rag-trousered terrorists with no flying experience could not have hit” the Twin Towers. [11] Michael Barr said the hijackers who flew the planes into the WTC “had to change course … had to know how to navigate.” [12] Barr, who is a former Air Force fighter-bomber pilot, said the hijacker pilots “almost had to hit the towers like they were threading the eye of a needle.” He commented on the difficulty the pilots would have had in synchronizing their attacks so they hit the two WTC towers about 15 minutes apart, saying: “The routes they were flying were very different–one plane coming from the north and the other coming from the south. That adds greatly to the complexity and it requires a degree of skill to prevent the planes from banking too much or descending too fast while keeping on course.” Barr added that the piloting skills apparently exhibited by the hijackers indicated that “months and months of planning and training were involved.” He concluded, “Unfortunately, these guys were good.” [13] A 767 pilot told the Boston Globe: “The perpetrators were trained pilots and trained to operate the 757-767 family of aircraft. … [I]t did not seem to bother them that the flying was very demanding.” This pilot noted that video showed that the second aircraft to hit the WTC was banked, or turning, as it struck the tower, “making the maneuver more difficult.” He added, “To hit something with an airplane is easy only if you have been flying for 20 years.” [14]

          Notes for the foregoing:

          [10] Nicole Martin, “Pilots ‘Must Have Been Murdered’ Before Jets Were Aimed at Buildings.” Irish Independent, September 12, 2001.


          [11] Nicole Martin and Andrew Hibberd, “Hijackers May Have Murdered the Pilots.”


          [12] Matthew Brelis, “Pilots Say Crews Likely Overpowered, Slain.”


          [13] Jon Hilkevitch, “Hijackers Flew Skillfully to Targets, Experts Say.”


          [14] Matthew Brelis, “Pilots Say Crews Likely Overpowered, Slain.”


          Oh, we believe you, Mr. john miller the pilot, but other “confirmed” pilots disagree. Just saying, eh.

          Note: i have pilfered all of the foregoing from here:

          Of course, Mr. John miller the pilot will demure that the website where the sourced material was found discredits the material. But the material is SOURCED, with attributed quotes and where these were originally found, eh. So Mr. John miller the pilot, demure all you want to. Other “confirmed” pilots do not agree with you. It’s more complicated than you would want us to believe, some of us who may also be pilots, eh.

          • john miller says

            The cool part, you can’t show any skilled flying on 9/11, you got hearsay. I am an engineer too. I have an ATP, and a masters in Engineering. You got cherry-picked BS, and quote mining down to an art. You have no clue what skilled flying would be.
            Take the time to get the FDR, you can see the smooth control by the pilots before they were killed, and then the erratic not skilled flying of murderers… Hani’s bank angle control was erratic, not skilled. His airspeed control sucked.
            But you failed to take the time to be skeptical of news sources and BS experts to get the data.
            It is easy to crash, and I have flown with kids who flew better without training than the terrorists. I have all the Radar data, and the FDR for 77 and 93, I studied the data, and found no skilled flying on 9/11.
            The irony as you write so well, you have no clue there was no skill involved, you can’t take the time to do more than repeat failed claims, and failed to do your own work.
            You can’t find more than a fringe few pilots, less than a fraction of a percent to agree with your BS you googled; did you study the FDR? Radar? No, you googled lies, false claims and BS.
            The flying sucked and I have put people in the seat of a heavy jet with no training, and they flew as good as the terrorists, and skipped the training.
            did you fail to stay in your lane the first time your drove a car, rode a bike?
            Pilot since 1973, flew my first jet in the 300,000 pound class in 1976, and the first time in a large jet with less total time than the terrorists, firs time, landed perfect. A pilot who claims the flying on 9/11 was skillful, is talking BS; a pilot who says he can’t hit the Pentagon or the WTC towers in the safety of a simulator is one bad pilot, a pilot who can’t fly as good a terrorist on his first flight in a heavy jet. You are funny, repeating BS from a fringe few pilots, bad pilots, pilots who did zero research, who failed to study the Radar, and FDRs.
            Good job.
            So far not a single claim by 9/11 truth is supported by evidence; never will have evidence; but you sure showed up with more hearsay and BS than the average 9/11 truth follower. Good job spreading false information.
            The 767/757 have excellent flying characteristics, the 707 had some problem with dutch roll mode; but the 767/757 are excellent.
            Never seen so much quote mining with sources; next time get the raw data and think for yourself… instead of spreading false information.

            • You are but an anonymous voice on the internet, Mr. john miller the engineer-cum-pilot, who on the basis of a vaunted engineering and piloting expertise wants us to take his word for everything he comes here to gratuitously asserts.

              How do we verify your assertions?

              Other “confirmed” pilots have made and are making assertions that flatly contradict your assertions, and they are more than a handful and aren’t hiding behind the anonymity of a persona that can pretend to be anything he wants to pretend he is.

              It’s more than mere hearsay if many people with a relevant and publicly verifiable expertise to an issue corroborate one another in their assertions. That’s how knowledge of the world actually works, Mr. john miller the engineer-cum-pilot. If you push the issue far enough, anything can be said to be worthless hearsay. But as it happens, some people are actually reliable as witnesses and researchers, and that becomes evident in the manner they relate information, in their accuracy and honesty, and collectively they end up producing a body of work that finds its testimony in real world outcomes.

              So far, in the several instances in which you have pretended to relate to this forum substantive rebuttals, you have failed to substantiate each and every thing you have said. Already your credibility is rather thin. Spouting off on the basis of a “claimed” but “unsubstantiated” expertise is less proof than even mere hearsay from laymen.

              Most pilots probably do not have an opinion on 9/11 because they, like most everyone, have either not had the time to investigate the details of what happened or couldn’t be bothered. Many have, however, and among those that have, the consensus is far removed from the tenor of the opinions you express.

              You bring no reasoned argumentation to the table and leave us with no corroborating reference to anything you blithely assert. You make a lot of noise but that’s about it. You are also very heavy with disparagement, usually a sign that a person has nothing but self-conceit as an argument.

              Do you have even a single, rational, debatable argument to offer, Mr. john miller the engineer-cum-pilot?

              • Jerome Fryer says

                “But as it happens, some people are actually reliable as witnesses and researchers, and that becomes evident in the manner they relate information, in their accuracy and honesty, and collectively they end up producing a body of work that finds its testimony in real world outcomes.”

                It also helps if they work under an accreditation regime. If they’re extremely competent they may even manage to get a job in a national standards lab.

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  Universities don’t work under accreditation regimes. You are confusing commercial and academic practices.

                  National labs have multiple roles, inclusive of helping manage the technical aspects of the commercial labs.

                  The technical experts that assess our competence are drawn from our national lab. (Although they don’t have to be.)

                • Where do you think the “science” that underpins the “expertise,” and on which that “expertise” elaborates, of any lab worthy of the name originates, Jerome? Are you really as insipid as your remark would suggest?

              • john miller says

                Norman, why can’t you explain what was so skillful about crashing on 9/11. Do you have the FDR for 93 and 77, the data? I do, and it shows a lack of skill, but good enough to crash into some of the largest buildings on earth. You quote mine and cherry pick pilot statements who failed to study the FDR, and failed to point out what was skillful, what was so hard to do.
                The flying on 9/11 was rookie class.
                Flight 77 showed up in DC too high, he had to do a circle decent to get down, he failed to skillful enough to figure out his decent to get down, so he did a turn and it was not even standard rate. As you attack me, you fail to make point past the fact you provided evidence you are gullible, and are not skeptical of BS you googled. You write well, but have no clue why the BS you posts is BS.

                Go ahead, show one super flight thing the terrorists did on 9/11. You can’t do more than BS and ignore evidence.
                Did you fail to keep the car in the lane when you first drove a car? The terrorists had more flight time than I did my first time in a four engine Boeing jet, and I landed exactly on center-line, on speed, the first time; which according to your vast study of BS, is impossible for me to go from small planes to big planes.
                I found a four engine Boeing to be easier than flying a one engine Cessna. I am a pilot, and your pilot experience is hearsay, quote-mined BS, and worse, opinion. Got some facts? No.
                It was a perfect day for flying, the terrorists only had to fly, they did not have to the systems, they did not have to maintain legal airspeeds, or altitudes, or headings; they were free to do what they wanted without the instructor bugging them on how bad they were flying.

                You are spreading false information the terrorists flew skillfully on 9/11, and you don’t have evidence. The FDR, hard evidence for 77 and 93, show poor flying skills. Albeit they were intending on crashing, so sloppy flying does not hinder the end goal. The skillful claim is BS, you like BS, you freely repeat it with out checking. Did you get the skillful from the MSM? that is rich

                This is a sample of the airline pilots turn, and the terrorists turn, Bank angle control does not exist for the terrorists, they meander around the sky, This is not skill, it is failed humans out to murder, they showed no skill at flying, they only had motivation to kill. Where is the evidence they were skillful, all you posted was BS, opinions, hearsay and worse.

                • More vacuous and unsubstantiated hot air, Mr. john miller engineer-cum-pilot, that is to say, for someone with a “masters in Engineering” you are not particularly conscientious about providing citations, eh.

                  You mention “data” that “proves” the hijackers were flakes but could nevertheless achieve their objectives. Where is this blessed “data”. Where did you get your little diagram? Where does it originate from?

                  And this is priceless, eh:

                  “This is a sample of the airline pilots turn, and the terrorists turn, Bank angle control does not exist for the terrorists, they meander around the sky, This is not skill, it is failed humans out to murder, they showed no skill at flying, they only had motivation to kill. ”

                  And motivation is all you need to hit two buildings in New York after flaying hundreds of miles and then the Pentagon, also. A 100% kill rate from a bunch of duffers. You imply it, not me.

                  But do permit me to help you, Mr. john miller engineer-cum-pilot with a “masters degree:” would this be an example of the documented flakiness of the hijackers:

                  Quote begins:
                  A particularly high level of skill would have been needed to fly an aircraft into the west wall of the Pentagon. CBS News reported: “Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes. … [T]he complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.” [16] A “top aviation source” called the maneuver “a nice, coordinated turn,” which, according to one law enforcement official, was the work of “a great talent … virtually a textbook turn and landing.” [17] Other “aviation sources” told the Washington Post that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon “was flown with extraordinary skill.” [18]
                  Quote ends.



                  Or would this be the kind of evidence that would help substantiate the claim that the pilots were flakes:

                  Quote begins:
                  Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi, allegedly the terrorists who flew American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 into the World Trade Center, were at best mediocre pilots, according to several accounts. They learned to fly between July and December 2000 at a flight school in Venice, Florida. They were enrolled in the school’s Accelerated Pilot Program and trained in a Cessna 172, a small single-engine propeller plane. In mid-December 2000, the two men passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses. [26] Rudi Dekkers, the owner of the flight school, said he had “heard from the instructors” that Atta and Alshehhi “were average students,” and “the examiner told me the same.” [27]
                  Quote ends.

                  Source: Ibid.

                  Or what about this:

                  Quote begins:
                  Of the four men supposedly at the controls of the hijacked aircraft on September 11, Hani Hanjour stood out for his particularly weak flying skills. This 29-year-old from Saudi Arabia is alleged to have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon. That, as we have seen, would have been a particularly difficult task, even for the best pilots. Hanjour, however, was a hopeless pilot.

                  An Arizona flight school Hanjour attended in 1996 found the young Saudi to be a “weak student” who “was wasting our resources,” according to the school’s owner. [29] An instructor at another Arizona flight school who taught Hanjour for four months in 1998 later stated: “As a pilot, Hani Hanjour was very poor. His knowledge of the academic side of training was weak, his flying skills were marginal, but most significantly his judgment was very poor.” The instructor recalled that Hanjour “was not well educated nor was he very intelligent.” Hanjour had “a poor understanding of the basic principles of aviation” and “poor technical skills.” [30]
                  Quote ends.

                  Source: Ibid.

                  Mr. john miller engineer-cum-pilot with a “masters degree,” you yourself shred your credibility as anything but a class A bullshitter. Is that “ad hom?” Only if it’s unsubstantiated, eh. Unfortunately for you, it is already more than substantiated.

    • Nick says

      Hopefully someone from your forum link will present a cogent counter-arguement here. As the eds say it would be a welcome addition to debates.

      As for the the forum comments themselves, most of them seem to be written by you, and the others are a mish mash of childish insults and largely content-free assumptions. That said I was interested to see the passenger manifest links.

        • Nick says

          I mean specifically the thread you link to, where you ask the ISL community to contribute here because you say you’re “not qualified to make a strong case for the no-conspiracy / physics is adequate argument”.

          Despite not being qualified, as you note, it’s strange that you make such a rigidly dogmatic case for your chosen conspiracy theory.

  6. I appreciate the manner and the content of this posting.

    I see a reflection of our world being co-opted or subverted by secretive unaccountable cartels of power establishment in the structure of our human consciousness – being run by conditioned subconscious habits and unconscious and even pre rational conditioning. But that this is being exposed or less able to disguise itself.

    This is not easy to link to political events because the framing of our thought is that our personal consciousness is weak or imaginary and of little if any consequence in a world of powers seen as beyond our control – who effectively own or have undue influence in the arena of such control and therefore manage consensus perceptions.

    But regardless, I see the a situation similar to a bot net of hacked computers being used without their (owners) knowledge – in secret – as part of an orchestrated attack on the integrity of communication for a criminal agenda or a government agenda via criminal means. The nature of 9/11 is riddled with deceits and I believe it was a show of power to deceive and manipulate as it was at other levels a coup d’etat by deceit by which to manipulate outcomes – such as the “War on Terror” used to restrict the rights and voices of citizens at home and instigate numerous geopolitical conflicts abroad.

    For there is another perspective that is not met – and that is that we were completely deceived and confused and set off in ways that are more likely to be serving the deceit agenda than our own – even in the glimpses we have as to what did or likely occur – considering the official story does not hold true.

    The confusion is linked with an aversion or unwillingness to look – along with being disturbed as a result of looking – and also all kinds of disinformation and conjecture that often embodies a hatred seeking a target – or a dissociated mindtrip in fixated and ungrounded fascination. Mixing up truths and lies. False framing and association. The capacity and the willingness to act upon humanity in this way goes beyond merely inciting a population to war-willingness – and I feel it is mind-shaping in ways similar to shaped charges.

    There are those who observe and study consciousness with intent to program and exploit it to serve their private gratifications or agenda. There is also that in us which corresponds with this albeit at a much more inhibited level of expression. This uses deceit without any moral inhibition because human beings are not seen as significant excepting the uses to which they are put.

    The ‘deceiver’ is not a new idea – but a false sense of power and freedom relegated it to primitive superstition – when it was active through such trojan thinking of power and freedom in self-specialness. The point I feel to make is that of the back-door in our minds by which correspondence occurs is largely open and unattended and we cannot trust the currency of our own thinking unless we have a sound basis from which to check it. A foundation that is not hate or fear driven and a willingess to observe and understand consciousness in the desire to whole it and heal it of being split against itself.

    I am not concerned as to whether or when we wake up – so much as to embody the willingness of waking up – as the awareness of choice – of living on purpose – in the moments through each day – as a deeper alignment of self-honesty, rather than being ‘run’ by thinking that does not stand if brought out of secret or unwatched mind and questioned or directly felt and observed.

    There is no call in this to not also be active in any way one is moved – but to ensure and constantly be vigilant as to where we are coming from. Disconnected thinking may think it does not matter ‘where you are coming from’ and I say that that deceit keeps you in a state of disconnect- while split off denials operate in ways we are not at all conscious of participating in – because that is the way we designed our mind to operate. But denied self IS active undercurrent to presented appearance and often by extremely devious pathways.

    What is humanity to a mind unlike and set apart, that observes it as prey – seeking always to spot weaknesses, seize opportunities, and leverage them to gain power and control over their thinking? Does it have to ‘plan’ for windows of opportunity where many levels and strands all align through one event, so much as recognize it and pull the strands together in a timing that that each partakes their own segment?

    But there is another way of looking at this; what does it take to stir and wake humanity? That we personally and collectively generate crisis is part of our way of forcing ourselves to pay attention – unconsciously – because we have not or do not address the issues consciously until forced to do so – in fact we go out of our way to deny symptoms while persisting in the behaviours that generate imbalance and dis-ease.

    Why is this but that guilt and fear operate our mind? And hate and blame operate to deny anything that weakens their insistence on vengeance. Does not the mind of the perpetrator communicate energetically in reaction? Is that not a correspondence? If that is a ‘back door’ can I not close it? Note that everything I say here is of my own willingness. I am not proscribing for another. But I see choices that are not seen as choices but as compulsions of triggered reaction in self-protective recoil. This is where we lose consciousness – in a sense – to primitive fear-triggered conditioning, and so this is where we uncover consciousness in a willingness to pause and feel or listen for a different perspective. To break the spell. To desire and call help. 911.

  7. Brian Burgess says

    Muslin terrorists hijacked planes and flew 2 of them into the twin towers. These are the facts. Everything else is a convoluted attempt to try to deal with the cognitive dissonance engendered by the assault upon so many people’s world view. The ongoing obsrssion with trying to find evidence that the CIA or shadowy US Government entities were somehow behind the attacks or at least complicit in them reminds me of the equally fervent attempts by some to find a “cover up” behind UFOs and the supposed Roswell crash for example. Why can’t people just accept that the terrorists were behind it and that America despite its great military and political might is not all-powerful. That is the truth.

    • spinach says

      You are clearly a smart person, Brian, may I respectfully advise you to have a read of the doubter’s arguments – see Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth et al – as they really aren’t as far-fetched as you think. Given the range of very intelligent people nowadays doing nothing more than calling for a reinvestigation into the many holes left in the official accounts/reports, it could be argued that to steadfastly defend the official story is far more deluded, far-fetched and fanciful and anything else! All the best to you, though. T

    • Cognitive Dissonance and Conscious Choice:

      An interesting typo there Brian. Is the muslin being pulled over your mind. If you confined yourself to investigating only these muslins – you would discover a false narrative presentation – and would have to consider why – for what purpose and for whose agenda?
      Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9-11 Cover-Up in Florida by Daniel Hopsicker.

      But I suspect you wont – perhaps because you want to put it behind you and get on with a less troubled life. No blame – but if it is an active agenda then it is not and wont be ‘behind you’ but simply out of your mind – and thus more freely operating without your awareness or consent – excepting your conditioned response to look away in the convenience of an official narrative you accepted true. If you don’t understand that loveless and indeed hateful agenda operates in secret – then you do not recognize the human conditioning around the issue of power.

      Cognitive dissonance or deep disturbance is freely available via any of the possible accounting for what happened, who did it and why. The question is are you willing to own it and feel it so as to use the energy of such dissonant feeling and thought towards a conscious sanity of purpose – rather than be used by it AND project your un-owned stuff onto others who may or may also be run by their reactions – or may be consciously integrating within an integrity of being instead of being terrorized into a sacrifice of integrity for a conformity of thought. When judging others – are we not really justifying a self in which a significant element is kept secret? Covered over by an assertive narrative seeking validation or reinforcement?

      Regardless of any of what, how and who, one can still observe what resulted, is still resulting, who benefits, and how the event is still being used as a shape-charged reinforcement to a narrative view that was called the American Dream but is revealed as global nightmare. Self-specialness is a back door for deceit to enter. Call it elitism if you want. Deceit is simply one of the tools of blind and blinding power

      You can choose and are choosing who and what you accept yourself to be, relative to such a sense of power. It promises power and protection but delivers perpetual war, indebtedness and captive dependency to persist in seeking and needing its power and protection. I believe that if the true nature of the choice were in the open of a conscious choice – rather than default patterns of conditioning – there would be no real choice to be conflicted in – and so no need to persuade anyone – but a genuine call to illuminate the nature of the choices available.

      As I see it cognitive dissonance goes far deeper than we think – and so thinking is not the tool to illuminate its true nature – and resolution. The zero point of our being is not destruction or destructive – but more like a clean clear and fresh awareness rising as a wholeness of being – recognisably you – and yet recognisably Universal.

      If devotions to hate and vengeance are allowed to be in our foundation – then wholeness is made unwelcome, and unlike the violating force of blind power – will not oppose your will. But of course we encounter such thoughts and feelings from a sense of being denied. But do they just get stuffed down into the dark – to operate through us unknown? Or do we revisit such core separation issues within a desire for sanity or peace that we did not have or want when we originally set such patterns by living them.

      Sufficient unto the day be the evils thereof. I recommend living from and towards a joy-felt existence – in which – the sense of conflict, dissonance, struggle and personal frustration that comes up in the issues of this day are timely and in context to be addressed. That is, vigilance for peace is not ‘looking for trouble’ – but is actively mindful of when ‘trouble’ insinuates or interjects itself in place of a felt awareness, as a mental-emotional reaction. In this I invite a different way to live than giving away power to Others – or indeed getting a sense of power from hating Others. The power of choice, or will acceptance, is a light prior to the muslin screened battle of wills that keeps us in the dark theatre of conflict personified. There is no victory in division unless death is the prize.

      If there were a different choice to Life as Creation what could it result in but death – or blindness to the Feeling and knowing Life?

      You have plausible deniability in your own terms and are free to choose not to know your choice while its outcomes seem ‘too big to fail’. But there is no deepening, developing or improving of a false foundation but that it is persisted in. So seeing the false as false is one with no longer using it – and this opens the way clear for a fresh perspective – indeed a now-knowing that is not bottled in old paradigm concept.

      The personal sense can be aligned within Universal sense – and in fact recognizes its belonging. The personae sense is not an intimacy of being – but the mind’s attempt to both deny and re-define being. When learning to walk we lose balance but learn through the experience. I feel that learning to re-integrate consciousness within being is of a similar nature – excepting we terrify ourself and attempt to shut-down and control – in place of opening to receive and feel our balance.

  8. This site has a very accurate and insightful view on the 9/11 attacks.

    One web site has a summary and has published several books on 9/11 which discuss these exact subjects in particular the subject:
    “The tracking and surveillance by intelligence agencies,”
    The first book is called “Prior Knowledge of 9/11”. These books are based on the following sources:

    Aggregating the DOJ IG report, combined with the Joint Inquiry Report and the 9/11 Commission report, along with the book, “State of Denial” by Bob Woodward, and the “Account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan”, lead FBI investigator on the Cole bombing, by Lawrence Wright, Ken Silverstein’s article on January 2007, “Meet the new CIA Station Chief Richard Blee”, along with the Moussaoui Defense Exhibits. and the document “CIA requests changes to Staff (9/11 Commission) Statement # 10”. Richard Blee, had been head of the CIA bin Laden unit and the CIA Rendition unit at the time the 9/11 attacks took place. I also personally interviewed directly or via phone or email the following people:

    Joint Inquiry Investigator Michael Jacobson
    Joint Inquiry Deputy Chief Rick Cinquegrana
    Joint Inquiry Chief Elinor Hill
    9/11 Commissioners Tim Roemer*, Bob Kerrey*, Richard bin-Vinesta*
    9/11 Commission Joint Chief Governor Kean*
    FBI Agent Steve Bongardt Ali Soufan’s assistant in New York City, over why his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was inexplicably shut down
    FBI Agents and supervisors Harry Samit, Collen Rowley*, and Joseph Rivers* in Minneapolis, over why their investigation of Moussaoui was shut down.
    Lawrence Wright, “The Agent who could have stopped 9/11, Ali Soufan”.
    Bob Woodard*, author of the book, “State of Denial”
    Richard Clarke*, White House Terrorism Czar
    *Direct one on one interviews

    The bottom line is that from this material it is impossible to conclude anything other than the CIA using agents and managers at FBI HQ’s criminally sabotaged the FBI investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi after these two al Qaeda terrorists were found to be inside of the US and these two agencies clearly knew they were in the US to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attacks that would kill thousands of Americans. Since both the CIA and FBI HQ’s knew that sabotaging the FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi would allow this attack to take place, they clearly knew that thousands of Americans were going to be killed by their direct actions. All of the official US government investigations and reports have covered this up, but the book “Prior Knowledge of 9/11, points out how these investigations were obfuscated to hide the real truth from the American people. This book is probably the most complete book every written on how and why people in the US government allowed the attacks on 9/11

    • I looked for a link – can you provide one. I’m sure I can goggle it down but a link would be for everyone’s convenience.

      • rschop says

        Yes, the site is http://www.eventson911.com.

        On this site are many government documents that actually prove that the CIA using FBI HQ’s agents and managers that they had corrupted, shut down the FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. FBI IOS Agent Dina Corsi, under supervision of CIA officer Tom Wilshire, shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s criminal investigation of these two al Qaeda terrorists, even though both agencies knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US, knew that al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were in in the US in order to take part in this attack and even knew shutting down Bongardt’s criminal investigation would allow this attack to take place killing thousands of Americans.

        Tom Wilshire was the CIA officer who had been moved over to the FBI ITOS unit in mid-May as a CIA spy to find out if the FBI Cole bombing investigators had uncovered the CIA secret information that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. When Wilshire had second thoughts about continuing to keeping this information secret from these investigators, and sent two requests to his CIA managers, Blee, Black, and Tenet in July 2001, he was effectively ordered to never give this information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, sabotaging any future investigation they may have wanted for Mihdhar and Hazmi. At this time the CIA knew that a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US, knew Hazmi was already inside of the US and that Mihdhar had a multi-entry visa for the US, allowing him to join Hazmi in any future terrorist attack. (See DE 939)

        On August 28, 2001 Corsi told Bongardt that he had to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because her EC authorizing an investigation, had an NSA cable and FBI criminal investigators could not have this NSA cable without written permission from the NSA General Council. But per DE 448 and the DOJ IG report, the NSA General Council had already approved a request to allow Corsi to pass this cable to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt on August 27, 2001.

        Bongardt told Corsi that he thought she was confused, and he could have this NSA cable if it were not connected to a FISA warrant, and asked Corsi to get an opinion from the FBI lawyers to see if he could continue his investigation and find these terrorists before they carried out some horrific terrorist attack.

        On August 28, 2001, Corsi met with NSLU attorney Sherri Sabol, and was told by Sabol that since the NSA cable in her EC had no connection to any FISA warrant, Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi that he wanted and if she was still confused she could go to the NSA and get a release unaware that this release had already been approved the day before. ( 9/11 Commission report, p 538, footnote 81)

        But on August 29, 2001 Corsi was on the phone with her supervisor Rod Middleton, telling Bongardt that he had to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi because the NSLU attorney had ruled he could have no connection to any investigation for these al Qaeda terrorists. Email that she sent Bongardt, Corsi stated that “ if at such time evidence is developed of a substantial Federal crime, (by Mihdhar and Hazmi), that information will be passed over the wall, for follow up criminal investigation( by his unit). per the proper procedures. (DE 682)

        But according to the DOJ IG report, page 301, Corsi admitted to DOJ IG investigators that she knew and even had photographic proof, which she had gotten from the CIA, on August 22, 2001, that Walid bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been at the January 5-8, 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur with Mihdhar and Hazmi. She knew that meant these two al Qaeda terrorist had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, at this meeting, clearly a substantial Federal crime.

        Corsi knew that both the CIA and FBI HQ’s were aware of this information and even knew that these agencies were keeping this information secret from Bongardt and his team so they would never have the “probable cause”, that they would have needed to start any criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. Since both the CIA and the FBI HQ’s knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place in the US, knew al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were in the US at this time in order to take part in this horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack that would kill thousands of Americans, they clearly knew that withholding this information would block Bongardt from starting any criminal investigation for these terrorists allowing this huge attack to take place. These agencies clearly knew their deliberate actions to block Bongardt’s investigation would allow these terrorists to kill thousands of Americans.

  9. Nick G. says

    Fantastic piece Mog – refreshing to read something laid out in a tone that has been somewhat lacking in parts of the comments threads over the OffG 9/11 series.

  10. Willem says

    The reporting of 911 by OffG and its contributors has kind of changed my mind on 911.

    It is not that I believed the official 911 story before OffG started this series, and now I am happily cleansed from the brainwash and know better. I also did not change my mind as to whether this trying to expose 911 for what it is will lead to the answer of what really happened at 911 (we will never find out is still my impression). But what has changed my mind, is my initial thought that people who distrust the official 911 story and try to expose reality, are performing a job that is a waste of time and energy. This is not true, since 911 truthers behave like a movement. Therefore, I have changed my mind.

    I am sure that many here are familiar with the book a people’s history of the United States by Howard Zinn. When I read this book, I was amazed how often Zinn had to mention events that were never solved, but still produced war and misery to the people of the US, and elsewhere. I remember the sinking of the USS Maine, which led to the US war with Spain and the Haymarket affair that is now remembered by May day, two events of which we ‘know’ who organised and orchestrated them, yet we cannot ‘know’ as ultimate evidence is lacking. There are much more of these ‘false flag’/perfect storm events in Zinn’s book, which are all similar paradoxes as 911 is (we know but we do not know).

    I understood from the article that the author is a medialens visitor, so I am quite sure that the author read this quote from Chomsky (who talked about Medialens)

    ‘[I] Am really impressed with what you are doing, though it’s like trying to move a ten-ton truck with a toothpick. They’re not going to allow themselves to be exposed.’

    I believe that the same can be said here about the truther movement of 911. But as the editors of medialens explain in


    that moving a truck with a toothpick starts to matter if more and more people pick up a toothpick and start to pull the truck in their own truthfull matter.

    This is what the 911 truther movement does: giving the good example of how one can be sceptical about an official story without using violence. If more and more people behave in the same way, the truck will be moved and much more stories will come about how governmental institutions are lying and swindling to their people, which is not in the people’s interest. And that may change something for the good.

    But, I still do not believe that we will learn the truth of who was ultimately responsible for 911. I am happy to be proved wrong though.

    • Jerome Fryer says

      The Chomsky citation seems unlikely.


      During his explanation, Chomsky also dismissed claims that the government was responsible for bringing the towers down.

      “There is just overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration wasn’t involved,” he said. “Very elementary evidence. You don’t have to be a physicist to understand it. You just have to think for a minute.”

      Chomsky said that even though the Bush administration clearly wanted to invade Iraq, it blamed 9/11 on Saudi hijackers. He said it could have easily blamed the attacks on Iraqi hijackers instead of presenting claims about Al- Qaeda connections to Saddam Hussein and Iraq amassing weapons of mass destruction.

  11. CloudSlicer says

    Thank you Mog for this excellent piece on Off-Guardian’s attempts to open up the important debate about the truth and lies of 9/11. An open and honest debate about this seminal criminal event of the 21st century is very long overdue. 9/11 has given birth to the most appalling horrors of war, the death, maiming and displacement of millions of innocent people, the erosion of human and civil rights, mass surveillance, and an endless stream of other negative effects.

    If we do not attempt to examine this crime properly, irrespective of who the guilty actors may be, then we become collectively complicit in it. And those individuals and agencies who try, by whatever means and for whatever reasons, to deliberately suppress such attempts to expose and examine the truth are especially complicit.

  12. michaelk says

    The study of Power in society, has for a long time, modern time that is, gone out of fashion almost everywhere. For a long time, decades, the concept almost vanished from public discourse. Power seemed somhow rather ‘old fashioned’ in the bright and gilded sixties and afterwards. Power in a democratic society appeared almost not to really exist or have relevance because we all had it, power was shared and evenly distributed among people, in a democracy. At least that was the theory. So let’s study something else, like gender politics and identity politics instead. There was money there and fame. Who was this guy Machiavelli, anyway? We didn’t have Princes anymore did we, so why bother with him?

    But, as the political consensus around the ‘middle’ began to crumble as the economy changed and wealth was redistributed upwards, Power, once neglected, began to slowly re-emerge from the shadows and history, simply because, like wealth, the distribution of power was massively unequal. The State too began to turn into something that even looked strong and powerful. First overseas, through our new-found love for old-fashioned imperialism, designed to gain economic and military advantage; then the State began to throw its weight around at home too. A State that was becoming harsher and more willing to use force and threats against the opposition.

    Power is fundametally about how society distributes wealth, much of the rest is… ‘detail.’ There are many ways to do this, distribute wealth and resources. For our purposes, in an advanced society, the role of education and the media is vital for legitimising the increasingly polarised distribution of wealth and the increasingly ‘strong’ role of the State, summed up in the move from the classic social democratic/liberal Welfare State towards the older Warfare State model.

    Without a very uneven distributiion of power it’s hard to imgine how wealth could be so poorly distributed.

    What’s all this got to do with 9/11, I hear you cry? Well, 9/11 is linked to State Power at the hip. The State defined what happened that day and who was responisble, and it wasn’t in any way the fault of the State. It was a gang of foreigners that did it, guv!

    Al Gore was twiddling his thumbs and getting restless around Bill Clinton’s Whitehouse and getting on everyones nerves. Suddenly Al had, not a epiphany, but something close. I’ll look into airport security cause there shure have been a number of plane hi-jackings in Europe and elsewhere, and boy, it might even happen here, in the good ‘ol USA, cause we use planes like other folks use buses and traines. Walk on walk off, just pay your ticket and no questions asked. Unless you fly El Al or are heading for Israel.

    Al and his small team headed for Europe to see how airport security functioned there, especially in the UK, and Al noticed the metal detectors and the high level of security at Heathrow. Getting a gun or other weapon onboard a plane in Heathrow was darned difficult. Impressed our Al headed back home. Inspired. Gee, Bill was gonna love this. Jesus, it might even interest him enough to pull his attention away from his cigar and the latest young, female, intern for a few minutes.
    Al produced a great piece of work that was as full of sensible precautionary rules and recommendations as US airport security was full of gaping holes. Poor Al was heartbroken when his report was ingnored because it was too expensive to implement fully or even partly. Metal dectors? No way, Al! Delays cost bucks, big bucks, Al!

    So all Al’s work was for nothing and nothing happened, until 9/11, when, agruably, if only some of Al’s ideas had been introduced, the hijackings, at least, wouldn’t have happened at all because the hijackers wouldn’t have been able to get their knives onboard. Oh, and Al also recommeded strengthening the door to the pilots cockpit, if I remember correctly.

    • In modern society, power is grounded in organizations, and these units of integrated and coordinated activities require resources in materials and intellectual wherewithal.

      Since we live in a money economy where everything and everyone is a commodity, allegiance and materials can be purchased and go to the highest bidders, to serve their both their personal and public whims.

      It follows that the people with the most money to throw around have the most power since they can command the most material and best talent up for either formal or informal (secretive) sale. Any organisation that is highly developed and sophisticated in its operations is therefore beholden to big money. Their cannot be criminal organizations that do not serve the upper tiers of wealth. Anything that happens on the scale of 9/11 cannot happen without material and logistical talent, and that material and talent can only be “bought.”

      Power, in other words, is in our social context concentrated wealth. Make that concentration impossible, and you automatically reduce the scale of power any organization can acquire and deploy.

      ‘Wealth’ in capitalist society hinges upon the institution of private property. Take away the title to vast and unaccountable fortunes and already you limit the scope and the scale of the crimes that powerful (wealthy) psychopaths can commit. And that would only be the beginning of what needs to happen going forward . . . An economy premised upon the ‘commodification’ of everyone and everything cannot possibly result in anything other than what we already have.

    • CloudSlicer says

      “mog is just another braindead conspiracy moron”

      I’m sorry, but the idea is to try to have an intelligent debate here.
      If your particular game is calling people names instead of engaging in reasoned arguments, then you should go and do it elsewhere.

      • “intelligent debate”

        LOL, well to do this someone would have to delete this trainwreck of an article full of arrogant twoofer woo.

        Then, you worthless, braindead twoofers would have to realize that 9/11 is not a matter of debate like in your gender free vegan hipster group 🙂

        If someone has proof for conspiracies on 9/11, compile the evidence and go to the FBI. Anything else is just attention whoring from a drug addicted nobody.

        So,mog, instead of “just asking questions” (JAQing off) answer the questions yourself and bring the evil wrongdoers to justice. But hurry, you’re 15 years late already ^^

        • Mr Asskicker – we don’t allow content-free ad hom or trolling here, but since you’re new we’ll let this one pass.

          I’m going to take a punt and guess you have come here from the “International Skeptic” forum where Jerome Fryer has been posting asking – quite reasonably – for people to come here and help him rebut the articles we have posted by scientists critical of NIST.

          We are really keen to get cogent opposing views, so if you can do such a rebuttal we’ll be happy to host it. But be warned, you will need sourced facts and some grasp of science. Saying “ha-ha you suck” will not have the impact here it generally seems to have amongst your friends on the ISF.

          And please note that any further content-free ad hom will likely be deleted.

          • Jerome Fryer says

            “we don’t allow content-free ad hom or trolling here”

            You still haven’t answered my question about why “Pentagon shill” was ad-hominem, while “Hasbara terrorist” isn’t. Do you believe that the second assertion was correct?

            What is the editorial view on anti-Semitism? Are you more afraid of the dark arts of the Pentagon (beware their extraordinary powers of losing track of vast sums of money; marvel at their incapability to successfully argue for what the US military needs vs. what political donor corporations want the taxpayer to buy) than shadowy Mossad agents?

            You seem a weird lot.

            • We delete or edit extremes of anti-semitism on a daily basis. We remove content-free ad hom from both sides of the 9/11 debate. Of course you think we are biased against you. We’ve had identical complaints from the “other side.”

              Do not try to turn this into a longer conversation.

              edit: if you have a complaint about content-free ad hom that has slipped through email us at editor@off-guardian.org with a link to the offending remark.

            • Again the framing of a personal sense of coming into a group of ‘truthers’ who are sported with or baited, but never treated as equals worthy of engaging in communication – while using whatever is said to them… only as mask or ammunition to remain in a superior presumption of judgement over. Jerome may not be an expression of artificial Intelligence – but he is running to a mechanical or fixed script.

  13. John says

    Off Guardian is discrediting the Left and giving undeserved credibility to the real Guardian by pursuing this 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. What’s particularly laughable is that the site complains about the Guardian moderating comments but won’t accept mine.

    • JJA says

      In what way discrediting the left?
      Whether or not the twin towers was a genuine terrorist attack or some kind of inside job, the very fact that the US government obstructed and obscured any full and comprehensive and objective inquiry and wilfully destroyed evidence, from CCTV footage in Washington to shipping off scrap from the towers asap, where Bush and Cheney were interviewed together not under oath, numerous Saudi citizens were able to leave US asap and all sorts of other potential ‘irregularities’ were never pursued, surely allows scope for scepticism as to underlying truths, especially as it ultimately unleashed a never ending ‘war on terror’ by the US and its vassals that have killed, maimed or displaced millions since 2001.

    • Nick G. says

      I don’t want to be part of any ‘Left’ that stops asking questions and exerting pressure over the myriad lies told to us about 9/11.

      • No, but we will be nuking yours. Well, nuking would be overkill, especially when all that is really needed is a peashooter, eh.

  14. Indeed! I’m sure Mog would agree that the blame lies not just with the originators of the lies – primarily the US government – but with all those in media and politics and academia and elsewhere who have failed to expose them (the originators and the lies). It has been the craven repetition and even robust defence of the lies – especially by the BBC in the UK – that has allowed them to take on the appearance of truth.
    Why otherwise more than adequately informed people such as Chomsky, Pilger and Monbiot have resolutely supported the debunkers and have joined the ranks of the “gatekeepers” as Mog writes, seems to me to be explicable only in terms of their allegiance to an evidentially flawed “Leftist” position that desperately wants 9/11 to be an instance of “blowback” – the supposed “little people” hitting back at the Great Satan; or to an urge to protect Israel/Mossad against the clear evidence of their complicity. A third reason is imaginable: simply to protect their careers and their reputations. Hardly an admirable justification.
    We might also reasonably blame a gullible, dumbed-down general public that swallowed the CIA-invented “conspiracy theorist” meme – to its own misfortune in the rash of ‘Gladio-style’ false flags that have become a routine feature of the contemporary landscape, with the New York “pipe bombs” most likely featuring as the latest manifestation.
    In general one would have to say that many of the ills of society, especially the ability of a tiny group (a self-imagined ‘elite’) to have gained such power over life and death, are due to the ordinary citizen having fallen for the lure of “mere baubles” and having taken his/her eye off the ‘ball’ of democracy. An astute French journalist, Francis Delaisi, exposed the lie of ‘democracy’ as long ago as 1911 in his wonderful tract: “Les financiers et la democratie”. In the same year he predicted WWI.
    Surveying present-day Europe, one is forced to wonder whether enough people will wake up in time to prevent the next disaster.

      • I like that on the map Russia is a “Desert,” just as North America was complete and utter “wilderness.” Oh, sure, perhaps inhabited by 50 or score more millions of people, but savages, eh. So “desert” or “wilderness” is an apt descriptor.

          • Had a read. It’s a different worldview from my own. I tend to come at things from a Marxist perspective, but not that I discount the ‘fact’ that there are secretive coteries of rich bastards amusing themselves at playing a game of “I”m the ruler of the entire world.”

            As for the revolution in Russia and its connection to Wall Street, that should not really be surprising to anyone who both follows current affairs and reads a bit of history. Tsarist Russia was a regime in the way of Western bourgeois capital and it was only natural that that capital would try to instigate a revolution for which there actually were objective grounds for revolution, that is to say, the fact that Russians really were grotesquely put upon by Tsarism and becoming increasing restive, indeed, just as we see today in the Middle East, where Western interests co-opt popular uprisings — as in Egypt and more recently in Syria — both to use it to topple the ruling networks of elites and to narrowly circumscribe or limit the gains of the revolt in favor of the popular masses of Russia.

            To prove that Wall Street provided material support to the Bolshevik revolution does not prove that the participants in the revolution were not pursuing their own interests, that is to say, seizing upon and exploiting to their own ends the handouts from from one band of criminals intent upon the destruction of another.

            Things are never simple and one dimensional. Reality at all levels is complicated. And that’s what I like about Marx: he provides us with a reduction of social and political reality that is akin to Newtonian mechanics. He elucidates in broad outlines the pragmatically important elements of our reality, providing us with categories (eg. capitalist class vs. working class, the owners of property vs. those destitute in property) that cut across an otherwise overdetermined and impossible to comprehend tapestry of detail.

            I did find the read interesting, however, and I may follow up on Prof. Carroll Quigley ‘s work. Many thanks for the link.

            • Correction to what I just wrote:

              Not: ” . . . just as we see today in the Middle East, where Western interests co-opt popular uprisings — as in Egypt and more recently in Syria — both to use it to topple the ruling networks of elites and to narrowly circumscribe or limit the gains of the revolt in favor of the popular masses of Russia.”

              But: “… just as we see today in the Middle East, where Western interests co-opt popular uprisings — as in Egypt and more recently in Syria — both to use it to topple the ruling networks of elites and to narrowly circumscribe or limit the gains of the revolt so as not to overly favor of the entitlements of the popular masses.”

          • “But the flip-side of the conspiracy coin is the proliferation of fanciful and fantastic theories that now crisscross the globe in seconds with the help of electronic media. ”

            (From the text linked)
            Another flop side is that astroturfing generates many such sites as a means of diluting and discrediting.

            I believe the ‘inner’ aspect to ‘outer’ experience is key – for without the key, the struggle to manipulate outcomes deals only with effects or symptoms – never seeking or addressing cause.

            There are many perspectives that do not usually find any consideration in political discourse. Esoteric means hidden, from what I might call surface consciousness – which is similar to the matrix idea of a masking presentation.
            The sense of being denied whole truth also needs to own the desire to be protected from truth when its exposure is believed too terrifying or mind-breaking. This is not usually a rational urge so much as a preverbal strategy of evasion and denial operating automatically as a result of unconscious imprinting.

            Humanity is not yet – at least in ‘developed’ societies adept at embracing and integrating the Feeling dimension of being – and the isolation/alienation of communication breakdown into mind disconnect’ of a false and feeling denying rationalism, results in dense but highly charged unconscious but active forces of denied feelings of rage, terror, powerlessness, heartbreak, as well as of denied joy, and the subtler qualities of consciousness that are often forced down such as intuition, psychic sensitivity, or spiritual discernment. Perhaps various kinds of insanity and breakdown of consciousness and cognitive function lead us to have to address this – but the urge to put a heavy and often pharmaceutical lid on it is the official narrative.

            Reality is never spread out as a static and flat timeline of actions and events as might be imagined. Everything is Movement within a Field of awareness that is itself a movement and shifting of focus in and out of dimensionalities that can not be fitted into the current sense of self and world. But our sense of self and world can become open to that movement rather than defined in narrative upon a sense of limitation and control. Which of course transforms perspective and reconfigures the body-mind to be a more effective communication device for the Consciousness extending through it – which is to say – there is more to who we are than we currently think. Which might invite a fresh curiosity to look on what we think we know in recognition we do not know – but have models and reflections of partial understandings from such models that we are taking as conclusions – and identifying in a resistance to change because the known is full of fear – and the unknown is seen as the worse option. How many choose evil as the lesser of two evils relative to their fear of a worse outcome projected onto the ‘unknown’?

            • Matt Parry says

              Hello to the person whom’s chosen name is binra. I have read the comment thread on this article and your arc of knowledge is truly projectional and demonstrates what an ‘open mind’ can accomplish. Your words are chosen far better than I can currently place with your points on Elitism, destructive agenda, and the inner group are all true and there is an agent of that agenda posting on here.

              Throughout our time on this planet we see the use of fear and control to stop an awakening of collective conscience. The parts of the jigsaw puzzle are scattered to be found – but most go from the crisis of being born to the fear of time to die without even collecting one part of the puzzle stuck in the fuzziness of the mind helped by these agents,

              You state that you are not concerned as to whether or when we wake up, but I enquire gently if you actually are? Most comments here are of the “it’s true”, “it isn’t true”; your comments are providing a reason for the feelings/motivation, but your arc is of an appeal to “Break the Spell”. I ask as I sense you are grounded enough to ponder on this. Or “‘Why are you here, what is motivating you to provide your knowledge here and now?”

              My last question could also be asked of Jeremy, to gain a greater understanding of his true intent/motivation/behaviour.

              • I feel willingness to witness into a public attention in that which I feel a resonance and movement to engage with or comment into. And an unwillingness to closet or withhold that which I grow in, by sharing it…

                The ‘spell’ is ingeniously defended against waking – for that was its original purpose of employment. Part of the defence is the …

                Motivation is simple – we move toward fulfilment (as we each define it) and we move away from pain of loss (as we each define it. Whereas a living cell will do the same in attraction to nutrient and repulsion from toxin – we have the ‘mind’ of self definition that generates….

                So why would I not be ‘here’? and what more motivation do I need than to share in a fulfilment that is not ‘waiting’ for results – but living who I am – as I enjoy being – and addressing the ‘evils of the day thereof’ as they rise to awareness – to be seen for what they are or are NOT…

                Whether any of that answers anything you asked about? I am not an organisation or a representative of any but willingness for the embrace of Life on Earth – and I don’t limit what that embrace expands to become….

                If Humanity has ‘painted itself into a corner’ as is my sense of these times. Then the options are insanity, degradation and death … OR a shift of perspective – which in a sense is an evolutionary leap. For it is not a gradual refinement of what USED to work….

                I cannot make any one else’s choices – nor in sanity would I want to. But that doesn’t mean I am not involved, caring and compassionate to the issues being experienced in which of course I share or could not serve to articulate…

                Full reply at:


Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole