9/11, latest

Why do self-styled “skeptics” believe in their own brand of miracles?

by Petra Liverani

I find it such an interesting phenomenon that of all the self-styled skeptics I have corresponded with or whose opinions are aired online, every single one swallows the miracles, told to us by NIST, of the three high rise steel frame building collapses on 9/11 being caused by fire when the evidence clearly shows that the collapses were caused by controlled demolition. Moreover, the $5,000 10-point Occam’s Razor challenge on the cause of collapse of the third building, WTC-7, that I’ve issued personally to a significant number of these self-styled skeptics, has been very loudly ignored.

As Australian politician, Pauline Hanson, infamously said when asked if she were xenophobic, “Please explain”.

Please explain why it is that the most prolific scholar – by far – on 9/11 is a Christian and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, David Ray Griffin, and why this scholar, highly-esteemed within and without his own academic field, does not swallow the collapse-by-fire miracles? He has written over 10 books on the subject of 9/11, his latest being Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. He has also recently authored and co-authored two books on climate change. So he’s on the same page as most of the self-styled skeptics (in no way referring to the so-called climate skeptics, of course) with climate change but not with 9/11.

As summarised by Edward Curtin in his review of Griffin’s book, here are the 15 miracles that Griffin identified that the self-styled skeptics have swallowed:

  1. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were the only steel-framed high-rise buildings ever to come down without explosives or incendiaries.
  2. The Twin Towers, each of which had 287 steel columns, were brought down solely by a combination of airplane strikes and jet-fuel fires.
  3. WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane, so it was the first steel-framed high-rise to be brought down solely by ordinary building fires.
  4. These World Trade Center buildings also came down in free fall – the Twin Towers in virtual free fall, WTC 7 in absolute free fall – for over two seconds.
  5. Although the collapses of the of the WTC buildings were not aided by explosives, the collapses imitated the kinds of implosions that can be induced only by demolition companies.
  6. In the case of WTC 7, the structure came down symmetrically (straight down, with an almost perfectly horizontal roofline), which meant that all 82 of the steel support columns had to fall simultaneously, although the building’s fires had a very asymmetrical pattern.
  7. The South Tower’s upper 30-floor block changed its angular momentum in midair.
  8. This 30 floor block then disintegrated in midair.
  9. With regard to the North Tower, some of its steel columns were ejected out horizontally for at least 500 feet.
  10. The fires in the debris from the WTC buildings could not be extinguished for many months.
  11. Although the WTC fires, based on ordinary building fires, could not have produced temperatures above 1,800℉, the fires inexplicably melted metals with much higher melting points, such as iron (2,800℉) and even molybdenum (4,753℉).
  12. Some of the steel in the debris had been sulfidized, resulting in Swiss-cheese-appearing steel, even though ordinary building fires could not have resulted in the sulfidation.
  13. As a passenger on AA Flight 77, Barbara Olson called her husband, telling him about hijackers on her plane, even though this plane had no onboard phones and its altitude was too high for a cell phone call to get through.
  14. Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour could not possibly have flown the trajectory of AA 77 to strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, and yet he did.
  15. Besides going through an unbelievable personal transformation, ringleader Mohamed Atta also underwent an impossible physical transformation.

Now could it be that self-styled skeptics all over the Anglo world (Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins and Richard Saunders being notable examples) are suffering from a severe case of skeptic groupthink? You’d think one of them would deviate from the flock in their concept of truth, wouldn’t you?

An example of the faulty reasoning used by skeptics is displayed by !!Michael Shermer in this interview where he employs a common logical fallacy of 9/11 argument, argumentum ad speculum, by putting forward the seemingly great implausibility of the conspirators’ ability to lay explosives in the twin towers.

This hypothesis ignores the reality of how the buildings collapsed and also displays ignorance of information indicating how the task of laying explosives could have been achieved, as in Jeremy Rys’s 45 minute film, Conspiracy Solved!

There is much study in social psychology on why people believe things and what approaches to take to help them out of their entrenched beliefs (see presentation In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11, by neuroscientist, Laurie Manwell) but it truly baffles me that when you ask a self-styled skeptic to provide even just a single point to justify their belief and they fail, this stark confrontation with their inability to support their belief has no impact.

It truly astounds me. I’m not talking here about aggressive confrontation, in which case one can comprehend a psychological resistance. I’m talking about asking someone, with pretensions to operate in a realm of reason and logic, simply to provide support for their belief.

Occam’s Razor is a tool of logic that can be applied in different ways. In my appplication I take the approach: what hypothesis fits the piece of evidence in question with the fewest questions and assumptions. It works like magic. If a self-styled skeptic cannot use the tool to support their belief nor poke a hole in the points provided for the opposing view, surely reason and logic dictate that the skeptic must change their mind. If not, their claim to skepticism is utterly fraudulent.

Interestingly, Griffin divides the world into three types of people:

  • Those guided by evidence
  • Those guided by their paradigms of how the world is thus if 9/11 being a false flag does not fit into their paradigms of how the world works they simply will not consider the evidence
  • Those guided by wishful-and-fearful thinking thus if the idea of their own government perpetrating an horrific crime on their own people is too awful to bear they simply will not believe the evidence
    Shouldn’t self-styled skeptics, by definition, be of the first type? Apparently, not a one is. They seem to be all of the second type or possibly third.

The Australian Skeptics association defines skepticism as follows:

Skepticism is a dynamic attitude to the world around us. It is not a dogmatic approach restricted by “accepted wisdom”, but a serious and sincere appraisal of claims of how the world works.

In response to my perfectly-reasoned emails, however, a leading Australian skeptic, (we’ll call him “R”), simply dismissed me, without evidence or debate, as a “conspiracy theorist.” Sadly, in his discourteous emails, “R” displays the opposite of genuine skepticism. He displays, only, that he could not be more indoctrinated by the most successful propaganda weapon of all time, the “conspiracy theory,” meme promulgated by the CIA after the JFK assassination to silence and discredit those who questioned the lone gunman explanation.

From an article in the Observer about NYU Professor of Media Studies, Mark Crispin Miller:

The outspoken voice of public dissent considers [the term “conspiracy theory”] a “meme” used to “discredit people engaged in really necessary kinds of investigation and inquiry.”

For Miller, those investigations include, among others: did the U.S. government have foreknowledge of the 9/11 terror attacks and choose to do nothing? Were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others surreptitiously trying to dismantle the republic envisioned by the founding fathers? And is the CDC concealing links between the MMR vaccine and autism?

It’s one that you run into time and time again,” Miller said on an October 11 episode of CounterPunch Radio. “To the point that I now believe that anyone who uses that phrase in a pejorative sense is a witting or unwitting CIA asset.” [My emphasis.]

What sort of world do we live in when so many self-styled skeptics can watch the 6.5 second, beautifully symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 into its own footprint and accept the government report stating that it was caused by fire?

the collapse of WTC7 now acknowledged by NIST to be at free-fall

Unincinerated terrorist passport fluttering to the ground at the World Trade Centre and being handed in by anonymous passerby? BBC journalist stating that WTC-7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did? Owner of WTC-7, Larry Silverstein, speaking of how he suggested that perhaps the smartest thing to do was to “pull it” (term used originally for demolition by pulling a building down but now also used for controlled demolition using explosives)?

Do none of these puzzles excite even the barest curiosity in these so-called seekers after truth?


  1. We’re temporarily closing comments on this thread to allow things to subside. We’ll open them again later.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Very good written information. It will be useful to anybody who usess it, as well as me. Keep up the good work – can’r wait to read more posts.


  3. Appreciating the dedication you put into your website and in depth information you present. It’s good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same old rehashed material. Wonderful read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m including your RSS feeds to my Google account.


  4. Let me explain. In British English there are two words. A ‘sceptic’ is someone who is sceptical of the official version, and a ‘skeptic’ is someone who is sceptical of the sceptics. This became evident at the ‘Conspiracy Theory Day’ at Conway Hall, London, in 2011, when Karen Douglas, in reply to a question commented ‘with a k, of course’. There is a magazine, ‘The Skeptic’, apparently linked to the British Humanist Association, which demonstrates this clearly. When I looked that up the first issue I came across asked on its front page “How do we know that Climate Change is happening?” (or words to that effect). That makes it very clear.


  5. Not to make this about climate when it’s actually more about 9/11, but here’ s the polarity I was talking about elsewhere in the thread. The Guardian is claiming the current warm snap in the Arctic is unique and indicates a “tipping point”.


    WattsUpWithThat runs an article claiming the current warming isn’t unique at all

    Cue pointless “debate” in which the motives and funding of those involved become a substitute for discussion of the data in the case.

    Who’s actually factually correct? Are they both partly right and party wrong?

    How many people will put aside their preconceived ideas and bother to find out?


    • I am fine discussing climate change if the moderators are fine with it. Opinions on climate change get wrongly conflated with positions on 9/11, so I do see at least some relevance. It relates to how we, as sceptical observers of a world presented to us through a provably corrupt information system, can try to figure a ‘most likely’ scenario for what is actually going on.
      I read both pieces.
      I don’t see any significant factual disagreement between the two articles. The arctic, it is agreed by all parties, is showing an warm spike.
      Although I spend much of my time thinking and telling people how diabolically evil The Guardian is, I have to grudgingly admit that it has produced a better account of this event.
      The main theory to explain the high spike is that of a weakening Artic vortex. This is not even mentioned in the Whatsupwiththat article. The Guardian piece repeats throughout the cautiousness of the statements made by the scientists interviewed (“Spikes in temperature are part of the normal weather patterns” – Mottram ; “The current excursions of 20C or more above average experienced in the Arctic are almost certainly mostly due to natural variability” – Hausfather ; “This is too short-term an excursion to say whether or not it changes the overall projections for Arctic warming,” – Mann). I cannot see it as being ‘alarmist’ – on this occasion at least.
      The ‘Whatsup..’ article has some ambiguous and misleading statements.
      Greenland hit 6 degrees Celsius on Saturday, 35 degrees above average. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that parts of Greenland were warmer than most of Europe — a little misleading since Europe is engulfed in freezing winter temperatures..
      Europe’s temperatures are being considered relative to Greenland’s at the same time of year and it is extremely unusual to see them inverted like this at any time of year because of the lattitude difference. It is not misleading as far as I can see to make that comparison.
      Data before the satellite-era — 1976 — has some problems, so it’s hard to say the current spike is for sure a record.
      Well no. It is a record for sure. We have the data for the past 50 years or so and reliable or not, too short term to make a solid case -or not, it is a record. Why the obfuscation?

      You mentioned in a lower post the uncertainty about modelling the climate, and I think that all self respecting climate scientists would agree with you. What I keep reading in climate news, is that the models are increasingly being revised to account for faster warming than previously predicted- that and the sudden jerks in the data like this one.
      There is a claim of false equivalence in the ‘debate’. The case is made that the same tactics as were used to muddy the waters around the science linking cigarette smoke to lung cancer are being employed (by some of the same people !) to create the facade of a debate. We cannot say for sure that smoking ‘X’ number of cigarettes will give person ‘Y’ cancer, but we can say that science is conclusive that risk increases with exposure. I see climate change the same way.


      • I refuse to engage with any arguments (such as those in the video) that replace consideration of data with attacks on motive. Motive is irrelevant and a distraction. Data is data, regardless of the reasons it is being offered up. It is a disgrace that both sides of the populist wing of the climate debate are infested with this Stalinist type of perception management. I choose to ignore it.

        Yes there are big bucks in play here. But the claim (made by both sides) that all the money is on one side is a lie. Big bucks are investing in both sides. Their motives are probably not pure. So let’s agree to cancel out these factors and consider only the data.

        The models may well be getting revised, but not because there is observational data of increased warming. Because there currently is very little The warming profile remains subdued and uncertain after several years of definitive increase. Those kind of factoids, released into the press absent qualifiers or context are the kind of propaganda I’m talking about.

        Regarding the articles. The point is the absence of qualifiers and context. The best place to discover these is actually in the comments below the piece in WUWT, because many scientists and other climate-literate people from all sides of the debate tend to post there, though there is a definite bias toward the “skeptical” side in the readership. Nevertheless you will see mention of some of the numerous unknowns and variables that are always left out of the popular articles.

        A fifty year record is almost meaningless in terms of real climate on the real earth. No one has questioned the fact there has been warming in the last fifty years . “Records” are bound to be broken when considering this small time span. It’s important to get this in context. Weather isn’t climate – even when it’s an Arctic “record” high.

        Also remember we have increased thickness of sea ice. What does this mean? Does it cancel out the “record” warming? What about the “record” snow in Rome? If we cherry pick what data we find important we are simply using confirmation bias. Populism on both sides does this all the time.

        Uncertainty isn’t a trick by Big Oil or by Alarmist gurus. It’s a fact of life in climate science. Truth is we could be on the verge of massive warming or a new Ice Age or neither. We do not have the knowledge or observational experience to determine anything other than a small amount of warming has occurred in a small amount of time, and to tentatively apply some possible causal mechanisms.


        • Big B says

          With all due respect: over-specialisation and mono-focus on the climate debate, is, in itself obfuscational. Climate is a uni-variant in a multi-variant equation that indicates that humanity is negatively peturbing the environment. And our economy is rooted in the environment. It’s also kinda common sensical for us non-scientific dumbed down consumers of information. This is also a science based and empirical view, though, like climate science, the science is new. I already posted the Nate Hagens video as an overview. The ‘Bible’ for me is “Energy and the Wealth of Nations” by Hall and Klitgaard. The view becomes particularly apparent when you look at our current economic model from a bio-energetic POV. How close we are to our constraining planetary boundaries is not clear: but do we want to keep pushing to find the exact point of a metabolic rift occurring? If pure science-for-sciences sake can’t contribute to evolutionary politics: what use is it?

          The bottom line is, as the old joke goes: suppose it is a hoax, and we create a better world for no reason?


  6. Richard Wicks says

    I can quickly answer this. “Skeptics” tend to basically be atheists and well educated.

    In order to be well educated, it helps, a lot, to be gullible. So when your teacher tells you that “math is important”, you believe that and you diligently study whatever an authority figure tells you to study. Academics are very gullible, you have to be to be an academic, because you simply don’t have the time to evaluate everything you are being taught. AFTER you are taught, you can become critical of what you’ve been taught.

    So, over decades of being taught you learn to trust academic authority figures, and if you’re in a STEM field, let’s face it – most of what you are taught is correct. So plaster “Dr.” in front of anybody making any claim, and you believe it. Plaster “expert” in front of it, and you believe it.

    I’m an EE, when I questioned my professors or senior people in my field about a particular problem, you get gently, and throughly shutdown as you are torn apart and proved wrong. It’s difficult to break that conditioning.

    And plus, people in highly technical fields, are busy. It’s easy to believe the lies. People who are well respected engineers and scientists that i know, believe the BS – no point in trying to correct them. It’s disconcerting in the extreme to realize your media is propaganda. It took me a good 5 years to get over that myself.


    • Thanks, Richard, for an interesting perspective. The thing is I asked the skeptics to support their belief that WTC-7 collapsed by fire with 10 points using Occam’s Razor and they simply cannot do it. It’s not so hard to give the impression of refuting others’ arguments but it’s different when you’re asked to provide your own. If you call yourself a skeptic and you cannot provide a single point to support your belief what argument can you possibly have? Some of the “skeptics” I’ve engaged with are vociferous supporters of the fire hypothesis, they’re not just people who’ve never looked at the evidence and simply make the assumption that you must be a conspiracy theorist.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Richard Wicks says

        “The experts said so.”
        “If the media was lying, somebody would point it out, and the media would be forced to admit error.”
        “I’m no structural engineer, but a group of experts all agreed, except for a few nuts.”

        Their assumption is that the corporate media is reliable, and even if there’s some bad apples in the corporate media, surely there’s whistleblowers.

        What made ME aware that corporate media isn’t anything more than propaganda was when my aunt gave me a college graduation gift of the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, which contradicted everything I believed about the Israel/Palestine conflict. I didn’t believe a word of the magazine, but I did my Aunt the honor of verifying what I read, and it turns out, the conflict is really simple – it’s a conflict over land.

        Then I was skeptical, for life.

        Now, do I know what actually happened on 9/11? No. But I don’t believe the government’s account, given they used it to lie us into a war in Iraq and create the Patriot Act…


        • I should have also pointed out that I, an average arts graduate, provided my 10 points. So they have to refute my 10 points or provide their own and they can’t do either. They have nowhere to go and they cannot link to some dodgy report or get around it any other way. They all simply withdraw or dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist.

          It is not rocket science. I found Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth immensely helpful in getting my 10 points – http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/911.html.


          • Richard Wicks says

            It’s really quite simple, they don’t care enough.

            Let’s say 9/11 was an inside job, and is KNOWN to be a false flag. Well so what? The perpetrators got away with it, and our government isn’t going to ever bother to investigate it or bring the people responsible to justice.

            We know the Iraq War was based on falsified intelligence, there is no doubt about this. None. Who cares? The answer is, barely anybody.

            Look, does anybody really believe Assad who has a military and an airforce under his command is murdering civilians using the one weapon that invites US intervention, when he could do it conventionally? What’s his motivation to do this? I can tell you what the US’ motivation to frame him is: Genie Energy signed a deal with Israel in early 2013 to mine the oil from the Golan Heights which is Syrian land under Israeli occupation and Syria has Russia’s only Middle Eastern base. Probably a quite a few more reason as well.

            People just don’t want to think that they did nothing as the 4th Reich came into power.

            As a kid, I was confused how Nazi Germany could come into existence – I mean, surely some people would have been able to see what was happening. Well, some people did – but only a minority cared.

            Don’t worry, seems like Fascism only seems to last about 20 years or so. About 5 years to go I figure.


            • Harry Stotle says

              Perhaps it was the barbarism across Europe that blinded the world to another international outrage: the illegitimate use of atomic weapons to terrorise a defeated nation.

              Don’t forget Truman was well aware that Japan was ready to surrender but this didn’t stop him from sanctioning bombs droped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing around 250,000 civilians.
              In other words a country that had entered the war to thwart the spread of Nazism had resorted to the kind of indiscriminate mass murder that the likes of the Einsatzgruppen could only dream about.

              Perhaps emboldened by how easy it was to pass ‘little boy’ and ‘fat boy’ of as necessary evils the US have lied and murdered their way across the globe ever since – cheered on by the Guardian with article after article calling for regime change despite the obvious carnage that ensues when asymmetrical power struggles play out actors who hide behind a wall of lies and disinformation.

              Not only that but ‘Operation Northwoods’ tells us that long before 9/11 the US had already developed a political culture ready to sanction mass murder of their own civilians in order to further geopolitical objectives.

              Needless to say the author of this sinister document, Lyman Louis Lemnitzer was buried in Arlington with full military honours.

              The simple fact is that there is no meaningful counter narrative to the 9/11 lies beyond those who claim that the scale of the conspiracy was too vast for it not to have revealed itself in some way.

              But those who investigate crime scenes don’t think in such terms, they simply obtain evidence then develop a case that either can or cannot be substantiated by the what the evidence tells them (such as the manner in which 3 steel structured buildings collapsed in free fall).
              And as all students of the 9/11 myth know – the official version sold to us by the authorities simply cannot withstand even the most superficial level of scrutiny.

              Liked by 2 people

              • You’re absolutely right. Complete waste of time. I always think of Germany too – how many people had to turn a blind eye? No one wants to know. It’s either a case of way too inconvenient a truth or complete apathy. 9/11 is just part of a long continuum and now it’s all just false-flag hoax terror with the Florida school shooting being the latest instalment – at least as far as Anglo/European soil is concerned. I can’t seem to help myself though and still carry on wasting my breath.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Harry Stotle says

                  Once you’ve seen it, you can’t unsee it.

                  Even if we can only influence a small group we all probably share the same belief that we are obliged to try and spread the message to less enlightened souls.

                  Liked by 1 person

            • @LaCaryatide. Your first link .de (for Deutschland) reminds me of the proverbial German red tape bumbler’s question: “Warum so einfach wenn’s komplizierter auch gibsts?”. (Why do it so simply when there are also more complicated ways?”. The bystander who needed only one look said he recognized the standard thermite demolition method because he himself had brought down hundreds of buildings by that method. And the metallurgist in Utah found thermite in the dust because he looked for it (unlike the official committee who deliberately did not look for thermite, according to Flaxgirl’s post).
              So why invent such an outlandish and untried method as using an atomic bomb for such a small and routine almost everyday job as bringing down two or three high rise buildings neatly in crowded Manhattan?

              Liked by 1 person

              • looks like sophism. you can’t outlaw an hypothesis because from your point of view you don’t believe it is a rational move: whoever decided to do 9/11 false flag don’t follow you somehow rational way of thinking (sic).

                it’s not because you don’t understand why someone used nukes on 9/11 that it automatically dismisses the nukes hypothesis.

                so let me ask you basic questions, based on what has been observed on 9/11. you must think from facts and not find anything that feeds you false belief.

                how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the formation of a mushroom cloud over Building 7, towering one mile above the City?
                how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the formation of a vortex in the mushroom cloud over Building 7?
                how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the non-conservation of angular momentum when the South Towers Top toppled over and stabilized suddenly in freefall at 15° (a nuclear charge would produce a rising fountain of material acting as a stopping bolt)?
                how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the eruption of white gases from underground, mixing with the black clouds of the Tower’s dust?

                at 9:53 the white gases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_64RigP1Fk

                how do you explain – without a nuclear charge – the scintillation phenomena of the cameras, which started to register green dots, blue stripes etc, as soon as the fleeing cameramen were engulfed in the [e.g. radioactive] dustcloud?
                have you taken into account that the primary uranium fission products (confirmed by the USGS) will nearly all decay within a few days, with the exception of modestly radioactive Zirconium)?
                have you taken into account that many iron isotopes are stable an will not be activated by neutron radiation?
                have you taken into account that iron will rather scatter and not absorb neutron radiation, thus NO ACTIVATION will occur?

                if you cannot answer those questions or you don’t even want to try to answer, do not dare to claim that nukes were not used, since you flee from any argument about the very facts observed on 9/11.

                from now on don’t say you have not been warned about the limited hangoutness of richard gage.



            • My approach with 9/11 is to take the smallest amount of evidence required to prove it was an inside job. The keep it simple approach. Really the smallest amount could simply be the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration in WTC-7’s collapse but perhaps that’s too stark. I’ll go with the collapse being controlled demolition. With that alone you can go round and round in circles for an awfully long time. Why introduce something else to debate endlessly? It’s not germane to the basic argument so I don’t go there. I happen to think the evidence shows no planes crashed into the buildings but I don’t go there either for reasons I think are obvious.

              There are a lot of things we don’t know about 9/11. Best to forge ahead with what everyone can agree on and hope that an investigation results and that many of the mysteries are revealed to us from this investigation. Not holding my breath though.


              • And just to make clear – nanothermite, nuclear or combo – it’s always controlled demolition.


                • truth matters. i don’t think we live in democracy since the people don’t have the political power at all, and freedom of press / of speech does not exist. merely propaganda that only slaves still believe after all these years of deception. each decade there were deceptions and war propaganda.


              • i agree with you that to convince someone who has never investigated 9/11 issue, to start with the nuclear attack on Nuked York City is counter-productive, the basic evidence, laws of physics (first and third of Newton) should be enough to convince anybody enough open-minded th


                • f*** it.

                  laws of physics should be enough to convince anybody enough open-minded that 9/11 was a false flag, especially a controlled demolition and that consequently, alqaeda had nothing to do with the attacks.

                  yet, we are here between conspiracy nuts so we can allow ourselves to get to the point where we argue about what kind of weapons turned 3 steel-frame high building into dust.

                  wtc 1 and wtc were mostly steel-building while richard gage states than it was concrete that was turned to dust. nope richie, steel beams not only melted but they turned into dust in the wind of Manhattan!

                  how regular explosives could have done that?


                  • Actually, there were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in building the World Trade Center.

                    Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consisted of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows.


                    • alright but your informations mixes the whole world trade center date with only the data of the twin towers.
                      and it still does not help richard chicken gage to explain how all this tons of steel literally turned to dust.


                    • The dust clouds came from the two towers and not from WTC7. Secondly, all that steel got rapidly removed and shipped to China:


                      How old are you? I ask, because you sound very young and you sound like you weren’t around or were just a child on 9/11 and don’t really have a grasp on what happened and how.

                      Finally, I recommend you go to the following website and read everything on it, and refute every statement made by all the people quoted there:


                      Liked by 1 person

                    • age issue? that’s a low kick. i witnessed the 9/11 PsyOp live but i ain’t american. age issue is nonsens, historians understand better american civil war than the actors at that time. same thing about the French Revolution in 1789.
                      never said that dust cloud came from wtc 7 and not from wtc 1 and wtc 2. do not make me say what I do not think 🙂

                      i said ‘all this tons of steel literally turned to dust’ and not ‘all the steel from wtc 1 and wtc 2 turned to dust’ there is difference.

                      i have some pictures to show you:

                      especially 2 photo album.

                      An album dedicated to the nearly 1 billion lbs. of tank thick structural steel that pulverized itself to micron-sized dust from ground zero up 85% of towers 1 & 2 and 100% of tower 7 due to its shorter height. ground zero: “THE HYPOCENTER OF A NUCLEAR DETONATION”. ~Websters dictionary, 1999.


                      Dedicated to the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration), the FBI, FEMA and thousands of other first responders and local Manhattan residents that were there at ground zero as well as those who are now suffering from leukemia and other chronic radiation related sicknesses from having been too close to ground zero. Ground Zero: “The point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs”. ~Websters dictionary.



                    • ah oui? si tu viens sur ce terrain là c’est peine perdue.

                      surtout depuis que se faire traiter d’idiot par un imbécile est un plaisir de fin gourmet.
                      pourquoi est-ce que tu détournes la discussion avec des pratiques de troll? si tu n’arrives pas à croire que le 11 septembre est une attaque nucléaire, c’est ton affaire. mais puisque tu as bien l’intention de connaitre la Vérité (sic) sur ce qu’il s’est passé, c’est dommage d’écarter la piste des nukes alors que Dimiti Khalezov l’a expliqué depuis longtemps.


                    • Premièrement, je ne vous ai pas autorisé de me tutoyer, le fait que vous le faites ne fait qu’étayer ma perception de votre personnage!

                      Qu’un certain Dimitry Khalezov ait avancé sa théorie qu’il s’agissait d’explosions nucléaires ne veut aucunement dire qu’il avait raison, surtout que des inspections avec des compteurs Geiger n’ont pas enregistré de radioactivité sur le site!

                      Il est clair comme de l’eau de roche que j’ai une bien meilleure prise en main de la vérité au sujet du onze septembre que vous pourriez rêver avoir un jour.

                      Il est grand temps que vous grandissiez.


                    • you say ‘I recommend you go to the following website and read everything on it, and refute every statement made by all the people quoted there’ but i do not intend to deny all those witnesses. why would anybody do that? yet they don’t know what actually happened or can’t necessarily explain correctly what they witnessed, they are testimonies, nothing more.
                      again, don’t make me say what i don’t even think!


                    • You haven’t even bothered to go to that website, you call them witnesses and consider that what they said are testimonies. Vous êtes d’une incroyable mauvaise foi, cela ne sert à rien d’essayer de discuter avec vous – autant discuter avec un mur, car au moins les murs ne pètent pas plus haut que leurs cul!


                    • who told you i have not already read what they say?

                      41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11.

                      published in 2009. tu te prends pour qui à me faire la leçon? je viens de te dire que ce n’est pas parce quelqu’un était à new york le 11 septembre même qu’il connait mieux qu’un type qui a fait petit à petit des recherches sur l’Internet.
                      mais je te remercie malgré tout pour le lien, c’est toujours intéressant. si tu n’as pas envie de discuter, tu lis Veterans Today, Heinz Pommer et tu maugrées devant ton entrée en dissonance cognitive.
                      on ne va pas se laisser emmerder par les mecs dans les bistrots.


                      hop: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/10/05/911-filling-in-the-map-tracing-the-nukes/

                      et hop : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJfUw7aBrzWkaq3Lh_FdbEw/videos


                    • It is pretty obvious you have never read what they said – you think they were in New York on 9/11! LOL!

                      Votre argument ne vaut pas mieux que si je disais que j’ai fait des recherches au sujet de la chirurgie du cerveau sur internet et que je suis donc parfaitement capable et qualifiée pour opérer l’aneurisme près de votre corps pinéal! LOL!


                    • comment est-ce que j’aurai pensé à cet article sur Wayne Madsen de Réseau Voltaire si je n’avais pas déjà lu il y a longtemps oui et alors, leur témoignage? forcément que ce n’est pas ce dont je me souviens en premier pour le 11 septembre, étant donné que l’attaque nucléaire est bien plus flagrante et démontrée, expliquée!

                      tu commences à faire comme les chasseurs de conspirationnistes, ah bah, ah bah bravo Morray!

                      alors explique ce qui est à l’origine de ce que ces photos prises en infrarouge ont révélé, des points de chaleur et des hautes températures à Ground Zero jusqu’à décembre 2001?
                      la loi de conservation de l’énergie ne laisse qu’une seule réponse possible: l’énergie nucléaire. sorry not sorry.



                    • De plus j’ai longtemps discuté avec Thierry Meyssan sur plusieurs jours, en personne, il y a quelques années. Il ne contrôle pas tout ce qui est publié sur son site.


                    • qu’est-ce que cela change? Thierry Meyssan est l’un des premiers à avoir dénoncé l’opération sous faux drapeau, ce qui n’implique pas déjà que ce qu’il a écrit en 2002 est vrai, il peut s’être trompé sur le modus operandi ou ses conclusions s’être révélées fausses,
                      de deux Réseau Voltaire n’a jamais défendu l’hypothèse de l’attaque nucléaire. Seul Veterans Today a commencé à en parler il y a quelques années.


                    • La thèse d’une attaque nucléaire a été avancée en 2002, déja! Vous ne savez manifestement pas de quoi vous parlez.


                    • je te retourne le compliment! tout a commencé à partir du moment où tu m’as fait dire ce que je ne pense même pas alors va chier!

                      dès 2002? non, dès le mardi 11 septembre 2001, dans l’après midi, le laboratoire Sandia était à Ground Zero.

                      forcément, Ground Zero = The point on the earth’s surface directly above or below an exploding nuclear bomb.

                      je te laisse avoir le dernier mot l’esclave 🙂
                      n’oublie pas de lire les 168 pages sur la preuve irréfutable de l’attaque nucléaire: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dreger/GroundZeroHeat2008_07_10.pdf

                      et ce serait stupide de ta part de ne pas lire ce qu’explique François Roby parce que tu t’es fait retournée comme une crêpe par la personne qui t’a fait connaitre ce physicien! 😀


                    • Vous n’êtes qu’un petit morveux orchidoclaste! Je retourne discuter avec les adultes ici car je perds mon temps à essayer de discuter avec un bambin qui se prend pour ce qu’il n’est pas.


                    • qu’est-ce qui te fait dire cela? si tu as plus de 60 ans j’ai plus de chance d’arriver à 2050 que toi ahah! 🙂


                    • Dieu merci, je serai épargnée du désastre global que sera la terre en 2050, pauvre petit alburostre abutyrotomofilogène


                    • tu peux utiliser toutes les insultes sophistiquées que tu veux, que tu peux, pour éviter de m’insulter ouvertement, cela ne changera rien à l’attaque nucléaire du 11 septembre 2001!

                      ceci dit, t’emporter à ton age ce n’est pas bon pour ta tension, et il faut au moins que tu survives jusqu’en 2027 pour connaitre la prochaine pute que les américains et les sionistes installeront à l’élysée.

                      tu vois, je vais quand même lire ce que tu m’a passé, tu ne perds rien à écouter / lire françois Roby. il a été suspendu 2 ans par son université à la demande du crif, forcément il a tapé là où c’est interdit.


                    • you can delete all our argument which ended in insults, it gives a bad look to off guardian. yet she started the beef while i just talked about 9/11 issue and she came to make me say stuff i don’t even think.

                      mais je comprends que la possibilité que sa fausse croyance sur le 11 septembre 2001 et son incapacité à accepter l’attaque nucléaire ne la fasse entrer violemment en dissonance cognitive! 🙂

                      si elle n’est tout simplement pas juste une pute de hasbara..


                    • Vous vous trompez encore une fois (en fait, vous ne faites que ça!). Je ne suis pas Juive et je suis profondément anti-Sioniste. Vous, par contre, vous semblez être un nazionaliste!


                    • autant pour toi alors.
                      je m’assois aux côté de Robespierre et de Jacques Roux, dont de facto je suis un Rouge-Brun. 🙂

                      antisioniste? c’est tout? tu es juste contre le sionisme? il n’y a aucun projet positif, rien à construire? tu ne fais que t’opposer? on arrivera à rien avec juste des esclaves comme toi qui se limitent à l’antisionisme.

                      là il se passera quelque chose: http://www.comite-valmy.org/spip.php?article9036


              • i agree with you that in order to convince anybody that 9/11 was a false flag, the laws of physics should be enough to convince that person th


                • We don’t know what happened, but we do know what didn’t happen. I don’t necessarily see a contradiction between the nanothermite theory and the nuclear theory. The nuclear theory involves conventional explosives, too. If the nuclear theory is correct, we would still expect to find incendiaries and explosives. If there is a disinformation operation over this, then one would expect nanothermite to be planted in the samples if it wasn’t actually used. Both sides can be entirely sincere in this, and they should be talking to each other. Once we tell people not to research this or that we become control freaks, just like those who are saying we shouldn’t be researching 9/11 in the first place.


                  • explosives were used to create the necessary nuclear chimney. the nuclear chimney was created:
                    by opening the building on top [by airplanes (?) and explosives]
                    by explosions in the sub-basement, leading to the device,
                    by targeted blasts at the floors to connect the elevator shafts,

                    The weakening of the structure was achieved by:
                    detonating cutter-charges at the core steel columns,
                    using the incendiary thermite for creating brief bursts of high temperature in small areas (partial melt out),

                    what was observed:
                    Little fountains of liquid metal, similar to discharges or little detonations were ejected from the facade,
                    molten steel was pouring out of the breaking points of the South Tower.


                  • @ianfantomo. Nanothermite was not planted in any sample — because no samples were taken to test for nanothermite! Seeflaxgirl’s post re Lynn Margulis. The official committee deliberately refused to test for the most obvious agent — because someone heading that committee knew what they would find if they did test. The nanothermite was found by a professor of Materials Science who collected dust from the crime scene unofficially. Lost his job at Utah university for trusting his electron microscope instead of being a Believer.

                    Anybody remember “I’m a Believer!” — by the Monkees?


                • @Flaxgirl, Caryatide. Larry Silverstein had already wired up his 3 buildings for controlled demolition by thermite. All he had to say was, “Pull it!” — and down went building #7. Atomic bombs sound like a sophisticated and superfluous hypothesis.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • sorry not sorry that that legend keeps living yet it is misinterpretation: larry lucky didn’t say ‘pull it’ in a way to order the demolition but to order the firemen to get out of the building.
                    who knows if he actually doesn’t lie in the first place? fires in building 7 were small and restricted. building 7 shouldn’t have turned to dust. building has just a giant hole inside of itself (thanks nukes!) but the external steel structure didnot collapse.

                    i guess larry lucky lied about the ‘pull it’ thing because it gives credit to the story that building 7 collapsed due to office fires. no shit sherlock, office fires..

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • Nonsense. Firstly, he didn’t have the authority to issue an order to the firemen, and secondly, if that was what he meant, he would have said “pull them” and not “pull it”.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • so when lucky larry said ‘pull it’, first you believe that he actually said these very words on 9/11 afternoon,
                      secondly you believe that he could have authorized the controlled demolition? the guy just a tenant while wtc 7 was a building used by the SEC, the CIA and the FBI.

                      no way lucky larry has any power about the controlled demolition. that would have been a decision made by the legal authorities and definitely not by a mere billionaire.

                      fact is that the destruction was prepared before the wtc 7 was in fire, as for wtc 1 and wtc 2. that’s why it is called controlled demolition. especially, only the nukes hypothesis explains the way wtc 7 fell down.

                      here for you the explanations lad: http://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch01_en.html#autoid894915/


                    • Oh, and why did you call me a lad? I am not a lad, I am not a male, and I am probably old enough to be your grandmother.


  7. @Petra Liverani. Re para following point 15, I don’t know why the other two are Believers but you really cannot expect that Richard Dawkins “would deviate from the flock”. He is an Oxford man, Home of Lost Causes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Interestingly, Dawkins’ fellow evolutionary theorist, Lynn Margulis, appears in the film made by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Experts Speak Out – youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og.

      She says about NIST’s eschewal of examining the WTC dust for explosives:
      “That is the most unscientific thing you can possibly think of, not to look because you don’t expect to find evidence. And, in fact, the evidence is overwhelming.”
      You can see her say these words in the great satirical version of the song “I believe in Miracles” by AE9/11Truth here: youtube.com/watch?v=71fwKA9Udso

      She spoke at a Voices from Oxford event, Homage to Darwin (Part 2), along with other scientists, including Dawkins. It’s way above my head but she made the point that a gene cannot be selfish as it has no “self”. It seems reasonable – but, as I say, way above my head. http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/Homage-to-Darwin-part-2/63


      • @flaxgirl: “she [Lynn Margulis] made the point that a gene cannot be selfish because it has no self”. Thanks for that; very neat. A gene is what it is and does what it does. All genes are like that: literally selfless. And cooperative, according to evolutionary biologists like Margulis and Prince Kropotkin. “They go about their work blithely, doing what God made them for, not caring about reproach or praise from mankind” — as Dante says about the workings of Fortuna [Nature] in his Purgatorio.

        Liked by 1 person

        • It’s also interesting to note that Margulis’s first husband was Carl Sagan, one of the founding members of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. https://www.csicop.org/about/about_csi He’d be turning in his grave at the nonsense the members churn out now on 9/11, especially the work of the member, Dave Thomas, who is actually an academic physicist. An academic physicist cannot tell the difference between a building collapse from controlled demolition and a building collapse by fire? Amazing how the mind works.


          • @flaxgirl. Interesting question because one of the most convincing witnesses at the time was a passer-by who happeved to be a professional high-rise building demolisher. He said on TV that it only needed one look — by a man who has brings down buildings as his job. So I don’t blame your academic physicist for not having a trained eye. But his failure to appreciate the importance of Free Fall is reprehensible; especially since it was a high school physics teacher who pointed out almost immediately after the event that he had measured the rate of fall from the TV videos. 0 out of 100 for your academic physicist inthe paper on Galileo’s Law of Free Fall..

            By the way, I mentioned your remark from Lynn Margulis to my daughter who took biology at The Other Place and she replied, “Yes, funny old Dawkins always preaching against anthromorphosis and God, and then he goes and anthromorphosises a gene.”

            Liked by 1 person

            • I’m a trained physicist, and my immediate reaction was, “Is that possible?” However, my attention was drawn to the human situation, and didn’t return to the question until December 2006. I think any trained physicist would have had a similar reaction on seeing apparent freefall. It was only because I’d been brainwashed by listening to the BBC news every day since Easter 1959 that I didn’t immediately cotton on to controlled demolition. At the age of 13 I’d just visited Germany for the first time and was asking, “Could it happen here?”. That’s why I tried to keep up with the news, which is essential for democracy to work. At the age of 60 I started to cotton on.

              Liked by 1 person

              • @the Fantom. Me too aged 60, trying to make sense of why my country Britain was helping NATO to rain more bombs on Belgrade than the Nazis had done. At first I thought it was simply some gigantic bureaucratic blunder in the complex NATO hierarchy. But then it was followed by Britain joining the “Coalition of the Killing” in Iraq. Then Britain joining France and the rest of NATO in the destruction of Libya. And now NATO has become NATZO – its seven year war against Syria, right up the road (about 2 hours drive) from where I live now. And NATZO destabilizing the Ukraina and Georgia, and preparing for a nuclear war against Russia. So, over the past 20 years, a slow but irrevocable conversion. I suppose old age — and not having to earn one’s living, and the kids having flown the roost — brings leisure to reflect and to “follow the enquiry wher it leads”.

                “Old men ought to be explorers” — TS Eliot

                Liked by 1 person

              • Perfectly reasonable and I probably didn’t express myself in the fairest way. I didn’t cotton on myself until 2014 when, unsuspectingly, I clicked a link to the 3.5 hour film by British historian, Francis Richard Conolly, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick.

                I don’t expect people to recognise things immediately, as I didn’t myself for a ridiculously long time, because it seems pretty alien – the US government killing its own people on its own land in this manner even if it has lots of soldiers killed elsewhere for no good reason. But once they are alerted by an argument that contradicts the “official story” and they’ve engaged in careful examination and they happen to be an academic physicist, that’s a different story.


                  • @flaxgirl. Thanks again, this time for challenging the self-styled “academic physicist” in your Link. I see he is also Leader of his local rationalist society. Reminds me of the Schoolmen repeated Galileo’s Free Fall experiment by dropping weights from the same tower; they reported, as expected, that the heavier weight fell faster. Neither could they see what Prof.Galileo saw, though he lent them his own telescope. Likewise your academic physicist reports that his team did the exporiment and found thermite was unable to melt a steel beam.

                    “The truth rarely, if ever, convinces its opponents; it blithely outlives them” — Max Planck, Academy physicist, Berlin, ca.1900

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • I run meetings for a group called ‘Keep Talking’ in London. Perhaps some of the commenters here would be interested in contacting me. Ian at Keep Talking (one word) dot info. We’re freethinkers.


  8. I would like to believe the author’s perspective solicits greater acceptance than my cynicism allows. History is littered with grand deceptions that have evolved into truths. Contrary to evidence Americans believe they live in a democracy as do the British and many other nations of dubious stature. If we accept, not necessarily believe, the lie of a vote equates to representation, then when governments issue ‘the truth’ concerning appalling acts of brutality it follows we support them. I don’t claim any understanding upon the September 11th incident, but do recognise that if government has any involvement then I am being deceived. As a side note the site veteran’s today have an interesting evaluation of the development of that day


  9. Big B says

    Thanks [Flaxgirl] for the reminder of the Laurie Manwell presentation on psychological resistance. As a secular Buddhist, I am fascinated by the philosophy of mind: particularly the concretisation and reification of the false belief of a fixed and substantive self – that is not only change averse and resistant, but also reactively entrenched and aggressively defended. It is the root cause of all conflict, internal and external, culminating in mental illness and war. These are the microcosm and macrocosm of ignorance and delusion …essentially the internalised or externalised fight to defend the process of false belief creationism. Reductio ad absurdum in this way: war is the violent defence of an increasingly absurd system of beliefs; or the attempted hegemony of fallacy. Unfortunately, as the presentation makes clear, mine is an uncommon view; and the dominant cultural view has more than enough who are willing to die for it.

    I am also fascinated by the effect on the transitive selfview of an event like 9/11: as the event becomes objectified, culturally codified, invested in ideology, and incorporated into the mass psychological worldview. Especially when it is glorified, based on high jingoism (exceptionalist racism and supremacism): such as the weaponised and mantrafied words like “OK, let’s roll” – which Todd Beamer never actually said; and the generic phrase “they hate us for our freedoms” – which the Patriot Act had just criminally abated. False beliefs – such as the 9/11 ‘official narrative’ – that are authoritatively and officially sanctioned – and uncritically accepted back into the selfview (in an affirmational, thoughtless and concretive feedback loop) become the seedbed of totalised control. Which, in this case, was leveraged as justification for the revengeful and pre-emptive destruction of the dehumanised other (the thought crime of being ethno-culturally different – i.e. Muslim); the included exceptionalist (collectively narcissistic) groupthink threatening outgroups; the unspecified ‘terrorist’ (including civilian) unpeople …essentially the excluded rest of humanity [many of whom were to be extra-judicially murdered by the GWOT]. All in an ideologically just cause: toward the expansion of the cultural hegemony of an Empire of Fallacy.

    Within the framework of the dominant culture: the personal and trans-personal competitive self-amplifying feedback will tend to produce more and more extreme and atomised versions of the identitarian and authoritarian selfview – looking for a cause. Exposing and disarming the extremist authoritarian personality, on an individual or national scale, without provoking reactively retrenched violent confrontation becomes imperative. This may best be achieved self-organised enclaves of sanity, where critical thinking, rational, empirical, and truth based thought can flourish (a bit like OffG!). From there, the responsible and moral alternative can be furthered and forwarded?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Excellent comment.

      I am wondering if there is a latent racism in the position of some who admit the involvement of Saudi elites in the crime of 9/11, but steadfastly attack/ ignore anyoneone who points out the obvious connections to white Americans (?).

      I note that people like Ryan, Peter Dale Scott, Griffin all have some reference to a less ‘fixed and substantive self’.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Big B says

        Thanks Mog: don’t forget Graeme MacQueen, who describes himself as a freethinking “small b Buddhist,” one who is not influenced by scriptural authority or doctrine. The bottom line is at least a retained and functional morality and critical faculties, which can be developed by secular spiritual means …as opposed to suspended by thoughtlessness or transferred to the group or charismatic leader? [Arendt’s “Banality of Evil”]


      • milosevic says

        Consider the racism implicit in the worldview of the majority of North American and European “leftists”, who are quite willing to acknowledge that the US government has murdered over a million Iraqis in the service of elite interests, but find it impossible to conceive that the same government might be willing to kill three thousand mostly white Americans in order to provide a pretext for all that.

        Or the classism inherent in the idea that while the US government was willing to have five thousand of its soldiers (overwhelming lower-class) killed in Iraq (who else was responsible for that, the Iraqis???), it would be incapable of having three thousand middle-class office workers killed in New York and Washington.

        The establishment left is quite comfortable with the idea of imperialism killing millions of brown people in faraway third-world contries — why, Saint Noam Chomsky said so, himself. But as for the possibility that they might also kill white people in the imperial homeland — oh, no no no, that can’t possibly be true. They’re Not That Evil.

        Such a “left” is truly worthy of serving imperialism, by redirecting opposition and dissent into avenues which pose no real threat to the system.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Harry Stotle says

      Great post yet 5 down arrows – it looks the thread is under attack.

      If people object to those who don’t buy into the official 9/11 conspiracy theory then why not simply contest the points that have been made?


      • George says

        It’s easier to just click the “down” arrow. But those who do so should offer a response. Those who click the “up” arrow don’t need to because they are just agreeing with what has already been said.


        • George says

          And the (at the time of this typing) 13 “down” responses to my comment conclusively prove my point.


        • We’ve had trolls at work in this thread – random comments on all sides of discussion have had 15+ down votes for no obvious reason. Pointless but there you are.


          • George says

            On the topic of troll networks, a while ago when visiting Richard Seymour’s Lenin’s Tomb website (which now seems to have been abandoned), I was surprised to find that a negative response to one of his articles – seemingly from a Right Wing racist – had received 52 “likes”. Normally on this site, you might get 4 or 5 “likes”, maybe as much as 12. But 52? This contentious comment had a lot of responses. Those who disagreed scraped a few “likes” each. Those in favour – up in the 50s.

            Following related debates led me to the ferociously Right Wing site Breitbart. An article entered on that very day had already notched up 1621 comments and the figure was rising even as I watched. One comment had already acquired 103 “likes”. Meanwhile some racist commenter can have a sneer at Seymour on Seymour’s own site and acquire a wagonload of support. Clearly the Right have well-funded and well-disciplined troll networks.


      • milosevic says

        If people object to those who don’t buy into the official 9/11 conspiracy theory then why not simply contest the points that have been made?

        Because they can’t. There is no rational argument or evidence that can be advanced to support the Official Story.

        But you already knew that; it was a rhetorical question.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. rtj1211 says

    I would remove your throwaway comments about climate change if I were you. Standing on one side of another unlinked debate is not evidence which is accepted in a court of law, so do not claim those who agree with this author on 9/11 have to agree on human-induced global warming.

    Here are some climate facts which zealots deny:

    1) Repeated Ice Ages occur with relatively short interglacials, at least two of which saw temperatures 2C higher than current temperatures on earth. How can temperatures 2C cooler than previous eras be unprecedented?
    2) Correlation of carbon dioxide levels with temperature simply do not exist over geological timescales. How is 400ppm carbon dioxide unheard of when 4000ppm existed in previous history?
    3) Why is variable solar output not critical to earth temperatures but variable carbon dioxide gas levels is?
    4) Why do global warmers deny the existence of The Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period snd the Minoan Warm Period? Could it be that our current warmish period would then just be part of a multicentennial oscillatory temperature bea and not the crisis to end all crises?
    5) Why does IPCC still need to exist and fund further research if the science is settled? Should funds not be diverted to arenas where knowledge is still sketchy?
    6) Given the potent demonstration of the effects of Oceanic Parameters afffecting snowfall in California and Europe in 2017 and 2018, would you not agree that a surfeit of el nino activity from 1977-1998 might well be the driver of transient warming, whereas a surfeit of la nina activity drove cooling from 1950-1975?
    7) Given the high sunspot activity during the 20th century warming, would a period of lower solar activity driving cooling suggest solar forcing is rather more important than warmists are comfortable admitting?

    This site has remained silent on the topic of climate perhaps for prudent reasons.

    But if it says facts are sacred, there can be no climate sacred cows here…..


    • Catte says

      We’ve hosted several articles on the subject of climate change. We don’t have an editorial line this is true. We think our best function is to provide a platform for reasonable discussion on a topic that tends to be over-polarised and under-discussed.


      • If people are going to discuss climate change (yet again) can we suggest it’s in the spirit of scientific enquiry, wherein neither side uses argument from dismissal or ad hom and both sides refer to peer-reviewed data?

        (not aimed at you vierotchka, but just a general suggestion)

        Liked by 1 person

    • 1 & 4 :


      3: False dichotomy argument. Climate scientists put solar variation into their models. Both have an effect:

      Knowledge is still sketchy about climate change. Science is not ‘settled’ – as in we do not know how much Earth will warm ,in what time scale etc. Models need continual improvement/ updating with data collection. It is a complex system. We know that Carbon gases trap heat (greenhouse effect is scientifically repeatable fact). We know that CO2 and methane levels are rising in atmosphere – fact. We know that tempuratures are rising at rapid rate – fact. The best working model is that there is a causal link between these measurable facts.
      Regional and local weather anomalies cannot be taken as indicative of support or refutation of AGW. The increasingly frequent global incidence of such extremes is in line with computer models of the Earth’s climate where more energy is retained in the system and more extreme weather patterns and events result.

      Answered before.

      The balance of opinion in the (huge) scientific community that is involved in this research, is that warming is happening and that it is (at least in part) human induced. The predicted feedback loops are manifesting as carbon gases are released from frozen soils and oceanic methyl hydrate :

      Science supports anthropogenic climate change theory, as it supports the demolition hypothesis at WTC.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Quoting Skeptical Science is like quoting the Guardian. SS is part of the elite propagandist machine. There are much better sources. SS is not ashamed to lie outright.

        Whatever the science says about AGW – and it’s ambiguous. We have to start the discussion by accepting the reality THERE IS A MASSIVE BILLION DOLLAR CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE IT.

        Yes, there is money on the skeptic side as well, I won’t deny it, and when money is involved corruption ensues.

        But unless we accept there is money on BOTH sides we can’t discuss reality.

        We know why fossil fuel companies are promoting skepticism. But why are they also funding the believers?

        And why are the real heavy-hitters in the globalist movement also at the forefront of the climate change initiatives?

        How many of AGW’s major proponents do you trust on any other topic?

        Bill Gates? George Monbiot? The Guardian? George Soros? Goldman Sachs?

        I’m not arguing AGW is not real or potentially a problem. I am saying whatever the science says we NEED to ask these questions because we know these people will use any excuse to exploit and control. Even if AGW is real we don’t want them using it as an excuse for their agenda of more and more totalitarian control.

        So, can we agree to discuss it in a way that takes cognisance of AGW’s role in the agenda of neoliberal globalism as much as the ff industry’s agenda of continuing production?


        • And can we also acknowledge that while there are paid proponents on both sides, there are also honest scientists? Not everyone who disagrees with the side you might prefer is a paid shill. This kind of assumption kills useful debate.

          Liked by 2 people

        • I disagree about the Sceptical Science webpage. It is stuffed full of links to relevant peer reviewed papers that support their arguments. [do you have evidence that it is ‘part of the elite propagandist machine’ ?]
          The Guardian have been the leading UK reporters on the climate change issue, but to be frank – if I am looking at their coverage from the perspetive of someone convinced by the AGW argument, it is shoddy shit, and almost non-existent over recent years. The predictions of climate scientists are so extreme that they should reasonably demand headlines everyday. What happened to ‘keep it in the ground’ (Rusbridger’s swan song campaign) ? Lasted a few weeks. The conflict of interest of car salesmen selling climate stories seems to confirm to me the reason that the Guardian have failed at this as they have with everything else.
          I do not believe in metaconspiracies, at least not ones that can bend such a vast body of scientific research. Whilst I accept that the issue is manipulated by power elites, who have an agenda, that doesn’t mean that all statements in support of the science are therefore suspect.
          The dubiousness of the advocates does not undermine the science for me. Science is science. Steel buildings cannot just fall to pieces, we have pumped the atmosphere with gases that we know trap infra red rays.
          Look at some of the people supporting 9/11 scepticism…..it doesn’t sway my support for Griffin’s / Ryan’s case just because some neo-nazi’s also believe that US/Israel did it. That is the association fallacy isn’t it?

          Liked by 2 people

        • Big B says


          Denialism always makes me think of this cartoon.

          MLS makes some good points: both sides are being funded. Partisanship is divisive. We know what future is being planned: but the smart and inclusive play is to hijack the debate – and map out the future we want. We have to change: our socio-economic paradigm is broken; our ecological paradigm is broken; our underpinning mental (egoic) paradigm is broken. Instrumental reason; individuality (being as separated from Nature); competitiveness; short-termism; unfalsifiable abstract beliefs …these are just some of the traits we have to adapt. We put our ego; economy; and ecology in line with Nature or we cease to be viable as a civilisational population. It is that simple.

          System change: not climate change – as the slogan goes. The effects of accumulated debt; financial engineering by the G7 central banks; increased cost of the extraction of our primary fuel, oil (EROEI); oil reserve-replacement ratio decline; unsustainable resource depletion; etc – will probably combine to head off the worst of AGW. PROBABLY: and that is a mighty big gamble for us to take on the behalf of future generations? We’ve already foreclosed their future with our debt burden. Which brings me back into the dialectic of broken paradigms, spiralling down?

          The age of the false prosperity of abundant hydrocarbons is in its last decades. Fossil capitalism is dead. We are already in a Long Depression of diminishing returns and declining incomes and growth, but increasing inequality in wealth …within the societies of the developed capitalist nations: but felt more acutely by the peripheral excluded Global South. The broken paradigms of the last two centuries are off the table: we evolve a new philosophy of mind (egoless; True Self; Bodhicitta); fostering a cooperative ecology and economy. We are all here because we can already envisage the alternative of this broken present becoming a dystopian near future? We get together and move on, or the looming future becomes steadily unconscionable?


        • Where is your evidence that Skeptical Science lies outright? I started to follow SS early on when its only contributor was its founder, John Cook. He set up the site after having an argument with his father-in-law about US Senator Inhofe’s expression of his anti-scientific views on climate change. Cook strikes me as being as objectively scientific as one could possibly hope to be. So the Guardian was good and now it’s bad and the same for SS? You need to provide evidence.

          I think you’ll find that whatever money is funding climate change campaigns a lot of it is smokescreen and the fossil fuel people are still as stupidly gung-ho as they possibly can get away with. And the point is renewables are becoming cheaper and cheaper. Apart from climate change there is no good reason to stick with fossil fuels in any case.


          • I’ve posted a lot of stuff here on the AGW debate so maybe there are links to specifics somewhere, but suffice to say SS practice the subterfuge of presenting that which is uncertain as being certain in a manner aimed at non-scientific audiences.

            You see, inside scientific circles the debate about AGW is completely different from the populist version we read in the press and see in documentaries – which is pure propaganda on both sides.

            The arguments of certitude presented to the public are lies, not because AGW is or isn’t real and one side is pretending the opposite, but because there actually is no certitude in either direction, and the scientists themselves, talking amongst themselves know this full well.

            Read the peer-reviewed papers from both sides – there’s no certitude presented there by either Believers or Deniers. In the real science it’s all discussed as balances of probability and due acknowledgement is made to the gaps in out knowledge (which are huge btw), and which make robust theories almost impossible.

            But both sides have agreed to abandon the uncertainty when talking to the general public, because, they argue, the issues are too important and non-scientists will simply not pay attention unless the “facts” are oversimplified.

            Consequently the general public’s understanding of the “debate” is a travesty. Just as dumbed down and propagandised as your average CNN or FOX News viewer’s idea about Trump or Russia.

            The real climate debate is infinitely subtle and complex, but it’s been boiled down into memes for general consumption. Doubt and open-mindednes, the very soul of true scientific enquiry have been criminalised in the public mind on this issue, and any expression of uncertainty is greeted as heresy – especially among the pro-AGW people,but also by the “deniers”.

            We simply do not know enough about the climate, its hugely complex cycles, its unknown variables, its many many forcers, to adequately determine how much impact increased CO2 will have. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or misled.

            Anyone who says AGW is disproven is lying or misled. Anyone who says AGW is proven is lying or misled.

            And remember also that AGW is not the same as CAGW – which is the real potential problem. It’s quite possible manmade CO2 is warming the planet, but there’s quite another leap from that to claiming this warming will be catastrophic.

            This is the least well known aspect and the most controversial.

            You see, CAGW computer models are programmed to assume positive feed back loops generated by increased CO2, and this is how they generate massive hikes in temperature.

            But if you program your models without factoring in positive feedback the warming produced is minor and possibly even beneficial.

            So the real controversy is not whether AGW is real, but whether it will produce a positive feedback loop that makes the warming catastrophic.

            The thing is, even though all the catastrophe models are built assuming positive feedback, there is very little evidence as yet that such positive feedback loops exist in nature.

            They may exist, but the evidence for them is thin.

            If they don’t exist, then even if AGW is real, CAGW will almost certainly not happen because the well-observed negative feedback will encourage homeostasis.

            Until we have some robust evidence for such positive feedback loops the debate remains highly uncertain, incapable of resolution.

            Climate scientists on both sides know this. but they are very loath to say so in front of the general public, preferring their simplistic claims of “lies” or “Denier!”

            So, sadly the entire climate debate – in terms of the genera public – is more about competing propaganda than real science. We should be as totally sceptical of it as we are of the mainstream news.


            • MLS, I’d like you just to give me an example of an outright lie from SS, however, we can leave it.

              Assuming what you say is true, the point is that there seems to be quite a risk of CAGW so regardless of whether it will happen if we continue the way we’re going or not why not act is if it will? Fossil fuels are very harmful outside climate change and renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

              Also, isn’t the ice albedo positive feedback loop actually identified? Isn’t the permafrost melting and releasing methane? What am I missing?

              Liked by 1 person

              • Well, no, the risk of CAGW in scientific terms should be regarded as vanishingly small until some robust evidence exists for positive feedback. This is not denying or affirming, it’s simply following the dictates of the scientific method.

                The release of methane wouldn’t itself imply a positive feedback loop. After all the earth has gone through many frost -free periods in its history and several ice ages involving the storage and release of methane, and the system has always remained in balance.

                Wise to note that our current period is actually well on the cold side of average for the earth’s history. There have been many long eons in which there were no polar ice caps. Glaciation could be regarded as the exception rather than the rule.

                I agree there’s every reason to keep researching renewables, because fossil fuels are dirty and nasty in many ways besides potential global warming.

                But there’s also every reason to resist being stampeded by dodgy proponents of panic. I would not buy a used car from Al Gore, Bill Gates, George Monbiot or Goldman Sachs. And I wont buy their agenda on this any more than on Syria. I think we need to keep cool headed and well informed about the evidence while avoiding all the propaganda on both sides.


          • And while I agree with you it would be good to ween ourselves off the polluting hydrocarbons, there is one very good reason to stick with fossil fuels for the foreseeable future unfortunately – namely that there is simply no other fuel source that could hope to meet the energy needs of the developed world.

            Research is ongoing and we must remain hopeful, but right now the “renewables” sector is in a mess. Without the huge subsidies given to wind and solar power these businesses would not be profitable simply because their production is so inefficient. Other methods are being developed and may prove viable in the future. But if we switched off oil and gas now we would be lost.

            Oh and the “fossil fuels are funding the deniers” is partly true but also a bit of a lie.

            Yes, Shell, Exxon etc fund some of the “denier” research. But not all of it. Some is done by people who just want to find the truth, because not all “deniers” are denying, some are just asking.

            And Shell, Exxon etc also fund the “Alarmist” scientists. Because they are happy to see high fuel prices (to save the planet), and are already hoovering up massive subsidies developing renewables.

            So it’s another situation where the complex reality has been simplified into propaganda.

            And in fact there is, as I said, a lot of money also being invested (some of it by some very dodgy people indeed) into promoting the CAGW theory for whatever reason that may be.


    • George says

      I don’t know the facts behind the climate debate but the first paragraph in your post is perfectly reasonable i.e. climate change and what happened on 9/11 are completely separate issues.


      • @George. Yes indeed. 911 is a criminal conspiracy where the physical facts are very clear (1-15 in Petra’s article above) and all that remains is for the criminals to be brought to Justice. Climate change is a complicated environmental problem where some of the physical facts are clear but the results of their interaction are not precisely predictable, one prediction being that a great catastrophe (many times greater than 911 and its sequellae) will result from failure to take a few elementary precautions by the general population: thermal runaway (if it comes) will occur through general fecklessness rather than through specific criminality as in 911.


  11. Published on 16 Sep 2014
    Jane Standley of the BBC reports that World Trade Center building 7 had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did. In fact, it was standing over her left shoulder the entire time!
    What an epic fail BBC!


    • Harry Stotle says

      A huge gaffe for the corporate media that led to Tony Rooke refusing to pay his TV license (under Section 15 Article 3 of the terrorism act) a case which he won in court on the basis that his money was being used indirectly to fund terrorism and the fact the BBC had covered up the true events of the day, or at least had prior knowledge of a terrorist act when they reported the collapse of WT7 20 minutes before the building actually went into free-fall.

      Rooke went on to make ‘Incontrovertible’ – his take on 9/11 which is well worth seeing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It was no gaffe, Harry. Staged-event analyst, Ole Dammegard, has said that an insider told him that the power elite justify their hoaxing of us by TELLING us through seeming gaffes, clues, things that don’t add up, the actual truth, constant changing of the story and various other means … and if we’re too stupid to pick it up, the fault’s on us. When I discovered this everything made so much more sense. It seems Tony Rooke is the only person in the world to call them on one of their deliberate signals. Good on Tony!

        So we have WTC-7’s collapse announced before it happened, Larry telling us he said to “pull it”, the ridiculous stuff about the terrorists – turning up alive, the pristine passport fluttering to the ground, was supposed to be one terrorists’s passport and then it was another’s … or something – I cannot keep up with all the convolutions.

        And then we have a good old “witness” who speaks of Ground Zero, the place on earth below the detonation of a massive bomb, just a couple of hours after the twin tower collapses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07hJhmiWZSY. How’s that for chutzpah?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Oh, and I forgot the boxcutters.

          You can just imagine them discussing how far they could push the envelope. No doubt, there would have been the doubters, the people saying, “You can’t possibly get away with that,” and the old hands going, “No, no, we know how the Hitlerian lie (people believe whoppers because the audacity of them is beyond their comprehension) and the propaganda machine work. We’re telling them what we’re doing but they’ll never pick it up … or only a small percentage and they’ll all be immediately labelled “conspiracy theorists”. It’s all under control. Don’t worry about it.

          They probably didn’t anticipate YouTube and the ability for people to watch WTC-7 collapse beautifully symmetrically in 6.5 seconds over and over again but has that made much of a difference I wonder? Sure, it makes it a lot easier for groups such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth but I wonder how much difference it’s really made.


          • milosevic says

            You can just imagine them discussing how far they could push the envelope. No doubt, there would have been the doubters, the people saying, “You can’t possibly get away with that,” and the old hands going, “No, no, we know how the Hitlerian lie (people believe whoppers because the audacity of them is beyond their comprehension) and the propaganda machine work. We’re telling them what we’re doing but they’ll never pick it up … or only a small percentage and they’ll all be immediately labelled “conspiracy theorists”.

            an inside joke from June, 2001:


            Liked by 1 person

        • And another thing I forgot. David Ray Griffin talks about Americans’ idea of their “exceptionalism”. I do think the Americans are the best at internal propaganda. They’ve got their citizens believing that they’re the good guys so the citizens would find 9/11 so hard to believe of their own government whereas the citizens of other countries, well really only non-Anglo countries, are far more cynical about what their governments are capable of.


  12. Joerg says

    I came to the conclusion, that these “sceptics” that behave so strange are nothing other then “identity” people. This “identity” plague that is a phenomenon of our time (starting with “nationalism” since about the year of 1800) does not only refer to “race”, “gender”, “sexual orientation” and other, but also refers to a ‘catalogue’ of opinions to this and that. And this collection of “opinions” are not more than just punch lines – but not one topic is really thought through!

    FIRST EXAMPLE: The CO2-earth-warming-believers:
    If CO2 was a danger for our planet, then not only the output of CO2 is relevant, but even more the destruction of our earths ability to crack/recycle CO2. Relevant is the BALANCE – like “receipt” and “expenditures”! So, anyone, who really believes in the “CO2-danger” should go wild about the massive deforestation that takes place on our planet at least since the 1970ies! Africa (Mosambique, Dem. Rep. of Congo and other countries) is deforested, Southeast Asia (esp. Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia) is defenestrated (see https://off-guardian.org/2017/11/28/borneo-island-devastated-people-oblivious/ ).
    As an old man I still remember massive(!) demonstrations in Germany (in the late 1970ies, early 1980ies) against the deforestation of the Amazons-area in Brazil). but where are those “CO-believers” now?

    SECOND EXAMPLE: Those whimpering “911-Truthers”:
    They wine about being smeared as “conspiracy-theorists”.
    This George W. Bush allegation of some Arabs meeting in an Afghan cave to conspire in high jacking planes to attack the WTC and the Pentagon was THE MOST SILLY “CONSPIRYCY THEORY” OF ALL TIMES! So you “911-Truthers” are only DEBUNKERS to this George W. Bush/MSM conspiracy theory – exactly YOU are not “conspiracy theorists”!
    But you are unable to understand – because you are “Identity”-people. You are content to have an ‘opinion-catalogue’ – and feel no desire to think things through, and then – attack!

    THIRD EXAMPLE: The “Yes-planers”:
    You “Yes-planers” insist that planes had brought the Twin-Towers down. But – only with the South-Tower – we have videos that show not less than four(!!) different and contradictory(!) videos of a plane hitting the South-tower! But only one version (if any at all) can be true!
    so which version is true and which are FAKES – you “identity”-truthers??!!
    (to this four version see below my ‘outsourced link’)

    FOURTH EXAMPLE: Those whining claimers of “the US-government did 911”
    Yes, but you have to prove the wrongdoing! And you have to bring those people before court! For example this ROBERT MUELLER, who was chief of the FBI at that time!

    And how to bring them before court?
    Of course, the falsification of evidence is illegal – not only in the US but also in other states – as “obstruction of justice”. Example given: A friend of the so-called “Boston Bombers” has to face possible 20 years in prison because he is accused of ‘having eliminated an object of evidence’.
    Not only for the destruction of evidence, but of course, also the generation of false evidence is a case of “obstruction of justice”. This is why that Sheriff of “Sandy Hook” threatened into the cameras of the press, that whoever produced false facts in reference to “Sandy Hook” would be relentlessly prosecuted.

    And now to the four(!) versions of ‘a plane’ hitting the South-tower and of this massive production of “false evidene2 that happened in 2001. I outsourced it, because those many links would throw my comment out here: http://www.imagenetz.de/f6abbd0bf/THE-FAKE-EVIDENCE.pdf.html

    We are talking not just about a case of “forgery” of evidence – instead we are talking about “complicity” TO THE ASSASSINATIONS OF 9/11 !

    Also those, who join a crime – even after it has been already committed – can by law become “accomplices”. So we are talking about the proven complicity in the murderous crimes of 9/11.by the US Department of Justice of the US Department of Justice and of those judicial authorities of the two states of New York and Washington DC. It was the duty of the responsible officials, prosecutors, or of the FBI (Robert Mueller) to find out who produced this massive amount of faked optical material in the case of to 911 – and to bring them before court!

    So those 2911-Truther” and those “Yes-planers” must stop to be “sceptics-identitarians” and finally go into action!
    At least sue Robert Mueller!


  13. Harry Stotle says

    Corbett (in reclaiming skepticism) puts forward a very interesting, and worrying hypothesis – are we moving toward an era when internet conversations that deviate from officially sanctioned narratives are effectively going to be curtailed? (because of concerns that the internet is ‘re-writing history’) – 46:30 into the clip.

    Lots of stuff in the MSM about fake news recently, and these items are usually linked to Trump (or some other equally unsavoury character) thus cultivating in the mind of the audience the idea that is you disagree with the MSM’s interpretation of events you are somehow endorsing ideas espoused by a charlatan.

    In short we are probably moving toward a new power struggle but instead of a conflict over territory or oil the fight will be for control of information.

    It seems extraordinary to say but at least we have had a time when experts were able to obtain and circulate data destroying the official 9/11 myth even if most of the public have been too timid to confront the implications of what this data has revealed – in future producing such material may be subject to much tighter regulation because the authorities would not want the poor old public to be influenced by ‘fake news’ instead of officially sanctioned narratives that will no doubt portray the authorities in a very favourable light indeed.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mikalina says

      Received this today from Petitions UK:

      The longstanding partnership between Saudi Arabia and the UK has helped make both of our countries safer and more prosperous. We have vital national security and economic interests in maintaining and developing our strong relationship, including how we can work together to tackle international challenges such as terrorism and extremism.

      The UK supports the Saudi-led Coalition military intervention, which came at the request of the internationally-recognised Yemeni President Hadi, to deter aggression by the Houthis, and allow for the return of the legitimate Yemeni Government. The Houthis have consistently failed to adhere to UN Security Council Resolutions, including by launching attacks against Saudi Arabia and shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait.


      • milosevic says

        we can work together to tackle international challenges such as terrorism and extremism.

        Since one half of the “we” is Saudi Barbaria, I guess this can immediately go in the “no comment necessary” file.


  14. This century is defined by this.
    The whole relationship between state power and the citizenry has changed, as has the world order as it relates to any sort of concept of international law.
    If our society has built an understanding of these huge changes on an appeal to remain ignorant (i.e. the use of ‘conspiracy theory’ label) then that is an inversion of reason, logic and the very basis of civilisation. If the very ‘defenders’ of scientific approaches enthusiastically jettison the scientific evidence and any kind of scientific process, then they have adopted a faith position.
    9/11 becomes the founding of a new religion.

    I re-read an article by Monbiot from 2014:
    He acknowledges the Saudi link, but stops short of asking any questions that might implicate US insiders. It is a position that is insisting ignorance. Bandar was one of Bush’s family friends. FBI director Louis Freeh -who blocked all those investigations into the ‘hijackers’ – went to work as Bandar’s personal attorney. Tenet and Bandar were unusually close. The BCCI connections, the Saudi’s flown out of US, Guiliani’s connections, Kerik’s connections. Raise any of that, and most critical thinkers regard you as a ‘moron’.
    This is where fascism comes from, the denial of our innate desire for knowledge, truth, justice.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The “stops short” aspect is captured brilliantly in Edward Curtin’s article, Denying the Obvious: Leftists and Crimestop where he discusses the Orwellian Crimestop – https://off-guardian.org/2018/02/09/denying-the-obvious-leftists-and-crimestop

      Regardless of the complexity of all the people and organisations involved, the collapses of the WTC buildings so very obviously occurred by controlled demolition and as Graeme MacQueen says, “There is no room in the official story for controlled demolition.” Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies and founder of the Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University, MacQueen is a 9/11 researcher and author of The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy, which provides another avenue to the proof of 9/11 as an inside job.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Invested identity becomes too ‘big to fail’ when a dependency upon an addictive fix of support and connection operates at expense of true relations. In other words true relations are lost to lies that become ‘justified’ as means to an end.
    The retreat from – or abandonment of dialog – is the assertions of propaganda, in which the forms of communication are used to block and false-fram communication. Moreover, this dissociation holds the bipolar facets of presuming the god-like power to change the world by making reality, and the demonic fears of exposure in invalidity.
    The addictive pattern is a (self and other) destructive dissociation of a sense of lack-driven need, whose demand for sacrifice (self and other) knows no limit but only deceives to get the next hit.

    Scepticism like most EVERY other word or meaning is being used as a mask for asserted persuasions, suggestions and false phrased framing.
    To want to check the evidence before accepting as (workably) true is not a posture of superior judgement gained from association of (established) power, prestige and influence.
    But those whose behaviour defends such positions by attacking or seeking to invalidate others by smear and deceit instead of finding outcomes from reasoned honest communication, indicate that all their eggs (investment) are in the basket of a system of beliefs and identity that runs as if it is their life, their support and connection.

    Most everyone has non-negotiable or no-go areas that are blind-spots. One of the ways to maintain blindness is to focus on the error in another rather than listen to what else they say – and prioritize the error. This is why the way in which we illuminate the errors or deceits of others, can simply be taken as attack and defended against – because it usually is.

    The attempt to force others to change their minds against their will never works – even if such others are forced to mask their true feelings while converting to compliance of a current dictate.
    Of course when conditions change – as they always will – the denied or repressed sense of self rises in vengeance. As the poster above me has for their ‘handle’ intergenerational trauma. We are all already entangled in and an embodiment of intergenerational trauma driven by a sense of lack and denial that then ‘does as it was done by’ until there is a bottomming out of the negative loop, in which a fresh perspective stirs from a sense of life so long denied it must grow a new mind to live it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mikalina says

      Many people who have lived through hell will be comforted by your words.


  16. Harry Stotle says

    The group described by Griffin as ‘Those guided by their paradigms of how the world is thus if 9/11 being a false flag does not fit into their paradigms of how the world works they simply will not consider the evidence’ more or less answers the rhetorical question posed in this excellent article – in other words the power of stories in the minds of most people trumps the power of evidence or bizarrely even their own lived experience (until they return home battered and bruised by combat)

    For most people its simply too painful to confront the possibility that the US was directly or at least indirectly complicit with 9/11 because such a shocking reality undermines a central pillar in the myth that the US, and the west in general is a force for international good.
    Once it begins to dawn on people that the US is in fact a murderous, amoral regime not afraid to wipe out thousands of their own citizens when it suits them it also makes it much harder for the propaganda machine to sustain negative stereotypes about geopolitical competitors (see current MSM reporting on Russia).

    The US never had any intention of investigating 9/11.
    How do we know this – well the first person appointed to lead the 9/11 commission was none other then Henry ‘nobel peace prize’ Kissinger.

    This is a bit like appointing a racist sherif to investigate the murder of a black man in the deep south when the main suspect is a white republican senator.

    The US public are simply not ready to accept that their own government has less morality than regimes they are currently trying to bomb into submission in the Middle East – why other skeptics are afraid of this reality is a harder to question to answer, but I’d be willing to bet at least a fiver that anyone clinging to the 2 planes 3 buildings fantasy has not done very much homework.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. George says

    Every system of control must phrase all discussion in a manner consistent with the prevailing prejudices e.g. in a world dominated by religious faith, all must be given in terms of God versus the Devil and the powers that be must put their own goals down as God’s plan and any alternative as coming from Satan. Currently the ideal citizen is seen as a sharp skeptic who can see through everything and so what the powers desire must be phrased as the result of skepticism. The actual content of the argument is not as important as constantly making the connections that the powers want. So it comes down to what Orwell once said about war being made to look like peace and vice versa. People can be induced to believe any number of miracles as long as they are presented as sober fact and – more importantly – any alternative presented as “nutty”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Edwige says

      “People can be induced to believe any number of miracles as long as they are presented as sober fact and – more importantly – any alternative presented as ‘nutty'”.

      Bertrand Russell saw this coming over half a century ago –
      “It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment. This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity”.

      (The Impact of Science on Society, 1953, p30)

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Excellent post. The refusal to seriously look at the evidence associated with 9/11, leads us directly to the Russia-baiting war-mongering madness of American society today. U.S. and Western oligarchy would rather incinerate us all in a nuclear holocaust than lose their place at the top of the pyramid, and dumbed down Americans are willing to line up like lemmings for their seat at the “rapture.”

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.