Seventeen Years on: what really happened on 9/11?

Philip Roddis
“”

Introduction

On Friday, August 31, I had an email from OffGuardian editor Catte:

How do you feel about reviewing a new 9/11 book for the anniversary? I know you’re a sceptic but that is why I’d value your input …

Two years ago, on the fifteenth anniversary of 9/11, OffGuardian ran my review of Dylan Avery’s Loose Change. Except it wasn’t a review but a pouring of vitriol on the film’s central assertion that the events of September 11, 2001 were an inside job.

Reception below the line was hostile. But among the cat-calls were voices I could not ignore: voices of reason from dudes who’d done their homework and whose tones were sober; friendly even. I promised to re-assess the truther case and return either to concede and apologise or reaffirm my views with better arguments. I gave no date but strongly and at the time sincerely implied it would be a few months tops. Not two years.

Why the delay? I’m not afraid of saying, I was wrong. I’ve had practise and should I find it was me, not the 911 truthers, who’d been deluded it wouldn’t be personally implicating in the way coming out as an active paedophile or closet tory would. As fess-ups go, it would be at the egg-on-face as opposed to long custodial sentence end of the scale. I can do egg on face. Like I said, I’ve had practice.

The delay is due – I’m not offering this as excuse but as reason – to my aversion to what looked a right royal rabbit hole. Investing scores if not hundreds of hours sifting a mire of claim and counter claim did not appeal. Now if you say this was too big a question to be back-burnered on such flimsy grounds, I’d agree, though I’ve not been idle. I’ve had much to go at with mendacious narratives on Syria, Russia and Corbyn, while trying to convey, mainly to those on the left, that capitalism’s deep unfairness is the least of it; that its innermost laws of motion pose an existential threat.

But a promise is a promise, especially one made from a hole of my own digging. If I resented the diverting of time and energy, I hadn’t far to look for the culprit.

Within minutes of reading Catte’s email I’d hit send on this reply:

Could be an opportunity…What kind of turnaround time are you thinking?

But a further apology is in order. Regardless of whether I still thought truthers wrong, I was always going to have to say sorry for the sneering tone of my 2016 piece. So sure had I been of the logic of my case, a logic I’ll return to, I’d seen no need to address the empirical underpinnings of theirs.

(At the time, my exposure to truthism had come from armchair conspiracists too idle or brain fogged to put together a decent argument but happy to bang out link-heavy emails with a simple subtext: you’re wrong – read this and this and this … Plus, of course, Avery’s film: so bad that some truthers saw it as part of the cover up; a false flag in its own right to damn by its very shoddiness their case against the official narrative. Indeed, one BTL critic of my 2016 piece picked up on this point to accuse me of straw-mannery.)

So … apologies, mea culpas and attempts at self analysis duly offered, let me turn to 9/11 Unmasked, by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth. I’ll start with what we can agree is the ‘official narrative’.

September 11, 2001: the official account

This has two threads. One is the popular perception, framed by media coverage at the time, of what happened. The other is the combined wisdom of later government reports, most importantly that of the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) in 2005. Both threads assert that nineteen devout Muslims hijacked four airliners to fly them at high profile targets in separate but coordinated acts of mass murder and suicide.

  • New York’s World Trade Centre (WTC) Towers 1 and 2 took devastating hits to, respectively, floors 93-99 and 75-85. On impact the two planes, both from Boston Logan with tanks full for long haul flight, sprayed tons of aviation fuel (kerosene aka paraffin) whose ignition triggered an inferno so intense as to melt the steel skeletons of both towers[1] and cause not only their spectacular freefall but, ten hours later, that of WTC 7, which no plane had struck. No plan was in place to stop such an attack because no military scenario had envisaged transcontinental airliners as missiles.
  • A third plane was flown so low as to bury itself in the first and second floors of the Pentagon Building, across the Potomac from Washington DC.
  • The fourth was brought down in Pennslyvania by passengers – knowing themselves doomed but alerted by phone calls of the New York attacks – bent on thwarting the hijackers and saving other lives.

Before turning to the methodology used by Griffin and Woodworth to query this official narrative, a word about its ‘popular’ and ‘formal’ threads. The authors do a good job of showing that, where the two are in contradiction on matters of fact, we needn’t be 24-carat conspiracy freaks to suppose a tidying up – by revision, withheld evidence and refusal to acknowledge glaring inconsistencies – of contemporaneous accounts. Nor to suppose that such airbrushing on the part of subsequent inquiries goes beyond what we’d expect of officialdom covering up incompetence. Rather, to suppose airbrushing on this scale to have only one conceivable purpose: removing hostages to fortune and threats to overall narrative coherence and credibility.

9/11 Unmasked: the methodology

[we] decided … to form a panel of twenty-some independent researchers well-versed on 9/11 with a broad spectrum of expertise. Dubious claims embedded in the official account of 9/11 would be presented to the panelists separately to see if they, with no consultation among themselves, would reach consensus on whether there was sufficient basis to declare the claim false.

In response to our invitation to potential members, a panel of twenty-three people with varying professional backgrounds came together to apply disciplined analysis to the verifiable evidence about the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Panel includes people from the fields of physics, chemistry, structural engineering, aeronautical engineering, piloting, airplane crash investigation, medicine, journalism, psychology, and religion. The members are named on the Acknowledgments page.

– Introduction, pp vii-viii

I’m not happy with this. People from the fields of … leaves too much scope for cherry picking a-priori truthers who may not represent their disciplines, or even have relevant expertise. As for that in response to our invitation … what would we make of a trial, for black-on-white capital murder in fifties Alabama, whose jurors had responded to a call for home-owning volunteers?

Finally, the authors don’t say what steps they took to safeguard no consultation.

In peer reviewed scientific work these would be terminal flaws[2], while a criminal defence team would have a field day discrediting the prosecution’s expert witnesses. But here? Given the context, are they fatal? That rather depends on whether this ‘methodology’ is crucial to the authors’ case, or gimmick in an otherwise sober presentation of evidence too compelling to need such treatment. I think the latter.

Structure and tone

Here I’m more impressed. The tone is lucid, free of sensationalism and to a high standard of literacy. These are good writers, too confident in the strength of their case to go in for flashy phrasing, cheap shots or intellectual short cuts. As a bonus, proof reading is to a high standard and that’s significant given the intricacy of argument and supporting detail.

But what about structure? Here 9/11 Unmasked manages the conflicting pulls of clarity, and engagement with complex detail whose significance could easily be lost on the most attentive reader. It does so by the tried and tested method of layering content – never less than three tiers; four in labyrinthine arguments – to present sub-claims, micro-points and supporting factoids without their obscuring the bigger picture. I dived in seas of minutiae without fear of drowning.

(Two carps. My PDF version could and should have hot-linked its 875 inline references to footnote text, enabling sceptics to make fast random checks as to whether a footnote really does the job implied in the main text. Given such controversial content, and high standard of presentation elsewhere, it will be a pity if this is not corrected. Similarly, a book so necessarily replete with acronyms really does need a glossary.)

Still on structure, the 320 page book’s main section divides into 51 short chapters, each addressing a discrete issue, or set of interrelated issues, arising from the official account. All chapters have the same structure: introduction .. official account .. best evidence .. conclusion. Where successive official accounts differ – often as not with that same whiff of ‘tidying up’ – the account-best evidence-conclusion cycle iterates until the chapter ends with an overall conclusion. By such tiering, bird’s eye views give way to two or more descending levels of detail in an elegant solution to an old problem: how to evaluate the trees without obscuring the forest. Speaking as a retired academic, if this were a textbook I’d be singing its praises to students.

Nature of the evidence

In challenging virtually every aspect of the official narrative, the authors’ evidence falls into these broad and not always orthogonal categories:

  • Scientific knowledge, on such as the melting point of steel and whether any fire triggered by exploding aviation fuel could reach it. This impacts on the crown jewel of truther claims: that the towers could not have been brought down, in the manner the world saw on its TV screens, by the forces claimed by NIST 2005 as sole cause.[3]
  • Architectural, engineering and other professional knowhow on such as: whether those WTC beams and columns could come apart in the manner claimed by NIST; whether any man with minimal flight training could execute that low altitude turn into the Pentagon; whether in 2001 it was possible to make a cell phone call from a plane at 30,000 feet.
  • Forensic evidence, on such as whether nanothermite (classic signature of controlled detonation) was found in the WTC debris; and whether CCTV footage, placing the nineteen men in the places claimed, can be relied on.
  • Witnesses on the scene whose statements pose serious problems for the official narrative.
  • Inconsistencies within the official narrative on points where, even after ‘tidying up’, it lacks internal coherence else uses circular or other flawed forms of reasoning.
  • Lack of fit with known realities, such as that flying an airliner into a skyscraper, far from being an unforeseen event, had in fact been played out in wargame scenarios.
  • Suspicious behaviour by key players, in particular Cheney, Rumsfeld and senior military commanders; and abnormal levels of put-option and short-selling in the days before 9/11.

As implied by my recurring use of ‘such as’, the above barely scratches the surface of the evidence assembled in this book. But how good is it?

Quality of evidence

I’m not a physicist, engineer, military expert or lawyer. What I am (by training, disposition and life experience) is good at evaluating, once I take the time to consider them, the strengths and weaknesses of arguments, especially when laid out with such commendable clarity. If the hard facts deployed to support higher level assertions bear up to expert scrutiny (and if they don’t, the authors are fools as well as charlatans since expert scrutiny is inevitable) then this is as strong a prima facie case for throwing out NIST, and its predecessors, as ever confronted an official cover up.

It follows that an inquiry quite unprecedented – a truly independent panel with no-holds access to all materials and witnesses, and immune from intimidation by pretty much the most powerful interests on earth – would be needed in reply to the gauntlet Griffin and Woodworth have thrown down.

I fear that no such inquiry will occur. Instead, eminent psychologists who’ve never – as I’d never – deigned to engage with evidential details will continue to publish acclaimed drivel on the pathology and pitiable delusions of all conspiracy theorists, citing all 9/11 truthers as textbook examples.

What about the logical case?

I promised to revisit this. The problems for me were always the number of conspirators and, related, complexity of so comprehensively elaborate an inside job, and whether the putative gains might justify the risks. I’ll consider each in turn.

Numbers. The only safe number for a conspiracy is one. Since that’s an oxymoron, let’s move to two. At least you’ll know, if you didn’t blab, who did. But when we get to three, boy, that’s when the problems really kick in. But here? Here we’re talking hundreds if not thousands of conspirators, every last one a party to mass murder and yet, seventeen years on, we’ve had not a single breaking of ranks; not one death bed confession.

Complexity and scale. While America has form on false flag ops, they’ve been simple affairs. It’s one thing to fake or even execute an attack on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin. That can be done with a couple of light craft manned by a few Navy SEALs, hand picked men whose omerta culture minimises risk of leak. But if hard core truthers are right – I’ll come to soft core shortly – this would be a false flag op of unprecedented and incredible dimensions. To what end? The question brings us to my final logical objection.

Risk/benefits.The most cited rationale for 9/11 as an inside job is that it legitimated the ‘War on Terror’ – its Guantanamos, Patriot Acts and expansion of the spy-state – and/or wars on the Middle East which, as many know and I’ve argued elsewhere, are not driven by the reasons Western leaders and media would have us believe.

I don’t downplay the value to the US ruling class of such legitimation, but do question whether such prizes needed so elaborate, risky and, yes, evil[4] a deed. To evaluate such a proposition, the two putative gains need to be disentangled.

On wars in the Middle East, we’ve seen millions slain and nations ruined on the basis of casus belli far simpler: WMDs; nasty dictators. And while ‘going after’ Bin Laden worked in Afghanistan, it was an embarrassment in Saddam’s Iraq: no haven for salafists. It’s true of course that people told they face a terrible threat aren’t the most critical thinkers, but that can be turned on its head. If it’s so easy to fool the worried masses, why bother with such an elaborate ‘reason’ as 9/11, given the logistical problems summarised here?

I have an easier time buying the idea of the War on Terror as legitimated by 911. At least you don’t have to explain, even to audiences as credulous as American patriots, how the likes of Saddam wind up in bed with jihadists. But the question ending the previous paragraph stands. It still doesn’t stack up.

So that’s my logical case (oh, and there is the small matter of why the conspirators left so glaring an audit trail) and Griffin and Woodworth don’t even try to address it. In this they are as one with other truthers I know. Ditto in offering no alternative scenario for what they think happened on 9/11: not even for the softer version that Team Bush didn’t plan an inside job but, forewarned of an attack, let it happen for reasons already sketched out.

But before we damn them for such omissions, far less see their case as fatally flawed, let’s ask this question. Does 9/11 Unmasked cross, by its detailed evidence and reasoning for rejecting the official account, the threshold for being taken seriously? I say it does.

Now let’s ask another. Does it fall to those with compelling evidence of a monstrous crime to say why it happened? It would be dashed sporting of them, for sure, but can we in fairness demand it? I say we can’t.

In the world of Agatha Christie, Poirot ends each case by assembling the suspects in the conservatory. Tweaking waxed moustache, he eliminates one unpleasant character after another before fixing on the unpleasant character who is also the killer. He then sets out a convincing but unforeseen motive, followed by evidence to apply noose to neck.

In the world of Agatha Christie.

In my world, if you and others, upstanding citizens all, catch me with jam smeared face, crumbs to lips and three jam tarts in my pocket, still warm from cook’s oven; if, moreover, you have six witnesses of equally unblemished character swearing they saw me climb through the vicar’s kitchen window to lift the tarts and leg it, need you then, to secure a conviction for aggravated burglary, disprove my indignant protests, backed by two drinking pals and a dodgy doctor, that I loathe jam, have a lethal allergy to pastry and too low an IQ to have pulled off so audacious a heist? I say you needn’t.

On which note I’ll close – with this recommendation for all who deem, as I had, the 9/11 truther case too daft for serious consideration. Buy this book.

NOTES:

  1. It’s important to note that claims of melting steel do not feature in the most important of the 9/11 reports.
  2. Peer review is on balance a good thing, but not the be-all and end-all many assume. In times of paradigm shift within a science it can be a reactionary force, while in the context of accusations of mass conspiracy, demanding it comes close to circular reasoning.
  3. To be fair, whatever was said prior to NIST 2005, an FAQ page on its site does not make the molten steel claim. Rather, it says ‘… the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Also to be fair, 9/11 Unmasked avoids a widespread strawman argument. Its Chapter 2 asserts only that: ‘… office fires, even if fed by jet fuel (which is essentially kerosene), could not have weakened the steel structure of these buildings sufficiently to collapse as suddenly as they did’
  4. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that killing three thousand Americans is more evil than slaughtering millions of Arabs by sanctions, bombs and shells of depleted uranium. I’m saying that those who order death from afar will tell themselves, as they lay head to pillow at night, that it was to save greater suffering. Maybe those authorising 9/11 as inside job, if that’s what happened, will do the same but, given the way humans manage cognitive dissonance, they’ll have a tougher time of it.

Scribbler for some sixty years, and for fifteen a photographer too, Philip Roddis began blogging in the early noughties by inflicting film reviews on an unsuspecting public. Soon he was doing the same with illustrated writings on wanderings in Asia and Africa. He writes “to help me think, and because I like to be read”, and finds photography's problem solving aspects "a break from those of writing, as well as an aid to writing and to reflective travel”.

His blog is Steel City Scribblings

Filed under: 9/11, Arts and Entertainment, book reviews, Reviews

by

Scribbler for some sixty years, and for fifteen a photographer too, Philip Roddis began blogging in the early noughties by inflicting film reviews on an unsuspecting public. Soon he was doing the same with illustrated writings on wanderings in Asia and Africa. He writes “to help me think, and because I like to be read”, and finds photography's problem solving aspects "a break from those of writing, as well as an aid to writing and to reflective travel”. His blog is Steel City Scribblings

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Colin Doran
Reader
Colin Doran

The aim of the Consensus panel on which this book is based is to present the best evidence – ‘against the official story’. That is not the best evidence about the events of Sept. 11th 2001. This is a self selected group of people who are active in the 911 truth movement and therefore have little or no objectivity about the evidence. Anyone who reads this book and considers they are getting some kind of sober , objective view of the evidence about 9/11 , will only realise they are not if the know something about the evidence about 9/11.… Read more »

Tony Szamboti
Reader
Tony Szamboti

The simultaneous free fall of all four corners of the roof of wtc 7 is evidence of a controlled demolition and the ridiculous NIST assertion that this building collapsed due to fire in the face of that is evidence of a conspiracy.

Colin Doran
Reader
Colin Doran

I have seen quite a few controlled demolitions and sometimes the building collapses in the centre and then the ends fall inwards to that collapsed centre, or the building falls over sideways onto some empty piece of land or it collapses in a cascading sequence starting at one end. I don’t see where ‘the simultaneous freefall of all four corners’ is somehow a characteristic of controlled demolition.And I’ve only seen one corner being measured ,by David chandler for example. Measuring an acceleration is something that is done in a laboratory, using video and high speed clocks reference scales. I have… Read more »

Tony Szamboti
Reader
Tony Szamboti

The dynamics of the collapse of WTC 7 prove it was a controlled demolition. Photos of the rubble pile show the exterior was pulled inward, as it fell on top. It doesn’t matter whether you can or cannot hear explosive noises in the video. In that vain you should also realize that the cameras were quite a distance from the building and you need a high gain microphone in that case, not the short range types used by reporters for interviews. There were a lot of eye witnesses that talked about hearing explosive noise. It was also only necessary to… Read more »

binra
Reader

‘One sided’ is a bit reductionist. I haven’t read the book. I don’t have a sense that it does unmask the whole truth, so much as uncover further masking. The 911 event is a very complex set of shaped charges in the mind – as well as in the buildings. But the one sided assertions of the official narrative add up to an inconceivable conspiracy theory – unless perhaps one’s world view or career depends on believing it – or at least not openly challenging it or being seen to oppose those who do. And so the sense of being… Read more »

TFS
Reader
TFS

What EVERYONE seems to forget, whether you an Official Government Conspiracy Theorist, Truther or AN Other, our opinions/views don’t matter on jot.

The families of those killed on that day want answers…..and that my friends is enough for me.

Denying the families their right shows that the Regime of SpartUSA is alive an well.

binra
Reader

It isn’t that what we think does not materialise results, but that the results may not be what we want. Truth is first and foremost a self-integrity. We can invite others to join in a love of truth and freedom from lies that cant truly serve us, but we cant ‘wait around’ as if life depends on that – at least not without giving power of decision over to other people or circumstances outside our control. Death of loved ones can break our ‘world’ – and under circumstances of ill-intent and withholding or twisting of truth, are likely to be… Read more »

think511374904
Reader

check it out: NIST “no reports of molten metal known” <> fema report appendix c. That’s a cover-up.

physicsandmathsrevision
Reader

Why are people even trying to convince someone who didn’t understand when FIRST confronted with the almost endless and impossible physical anomalies that we have been lied to on a staggering scale re 9/11? Only idiots and the wilfully blind don’t recognise the obvious.

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

Exactly why I valued my [Internet] friendship with Dave “9/12” McGowan: he didn’t screw around with half-arsed “activist”-identity politics. More than can be said of 99% of latter day “activists”. Apropos of which and in light of your comment: if anyone older than 25 in 2001 didn’t already know by 9/12/2001 what Jonathan Cook describes in his latest Counterpunch article – that the entire system is irremediably, systemically corrupt, andbuilt on centuries of equally deep, systemic corruption – and start from there then the time they spend signalling any latter day “activist” tendencies they choose to express might better be… Read more »

SP
Reader
SP

There is an assertion that hundreds if not thousands needed to be involved if this was some kind of inside job This need not be so. It needs only 1 or 2 highly placed conspirators giving orders for events that can serve two functions. The war games on the day served a very handy distraction for example, and what was the theme again? A terror attack. Physics suggests that these towers simply could not fall at that speed given the suggested mechanism of collapse. It is also interesting that there have been several far more severe fires in steel framed… Read more »

Colin Doran
Reader
Colin Doran

The war games on the day had little or no effect on what happened on the day. Ask yourself a few questions: -Were these the first exercises ever held by NORAD? – or had they held exercises , for years , when there were no terrorist attacks. They held exercises when there no terrorist attacks and the were holding exercises when there were terrorist attacks. I’m not sure what they are supposed to do really. -Should NORAD not have been holding any exercises on 9/11? Should they have kept that day free of exercises? -Are terrorists not allowed to hijack… Read more »

Nicholas Kollerstrom
Reader

Let’s quote the late Michael Ruppert here, from his 9/11 magnum opus ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ (2004): ‘The number of people with complete foreknowedge of the attacks of September 11th would likely not exceed two dozen’ (p.3).

Tony Szamboti
Reader
Tony Szamboti

Thank you Mr. Roddis, for having the integrity to admit that once you looked into the situation more intensely you realized things were different than you originally supposed.

BigB
Reader
BigB

Phillip Can I commend the research of Peter Dale Scott to you, if you have not already read them. He has been researching the Deep State events, or structural deep events (SDEs – the term he coined) since the 1990s. He thinks they are all interlinked, and I agree with him. Specifically, in reference to the planning of 9/11 – how handy would “an $8 billion communications and logistics program for an alternative emergency communications network” – the National Communications System – that was untraceable, left no record, and basically does not exist …officially. Especially if that network was part… Read more »

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

Ta for the recommend, BigB. I’ve located Dale Scott and listened to a few minutes of a 90 minute speech I’ll listen to in full later today.

tony rooke
Reader

Hi Phillip, As I had the misfortune to read your ‘review’ of my film ‘Incontrovertible’, [ a film by your own admission you did not even watch], I’m pleased you’ve put your foot on the first rung to reality. If you had watched my movie, some of the questions you are now struggling with would have been answered. The danger and intellectually folly of those who initially struggle with the truth of 9/11, is that rather than first examining the evidence impartially, they suffer a knee-jerk reaction of automatic denial because of the threat to their own world-view. In doing… Read more »

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

Thanks Tony. I can admit to being wrong because, fundamentally, I’m more interested in what is true than in saving face. Again I apologise though. Not for being wrong – we can all be that – but for being scathing and all superior about a film I hadn’t even seen. I may be a little further than first rung, since I’ve written on some things you point out – the corrosive ownership of the media for instance and, even more importantly, the corrosive influence of market forces in media revenue streams; including, indirectly, those of your former employer. Having now… Read more »

tony rooke
Reader

Hi Phillip, Agreed. There is so much at play here. The Let It Happen On Purpose [LIHOP] scenario is very popular, although I personally see it as a somewhat sugar-coated pill for those not quite prepared to believe the US authorities would engineer this from the get-go. I think the MIHOP scenario [Make it Happen on Purpose] holds more credence, for me at least. We know that elements within the US Government have tried to do it before [Northwoods in ’62] and that the lead orchestrator in that [having been refused by JFK] was sent over to Europe after which… Read more »

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

Hi Tony apologies for the late reply. I’d assumed this thread had run its course, but have just checked in, almost a week after your September 16 posts. I’m aware of the Northwoods plan, and its author being sacked by JFK, only to get a senior NATO post within the year! I’m also aware of truly scary thinking behind the Project for a New American Century, and America’s god-given right to ‘full spectrum dominance’. I don’t think I ever doubted that sections of the American ruling class would deem such a false flag operation too evil to be contemplated. My… Read more »

Colin Doran
Reader
Colin Doran

Do people think that the US when contemplating their military strength would be likely to say let’s have maybe the strongest airforce but let’s have a weaker navy that any likely opponent?. Let’s have a strong army but maybe we should have a weak airforce? I for one wouldn’t see much logic in that. The PNAC document is a defense review. When people have a defense review they have to ask what possible emergencies might arise and what to invest in and what not to invest in. The PNAC document advocated phasing out aircraft carriers and ending the F22 project… Read more »

Tony Szamboti
Reader
Tony Szamboti

Tony and Phillip,

The physics of the collapses show the present government explanation for them cannot possibly be correct. There had to be charges in the buildings, and it isn’t hard to understand that they could not have gotten there without some form of insider involvement.

What that insider involvement was exactly can only be determined by a legitimate law enforcement investigation.

Why it was done can be discussed, to some degree, due to the actions taken in the aftermath and the fairly sound assumption that those providing the impossible government explanation can’t simply be stupid.

Colin Doran
Reader
Colin Doran

A conclusion about controlled demolition is not about physics or structures it is about people coming up with a plan and carrying out a plan – to commit mass murder. That is not about physics or science. The analysis of it is not about physics or science. It is about people. If someone tells me that people planned to do something then I can look at the plan and ask myself if the plan makes sense – to the people who are supposed to have planned it. I don’t have to ask the people who say there was a plan.… Read more »

tony rooke
Reader

Hi Tony,
You’re preaching to the converted here my friend. You and I have communicated privately many times when I was making Incontrovertible and liaising with some of the Fire Brigade boys here in
the UK. Hoping this finds you well.
Best,
Tony R

tony rooke
Reader

Would Mr Roddis be the same gentleman [aka Steel City Scribe] who ‘reviewed’ my 9/11 movie ‘Incontrovertible’, describing it as ‘pants’, then admitting to never having even watched it…?

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

My apologies Mr Rooke. I didn’t know what you meant until I read, just now, the last sentence of my ‘review’ of Dylan Avery’s Loose Change. I’m afraid I was carried away by my own sarcastic rhetoric, for which I am deeply sorry. Alas, I STILL haven’t seen your own film but when I get round to it will give it a far more open minded reception, on the back of my much more recent studies. (I’ve listened, on BigB’s suggestion, to Peter Dale Scott and on the strength of his seventy-five minute talk, have ordered his book, Road to… Read more »

Big B
Reader
Big B

🙂

softechsteveabbott
Reader
softechsteveabbott

When evidence of medical or engineering malpractice comes to light, it is not common to ask those who object to the malpractice, then to perform the operation or produce their own version of an engineering design, in lieu of the professionals. That is the responsibility of competent professionals. By the same token, when it is shown that authorities charged with investigation have performed incompetently, it is irrelevant whether those who have identified the professionals’ failings might have their own theories. They (we) have every right to demand, and indeed must demand, that competent authorities should be called upon to perform… Read more »

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

I agree.

binra
Reader

If the primary nature of 9/11 was a psyop or ‘mind capture to narrative manipulation’ by insiders of sufficient capacity to plan, recruit or induce a broad spectrum compliance on a need to know basis, and execute not only the event but its staging and narrative outcome overriding all and any conflicting evidences with an asserted narrative, then it was a deliberate switching of the mind/world to an openly post-truth politic – in terms of a world stage display of power to ‘make reality’ and defend the lie against true, as the precursor and ‘justification’ to launching open ‘war on… Read more »

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

Binra I have some sympathy, insofar as I follow its long and scantly punctuated expression, with your worldview. You write: “How is it that human beings can on the surface present a range of personality traits that seem within ranges of normality, and yet be the knowing or perhaps unwitting instruments of a deep state of personal dissociation – namely fear, rage and projective guilt by which to engage power struggle in guise of or in” Or as I would say, one core truth about the human condition appears to be that we are amazingly sophisticated and effective reasoning beings,… Read more »

binra
Reader

Hi writerroddis No you miss my point there. I make no moral judgement on anyone else. As I see it, judgement of a weak, unworthy and degraded humanity is the basis from which the claim to power goes forth and multiplies denial and division. (This can be seen within ourself as well as between us). I was referring to the structure of human consciousness as the ‘matrix’ of definitions and beliefs that we generally operate within or under, and not to the personality level of a ‘narrative identity’ running as a surface of a deep state of dissociation from reality.… Read more »

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

I still have only the haziest sense of what you are saying, binra. And please don’t apologise for ‘errors’ of punctuation. I’m not a grammar pedant. But when I encounter prose as labyrinthine as yours, I think the writer is not clear in his/her mind on what s/he is thinking. That doesn’t mean the ideas aren’t valuable – simply not yet fully formed. With deepening understanding come clarity and the beauty of simplicity.

binra
Reader

The narrative ‘reality’ of a highly complex defence system can seem to speak ‘simply’ in terms that reinforce the ‘self’ of such a system. In other words a highly complex obfuscation can be traded in AS IF a legitimate currency of exchange. The terms that you and of course the ‘many’, regard as ‘simple’ are partaking of a self and world construct that is enslaved under illusion of power. The illusion of power is the attempt to use denial and rejection to get or become something in and for yourself alone (and by extension any group identity at expense of… Read more »

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

If you say so.

binra
Reader

Ok – I now read your comment in context. I linked what you were talking about in relation to me with the 911 event in a way that could open new choices. Narrative control is not only a political or corporate act but a facet of a personal identity that presents a simple cover story over a highly complex set of defences. I do not ‘require’ you read what you are not inclined to read and so you can simply leave it. If something is a chore or a struggle – why not do something more aligned with what you… Read more »

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

Sorry, that last comment comes across as rude. I’ve no desire to do that, least of all with you, binra. I find your words highly convoluted (this isn’t a grammar thing: your sentences do parse in the main, once I decode the syntax) and have a mild resistance to a tone from the mountain top of The One Who Knows. But you are always courteous and I appreciate that.

binra
Reader

writerroddis I thankyou for meeting in a shared courtesy. I have appreciation for your postings. I also read between the lines. Context provides the meanings of any content. And I extend what I sketch into idea, to a sense of worthiness here but without all the coded preamble of social mores. So I risk coming over as a personal claim to know ‘more than’ or be ‘telling’ others, in giving form to ideas that are beneath or beyond any personal sense of claim. But I hold that what I sketch out is within anyone’s freedom and capacity to consider or… Read more »

Simple
Reader
Simple

Slagging off Loose Change and Dylan Avery doesn’t get you anywhere in my book. And slagging off people who send you links is pretty pathetic too. You’ve arrived at certain conclusions – bully for you. Most of the decent evidence was and is contained in long form audio and video – for instance the film of the 2 cops retracing their steps at the Pentagon, or the various analyses of Building 7’s collapse, or pyroclastic dust behaviour, or flashes seen in the upper floors of the towers, or the size of the hole in the Pentagon prior to collapse, or… Read more »

dzhugashvili
Reader
dzhugashvili

bollocks.

explain this away, Serious-Person-Who-Doesn’t-Believe-In-Crackpot-Conspiracy-Theories:

flaxgirl
Reader

This review is a little short on consideration of actual evidence. You can never use numbers – what about the Holocaust? There are probably a number of single pieces of evidence that can prove all on their own that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy. My favourite is the undisputed 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration in the collapse of WTC-7, a 47-storey steel frame skyscraper and the third building to collapse at the World Trade Centre on 9/11 at 5.20pm. Newton’s Third Law of Motion means that WTC-7 could not have collapsed in near free fall acceleration of 6.5 seconds… Read more »

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

Thanks flaxgirl. Naturally I disagree with your opening sentence. I not only ‘consider actual evidence’ but say, unequivocally, that in my view the evidence Griffin and Woodworth assembles crosses the threshold of plausibility to build a powerful prima facie case for rejecting NIST and all other strands of the ‘official account.

rilme
Reader
rilme

About halfway through this, you start to use black text on a white background. That’s a very good idea.

I do hope “israel” and “Dov Zakheim” are mentioned.

rilme
Reader
rilme

because “israel” had the motive, the opportunity, prior form, and the rest.
Dov Zakheim, believe it or not, had access to the WTC, the Pentagon (especially the Accounting Section, which was blowed up), and freaking passenger-jet remote-controllers.

Of course, it could just be a 50-to-1-on coincidence.

colleen mcguire
Reader
colleen mcguire

Solving 911 by Christopher Bollyn — a must read (the updated version with the footnotes)

remorris
Reader
remorris

My real difficulty is, to
understand the mind,
that has Not yet understood

911 as sophisticated inside job deception/demolition and false flag Strategy of Tension attack casus belli for the GWOT .

writerroddis
Reader
writerroddis

I sympathise with your difficulty, really I do. Weak opinions strongly held is an ailment worryingly on the increase.

binra
Reader

Weak or false foundations strongly defended would speak the meaning more clearly. For all opinion is and remains mere opinion. But what you are the embodying act OF, you know. A false foundation knows not what it is and therefore knows not what it does, and so seeks ‘authority’ from outside by which to bolster a sense of lack within – that masks so as to hide, cover and protect itself. Growing in what we truly have is a true appreciation. But giving power to a sense of lack shall lose even the little it has. So the ‘real difficulty’… Read more »

binra
Reader

‘Too big to fail’ does not only apply to banks – but to any self investment in a lie that – built upon and lived as real – cannot be allowed NOT to run as true. Strategies of masking defence start very early in human development and only become more sophisticated and ‘believable’ in a world of agreement to mask rather than truly meet. The fact that we make ‘rules’ that are then used against us by those who make their own rules is part of the liability of running on a mind of ‘rules’ rather than relational honesty. My… Read more »

rilme
Reader
rilme

, the mind that thinks NORAD failed so completely on 9SEP2001, but not on any other day.

Helmut Taylor
Reader
Helmut Taylor

What did’e say? Who dunnit? And did 2 year’s silence eschew a loada piffle, finally?

binra
Reader

Ideas do us as we would do unto. As you sow, so shall you reap. This is self-serving justice and not a coercion of will from outside or above. It is also a pay as you go affair once the true nature of choice has woken from ‘no real choices at all’. The idea of blame is that of offsetting guilt and conflict in the self by redistributing to others or to God, the weather or your parent. The idea of responsibility as response-ability is the idea of using the power of choice for oneself – where self gives only… Read more »