The 9/11 anniversary: Conspiracy theory or critical thinking?
There should be no stigma attached to questioning the official account of what happened 17 years ago
Graeme MacQueen
Graeme MacQueen at the 2011 Toronto Hearings on 9/11
On the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that let loose so much international violence, the public has a right to ask what really happened on that day. Here are eight points to ponder.
- Questioners of the official account of 9/11 are often dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” but this makes no sense. A conspiracy is just a secret plan, by two or more people, to commit a criminal or immoral act. The 9/11 attacks obviously involved a conspiracy.
- Some people think that the truth of the official account blaming al-Qaida is obvious to every sane person. Not true. Polls suggest that less than half the world’s population shares this confidence.
- If Bin Laden was the criminal mastermind, why didn’t the FBI charge him with the crime? In 2006 an FBI spokesperson explained: the Bureau had no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11.
- Questioners of the official account of 9/11 are not all woolly-minded bloggers. Many have relevant expertise. Winner of the National Medal of Science in the U.S., Lynn Margulis, said the science supporting the official account is appallingly weak. Over 3,000 credentialed architects and engineers have publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center.
- In 2006, a peer-reviewed article revealed that 118 members of the Fire Department of New York reported witnessing explosions during the collapse of the Twin Towers. Patterns of explosions were witnessed, going around as well as up and down the buildings. This challenged the official claim that the buildings were brought down by plane impact and fires. It suggested controlled demolition.
- In 2009, another peer-reviewed article reported the discovery of large quantities of an exotic explosive and incendiary (nanothermite) in the dust of the World Trade Center. The samples were collected before the cleanup of the site began. This supported the demolition hypothesis.
- The National Institute of Standards and Technology, given the task of accounting for the World Trade Center destruction, failed to explain to the satisfaction of many scientists the total collapse of a third skyscraper on 9/11, 47-storey World Trade Center 7. No plane hit this building, yet at 5:21 p.m. down it went, beginning its descent symmetrically, suddenly, and at free fall acceleration. Everything about this collapse suggests demolition.
- In April 2018, eight lawyers filed a petition with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The petition offers detailed evidence that the Trade Center was destroyed by explosives and it demands that this evidence of a federal crime be submitted to a grand jury, with the ultimate aim of charging those responsible.
Clearly, there should be no stigma attached to the questioning of the official account of 9/11. Readers wishing to know more may consult the petition of the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry and the findings of the international 9/11 Consensus Panel, both of which can be found on the internet.
NOTES:
- My definition of “conspiracy” is quite standard. But if people want to follow up they can read the introduction to my book, The 2001 Anthax Deception. A good book on the topic of conspiracy theory is Lance DeHaven-Smith’s Conspiracy Theory in America.
- I discuss some of the major, large-scale poll results in this article.
- That OBL was never indicted is not controversial. The reference to the FBI and hard evidence is supported here.
- The website of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth contains the relevant information about the architects and engineers. You can listen to the late Lynn Margulis speak about the official story of the Trade Center destruction here.
- I know this research well since it is my own. I can assure you the journal was peer-reviewed. I had to make a couple of big changes in the article after receiving reviewers’ comments.
- This is the article. We brought the lead author of this article, Niels Harrit, to McMaster to give an address some years ago. I’m sure he would be happy to discuss this issue with you if you have questions.
- The best single publication questioning NIST’s explanation of the destruction of the World Trade Center, including WTC 7, is Beyond Misinformation.
- The entire text of the latest version of the lawyers’ petition can be found here, with links to relevant exhibits.
Graeme MacQueen is the former director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University. He is a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and an organizer of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, the results of which have been published in book form as The 9/11 Toronto Report.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
The World Trade Center 7 collapse has been adequately explained. Seriously, look at the level of detail in the following article https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/.
NOTE BY ADMIN – this is literally untrue; the official government bodies appointed to explain the collapse of WTC7 were unable or unwilling to offer a complete explanation
‘Adequately’ explained? Are you serious? The shallow dog’s-breakfast offered by the tinkering amateurs at PM – keeping their readers, and more importantly, their owners sweet? Thanks for the laff, Rob! As you might expect, David Ray Griffin demolished the amateurs at PM some time ago, as thoroughly as the false-flag operatives themselves demolished the three WTC buildings with previously-installed standard CD charges. Not difficult to do that to PM, if you’re intellectually honest. David, remember, is a retired professor of comparative theology. Even so, he floored them – because he’s honest about the established facts, and about basic physics; incomparable advantage:
https://www.shop.ae911truth.org/Book-Debunking-9-11-Debunking-David-Ray-Griffin-BOOK-DRG-DEBUNK-DEBUNKERS.htm
Steven Jones, the discredited physicist who championed thermite on which the entire CD hypothesis rests, has long been debunked. Without him there isn’t anything serious on which to base a case for CD
Hold on there Sandy – who exactly has discredited Dr Jones, and when? Was this before or after thermite was “debunked”? Dates, please, and data about the debunking.
@flaxgirl Just to answer your question about what I’m trying to suggest with my question about the Mack truck and the sedan. It’s an analogy — the Mack truck is the building and the sedan is the plane. It makes no difference which is going at speed you’d still want to be in the Mack truck because of its much greater mass. I already addressed this, above. Everybody in the sedan/airplane died, whereas the large majority of the people in the truck/building were completely unhurt. QED. Congratulations on the own goal. there were no planes (using real planes would have been impossible – and there certainly is no convincing physical evidence of their wreckage) But WHY would using real airplanes would have been impossible? Especially since you admit you don’t understand physics. As for aircraft wreckage, I found this in fifteen seconds on google: https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911 Of course, you’ll say these… Read more »
IF the “all powerful” Zionists were behind 9/11 why were New York’s WTC & the Pentagon hit? Any other place would have been better.
Why was Afghanistan counter attacked? Better Iran in Zionist logic.
Are all Wahhabi fanatics just Zionist puppets without any own will or guilt? Black Magic? Are the rest of the 1.8 billion Muslims also controlled by 14 million Jews?
How did Sunni Pakistan got dozens of nuclear tipped missiles apart from a few 9/11 “masterminds”?
Most Palestinians are Sunni too.
As usual, the cognitive infiltrators specialize in irrelevant and mostly incoherent questions.
One thing is sure regarding 9/11: the NSA, FBI & NSA didn’t prevent it and that should have made them pay. Obfuscating the investigation was therefore in their advantage and they managed that brilliantly: they got much more money and legal leeway. The MSM dozed off or were fed distraction.
Flaxgirl, you correctly say “my understanding of physics is virtually non-existent”, but then snow us with your “physics”. I will say no more.
I acknowledge being wrong in the way I explained the example of Flight 175 in relation to Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion but I don’t think I was wrong in the way I explained it in relation to the Third. I also provide a webpage that does a much better job than I could. Any problems there, rilme?
I also give the intuitive example of the Mack truck and the sedan. Any problems there, rilme?
The car/truck example proves the opposite of what you want it to, as I’ve pointed out twice already.
Still no answer to the question of how your innovative conception of physics applies to rifle bullets and pumpkins, or anything else. Obviously, the building and the airplane exert equal and opposite forces on each other during the collision. That’s how the airplane gets shredded, and the building gets a big hole in it, much like JFK’s head.
It’s characteristic of disinfo shills that when their arguments are refuted, they simply ignore that fact and keep repeating them, hoping to fool somebody else. It’s also characteristic of idiots, which makes it hard to tell the difference.
My answer is, milosevic, that I readily admit I don’t understand physics and therefore I will not pursue the subject of Flight 175’s crash or bullets further from a physics point of view. Is that a satisfactory response? However, there is more than one way to skin a cat. How about this argument about the plane crashes? I assert that an airliner crash is readily identifiable and should not be disputable, unless there are good reasons, and yet all four plane crashes are massively disputed including by pilots, notably, John Lear. The alleged flights are disputed every step of the way. In one case from even leaving the ground, their flight path, whether they crashed or not, the footage, the wreckage, and, in one case, the match of the engine with the plane type. We also are shown the nose cone of alleged Flight 175 coming out the other side… Read more »
Thing that puzzles me is, if it was controlled demolitions that brought the towers down, how the explosives were put in place with no-one noticing. Professional demolition people remove internal hindrances so that they can access the structural elements to install the explosives with loads of H&S related activities. Difficult to see how none of this activity could have been done unnoticed.
Like this:
https://rense.com/general87/14_1.htm
Fuse boxes and foreigners:
http://www.evilyoshida.com/thread-10708.html
Also, inside the elevator shafts, which is where the main support columns are. Obviously, you would need to sequentially shut down the elevators while rigging each shaft, but that poses no problem when the building management is in on the operation.
It wasn’t ‘unnoticed’. The loading operations had satisfactory – to the casual enquirer – cover-story ‘explanations’: overhauling the lifts; replacing ‘fire-proofing’. In other words: approved-by-the-owners, and thus apparently innocent, ‘necessary building maintenance’ work. And, of course, with the buildings’ custodians briefed on the false cover stories, and thus induced to facilitate >quite innocently< the access for the misidentified criminals who rigged the buildings. It’s precisely the absolute need to arrange permitted access to the buildings for pallet-loads of materiel, together with a team of skilled technicians under the overall direction of a master craftsperson in the art of controlled demolition (of whom there are only a very few in the entire world) which proves beyond argument that 11/9 was an inside-job false flag operation. No – genuinely honest and independent – court of law could come to any other conclusion, once all the accumulated evidence had been presented. Plenty of… Read more »
If WTC 7 was already wired and was the target of UA93, but then had to be demolished when UA93 crashed, how come 93 was heading for Washington, not New York?
With respect George, why or when or how explosives may have been planted is beyond what needs to be discussed at this point. As indeed are planes/no planes and victim numbers.
The only thing that matters at this point is that the govt and its appointed agents have failed, by their own admission, to explain what happened on 9/11. Given the enormity of the event and the wars it has been used to justify this is not acceptable. We need to be told what actually happened that day. And for that to be possible we need a new, independent inquiry.
Everyone who cares about this issue needs to keep this to the forefront of their minds. At this point it’s all that matters. Instead of speculating about imponderables, start demanding an inquiry. And support the professionals who are trying to get one.
Several people btl have said that wtc 7 was the target of ua-93. Actually, that has to be the case: if 911 was false-flag, the conspirators would need 93 there because otherwise they have no way of faking 7’s destruction. But 93 was near Washington, not New York, and heading to Washington, not New York. This is a logical contradiction in the sceptics’ case, not a point about “why or when explosives were planted”. And as for your general warning against “speculating about imponderables”: no accepted narrative about historical events has ever been overturned by people saying it’s wrong but not offering a better narrative. Doesn’t happen, that’s not how paradigms change. You might get your inquiry, but it’ll just repeat the official story, tightened up here and there to avoid the problems you and others have identified. If you want to win – as opposed to just muddying the… Read more »
The point is there has NEVER BEEN a complete official explanation of what happened on 9/11. Neither NIST nor FEMA produced a definitive answer for how the towers fell, and declined to even try to do so for the most part. This is grounds enough for demanding an investigation which admits and publishes all the data elided by NIST – including the physical evidence for explosives in the WTC dust and other anomalies.
People are of course free to speculate. But it’s not necessary to do so in order to make the case for a new investigation. That case is made already.
Could not agree more. When considering an act committed the reasons why and how such act was carried out are completely secondary to the commisson of the act itself. Such details may have an effect on the sentence in the form of attenuating or aggravating circumstances, as the case may be, but that is all.
Evidence only counts! And that is clear and manifest against as yet unidentifed members of the US government – and others. Full stop.
There is little proof that Flight 93 was actually targeting Washington. If you look at the various and varying images of 9/11 flight paths, the path of Flight 93 obviously ended at Shanksville (though many project the flightpath further) and was heading in a general Washington direction but (depending on the image) seems to have made a turn towards New York before it then turned again and crashed. However, if it had been targeting WTC7 as some believe, it would probably have had to approach from the east as WTC7 was surrounded by other buildings and that may have been the only direction it could impact without obstruction and therefore it would have had to have flown in the general direction of Washington rather than directly to New York – otherwise, it would have had to fly much further north to make the necessary turn. The only question that leaves… Read more »
Why would conspirators, already having pulled off an incredably elaborate, audacious, and risky false-flag, jeopardise it all with a third controlled demolition in wtc 7?
Because of The Information Held in that Building .an Enquiry into a Big Financial Scam. All records Lost. or destroyed. A Black Fire Chief was in Building 7 to check on the Small Fire .He said in an Interview to get the hell out of There The Building is about to be “Pulled” he said in the interview as i Ran out the front Doors i Heard Boom Boom Boom as the Explosions went off and the Building came down ..The Fire Chief was ” Killed” days later in a Car “Accident” So he could Not Appear in Court to Testify.
Once again, it is not for us who question the official version to provide an alternative explanation. Who knows the truth? But what we do know, is that WTC7 came down as if in a controlled demolition, and there is overwhelming evidence to substantiate that observation.
However, if you really wish to speculate, perhaps the aircraft that was supposed to bring down WTC7 missed its rendezvous. Suddenly, one is left with a building which is wired to implode. This incriminating evidence would bring the whole conspiracy down like a house of cards. It would be like audio recordings of the JFK assassination showing more than 3 bullets, or that Oswald tested negative for having fired any guns that day.
No more incriminating evidence needs to be supplied than already is – it’s absolutely overwhelming. But all you need is the undisputed 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration in the collapse of WTC-7. That is all you need. Only controlled demolition can account for those 2.25 seconds. There are many other single pieces of evidence that all on their own prove that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy too. While many people argue that it couldn’t have been an inside conspiracy because the US government and its many co-conspirators and collaborators couldn’t pull it off, it’s a ludicrous argument. I think we can safely say that the idea was conceived many years in advance and the planning took awhile as well. There was no fourth plane just as there was no first, second or third one! They might have left airports (although evidence shows not all did) but after a short… Read more »
However, while no more incriminating evidence needs to be supplied, there is investigation lacking into a crucial aspect of 9/11: the claim that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured on 9/11.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks). This claim is only supported by: statements by media, government and others; testimony by those claiming that loved ones or colleagues died; funerals and inscriptions on memorials. The claim is not supported at all by the photographic evidence which, in fact, tends to contradict the claim. Nor is it supported by data in the Social Security Death Index. https://www.scribd.com/doc/37270708/CNN-9-11-Memorial-Victims-SSA-Death-Index-Cross-Reference Enormous effort has been put into other claims made in the official story but what about the claim of 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured? Do you think that if the government can propagandise us into believing that 19 barely-trained terrorists armed with boxcutters hijacked four planes to navigate them through the most highly-defended airspace on earth, etc … that… Read more »
Plenty of conclusive proofs of controlled demolition, and therefore – inescapably – a false-flag inside job. Yes true. But then: no planes and no mass deaths. No, that’s pretty certainly false. Really weird mix of hard realism and complete – apparent – delusion, flaxgirl. Odd, that. The 11/9 truth-seeking movement has been bedevilled with ‘truth-seekers’ promoting exotic hypotheses such as ‘all done with CGI’ and ‘directed energy weapons’ (whatever they’re supposed to be; show an example, perhaps?). These inputs have served very well the purposes of those who seek to maintain the official cospithirry – to the point where many have wondered whether that might be their true purpose. So easy to ridicule the whole truth-seeking current when its got stuff like that floating in it; put there deliberately with precisely that purpose, you have to suspect. Stick with all the easily-demonstable, fully-proven evidence that would pass the ‘beyond reasonable… Read more »
I guess you didn’t look at my Occam’s Razor exercise, Rhisiart. Please do and then let me know what you think it’s defects are.
Flaxgirl, I am sorry but I have to agree with RG. I did read your occams razor piece. The only bit of it that was compelling enough to follow through on was the social security records. However even the verification of that would be extremely difficult, time consuming and require access to files I am unlikely to find. Your assertion of Photoshop being widely used in the pictures you show whilst not impossible is speculative and without anything other than opinion to validate it. What you write is far more indicative of an unchecked propensity to confirmation bias than evidence of doctored photographs. Thus it is actually counterproductive. RG is correct. There is ample rock solid evidence that this was a well planned operation that used impacting aircraft (possibly remotely operated) as a cover story for the controlled demolition of WTC1&2. Few of us have the time or resources to… Read more »
I’m truly at a loss to understand the criticism of my claims of doctoring. When a person has their arm around someone they don’t stick it in the air and as we all see people’s bodies all the time we have a sense of how long people’s arms are. It is not so much the “doctoring” but what the person is doing and how long their arm is that I’m talking about. I don’t think it requires expert analysis. Do you not think that Bobby McIlvaine’s left arm is simply too short? Or do you think that you need to be a professional anatomist to comment? I’ll make it very simple. The claim was made that 3,000 people died and 6,000 people were injured on 9/11 where there was plenty of scope for visual recording, however, there is not a single clear example of injury or death. All purported evidence… Read more »
I feel for you and it is not without some irony that when I make such a case, putting the dampener on someone else’s passion, it usually comes back to bite me. After posting I watched the video by the young video effects specialist and it reminded me that I had seen it and other related analysis years ago that make compelling evidence for a no-planes theory. Likewise your Occams Razor may indeed be a speculation on a very important line of enquiry. So why don’t you use the $5k to obtain high quality copies of the photographs and have them subjected to expert analysis. Or use it to fund a qualified archivist to investigate the named victims? Proving even two or three never existed/are still alive would be earth shattering news. Like RG I feel like I am getting old and I am sometimes left feeling fatigued by all… Read more »
Thanks, Candide. That’s not a bad idea at all – to fund some investigation. As I say in another comment, a truther who believes in the dead and injured claim is attempting to respond to my challenge so it will be interesting to see if he comes up with anything. He might prove my hypothesis completely wrong. Assuming he doesn’t, after he gets back to me I may well think about funding some investigation. I am mystified by what happened to Barbara Olson, passenger on the Pentagon flight, media personality and wife of former Solicitor-General Ted Olson. Where is she hiding I wonder, assuming she is? But I’m sure $5,000 would go nowhere in finding that out 🙂
The Occam’s Razor exercise is for the deaths and injuries. I haven’t yet done an exercise on the planes but why on earth do you believe in the plane crashes, Rhisiart? There isn’t any clear evidence of a single one. When an airliner crashes into a building or into the ground, the evidence of it should be clear. There is absolutely no good reason for it not be clear and in none of the four cases is it clear at all. We know it’s an inside conspiracy and that what they really did doesn’t have to be anything like the story at all. Planes wouldn’t have worked for real in the operation, they had to make them fake. If a 200 ton airliner crashed into a 500,000 ton building it would collide with it, not penetrate it. Real planes would not work for a number of reasons and they didn’t… Read more »
Sorry fg. I made it a rule years ago not to get drawn into these exotic discussions about alleged aspects of the atrocities which are beyond scientific proof, and which only turn the truth movement in on itself, wasting its drive on endless arguments about ‘how many angels…’ As is probably the purpose of some, at least, of those who float such canards. That’s obviously a savvy assumption. Defending the lie of the official cospithirry for an extended period after the event was always – as Chris Bollyn stresses repeatedly – an essential component of the real conspirators’ overall plot. Regrettably, quite a few of those who look at all the arguments about 11/9 in sincere good faith also seem susceptible to getting drawn into these confusion-sowing, but essentially irrelevant, allegations. These intractable, endless, point-of-a-pin arguments >>don’t matter!<< There’s already more than enough peer-reviewed, established and re-testable evidence accumulated in… Read more »
How I have used Occam’s Razor is as follows. I have taken 10 points for a number of events (collapse of WTC-7, Sandy Hook shooting, Manchester bombing, 3,000-dead-6,000-injured a lie) that favour the controlled demolition or “staged” hypothesis. I have issued a $5,000 challenge to those who believe the opposing hypothesis to provide their 10 points and choose, in the case of WTC-7, their own structural engineer to be the judge and, in the case of the other three, their own co-ordinator of emergency response to be the judge. Do you not think that this usage of Occam’s Razor is quite compelling, Rhisiart? If I can supply 10 points favouring my hypothesis and others who believe the opposing one cannot come up with 10 points favouring theirs (or even a single one that I’m aware of) doesn’t that make my case pretty compelling? I issued a challenge for the first… Read more »
No.
Newton’s Second and Third Laws of Motion preclude a 200 ton airliner penetrating a 500,000 ton steel frame building.
How, exactly, do they preclude this occurrence from happening?
That makes about as much sense as claiming that it’s physically impossible for a 2g rifle bullet to penetrate a 5kg pumpkin.
In other words, you have not the slightest idea what you’re talking about, and thus are exactly the sort of person that 9/11 “debunkers” like to point to when they claim that all “truthers” are idiots.
That’s ‘flaxgirl’s’ role-to discredit all the rational theories about what really occurred on 9/11 with her ludicrous swill. Guilt by association. Straight outa Cass Sunstein’s play-book.
No. We aren’t doing witch hunts against regular posters here just because they hold unpopular views on certain topics.
At least give me a chance to answer, milosevic, before making pronouncements about my level of understanding. It’s true my understanding of physics is virtually non-existent but I think Newton’s Second and Third Laws of Motion in relation to the alleged crash of Flight 175 are not too difficult to grasp. The second law The acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables – the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. The acceleration of an object depends directly upon the net force acting upon the object, and inversely upon the mass of the object. As the force acting upon an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is increased. As the mass of an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is decreased. An airliner weighs 200 tons while the tower weighed 500,000 tons (OK we’re talking weight here not mass… Read more »
Actually, I am an idiot, you’re right, at least, partly, milosevic. I need to forget Newton’s second law – what I say is rubbish and really applies to the third law – and just stick with the third law. That does it all on its own.
An airliner weighs 200 tons while the tower weighed 500,000 tons. Due to its much lower mass the plane will suffer massive deceleration when it hits the tower. It will be stopped. As I suggested, and you declined to address — By way of analogy, the rifle bullet weighs 2g while the pumpkin weighs 5kg (which is the same 1:2500 ratio as you quote). Due to its much lower mass, the bullet will suffer massive deceleration when it hits the pumpkin. It will be stopped. Or maybe not. Or do you claim that different laws of physics apply to bullets and pumpkins (and Presidential heads), than to airplanes and skyscrapers? I posted this video below, but it should be compared to the pumpkin video above. It is clear that the Boeing-767 is shredded by the building frame (remember that half the facade is just glass), but a large fraction of… Read more »
An aluminum plane hitting a thick steel beam will have the same effect as steel beam being swung at the same speed and hitting the plane. It makes no difference which one is moving as to the effect on the plane and the beam. In both cases the thick steel beam will do damage to the plane and the beam will emerge relatively undamaged. Nobody claimed that it mattered which was stationary and which was moving. If aluminum was always as flimsy as you suggest, it wouldn’t be used for aircraft construction in the first place. Try swinging an aluminum baseball bat at your steel car, and see what happens. http://www.flight-mechanic.com/wings-part-one/ from an instinctual point of view: in a collision between a Mack track and a sedan would you choose the vehicle to be a passenger in according to which was stationary and which was going at high speed or… Read more »
Newton’s Second and Third Laws of Motion preclude a 200 ton airliner penetrating a 500,000 ton steel frame building.
Maybe you’d like to argue that the JFK assassination must have been faked, because the laws of physics preclude a 2g rifle bullet from penetrating Kennedy’s approximately 5kg head.
Q: How can a scientifically-illiterate “truther” be distinguished from a government “Cognitive Infiltration” shill?
A: They can’t; their practical effect is almost identical.
Refer to previous answer, milosevic. I have no problem stating I do not understand bullets – just to say in their case it is not simply momentum. Of course, there are those who state that the plane had some explosive at the front that allowed it in but I think there is lots of other evidence to show that the footage of Flight 175 was faked. This is Killtown’s, How NOT to fake WTC plane crashes – youtube.com/watch?v=PueexS5PR4Y This is a comment to Mulga as the Reply button was not available on his comment. Mulga, I have issued a $5,000 challenge to those who believe that the claim of 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured on 9/11 is true and I know someone who is working on that challenge. If you believe what I say is “swill” all you have to do is come up with 10 points that support the… Read more »
I have no problem stating I do not understand bullets — just to say in their case it is not simply momentum. You’re quite correct that you do not understand bullets, because their effects are ENTIRELY due to momentum and kinetic energy. A rifle bullet is an inert lump of copper, steel and lead. There is nothing else involved. I think there is lots of other evidence to show that the footage of Flight 175 was faked. What, exactly, would you EXPECT to see when a large airplane crashes into a much larger skyscraper? Should it bounce off, like a rubber ball hitting a wall? Should it turn into a pancake, and slide down to the ground? Should the nose get stuck in the building, and then the whole plane just hang there, like a dart in a dartboard? Are there any other possibilities you can think of, besides those… Read more »
It seems that some of the 50-calibre bullets in the video above are special armour-piercing ones, which actually DO have high-explosive in them. So that was a poor choice for illustrating my point.
Standard rifle bullets are completely inert, as a simple google search would tell you.
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/bullets.html
I’m getting a bit confused here. You’re right – I don’t understand physics so let’s leave it. Just to answer your question about what I’m trying to suggest with my question about the Mack truck and the sedan. It’s an analogy – the Mack truck is the building and the sedan is the plane. It makes no difference which is going at speed you’d still want to be in the Mack truck because of its much greater mass. This is my thesis: 9/11 was a psyop where the only thing they wanted to do for real was bring down three buildings on the day and the rest of the WTC buildings later – as this was, in fact, what happened. The perps had no interest in the terrorists, the planes and killing the people for real – they just wanted us to believe their story. Thus, there were no planes… Read more »
@Rhisiart Gwilaim
There were NO passenger planes, but there were remote controlled missiles.
Please open this link and READ everything.
http://serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm
You will not be able to open the links In the article though (I have tried) because I believe the CIA got there first and blocked them. But there is enough information there to convince even those with the brain of a mouse.
And the information which is TRUE, can be gotten from other sources, it’s just that we have to work for it instead of it being done for us as in this article.
NOTE FROM ADMIN – Don’t think the dead links can be blamed on the CIA, it’s a very old site and links are mortal!
There were NO passenger planes, but there were remote controlled missiles.
It seems much more likely that remote-controlled passenger planes were used, because that’s what’s on the videos, and that’s what tens of thousands of people saw with their own eyes, in the case of the WTC-2 hit.
The flight crew and passengers could have been gassed shortly after takeoff, to prevent them from interfering with the autopilots flying the aircraft to their final destination.
Really, all these “no planes” claims were resolved in the negative, over a decade ago, in the case of the WTC attacks. What happened in Washington and Shanksville is much less clear.
Plausibility of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated by GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems
Maggie, I agree with admin’s insistence that you and flaxgirl, and everyone, must be free to pursue relatively irrelevant lines of enquiry without being witchhunted for it. But I must also stick with my original decision, made years ago, to just not allow myself to be sucked into such endless irrelevancies. As Mulga pointed out just above, this a Sunstein Gambit. Absolutely to be ignored for the deceitful stuff that it is. Not that I mean to imply that you or flaxgirl are trying to deceive. But your passionate engagement in irrelevant lines of debate is grade-A grist to the deceivers’ mill. Due courtesy to both of you, but I regret that I won’t be giving the no-planes, no-mass-death lines of debate any more attention. Nor the directed-energy weapons. Nor the mini-nukes…
As you say, it is not for those who question the official version to provide an alternative explanation; demanding alternate theories is a trap and attempting to provide them is a foolish endeavour. Having been a skeptic of the official story since it happened, I have seen many groups and campaigns fragment over alternative theories which somehow possess people’s egos. And from the outset, it seemed pretty clear that if some theories were not being proposed by agents provocateur, they were certainly having their flames fanned for the purpose of division and as ever, the real truth lies hidden in the debris, obscured by disinformation. It ought to suffice that the official account does not add up to justify a full enquiry with an open remit.
Right okulo! Exactly the critical point that I’m making just above in my reply to flaxgirl – especially your last line. The initial 2.25 seconds of freefall of WTC7, >>on its own<<, is enough to demand a proper enquiry – which has never yet been done.
It was already wired up read to blow, The Shanksville aircraft was probably supposed to hit it.
This is surely, by far the most likely explanation.
Well apparently the “risk” hasn’t been all that significant since the masses still align, as do you, with the most fantastical conspiracy theory of them all. Have any other truther bashing cliches to toss at us?
That calls for speculation. The fact is WTCs 1, 2, and 7 were obviously controlled demolitions. Maybe 7 was supposed to go down under the cover of the cloud of one of the Twins’ collapses and something went wrong. Who knows? Many questions could be answered with a real investigation.
Maybe 7 was supposed to go down under the cover of the cloud of one of the Twins’ collapses and something went wrong. Who knows? As suggested above, what went wrong was that the airplane that was scheduled to meet with WTC-7 (almost certainly UA-93) missed its appointment, leaving the event organizers unsure what to do. At about 5pm that afternoon, having failed to come up with any other plan, they decided that the preinstalled demolition explosives in WTC-7 could not be left to be discovered, and blew it up without benefit of airplane, hoping that nobody would notice anything unusual. And seventeen years later, all respectable people are either still unaware of this event, or claim that it’s perfectly normal for skyscrapers to spontaneously collapse into their basements, so Cheney and his neocon friends weren’t actually wrong in this assumption. stupidity: the most powerful force in the universe. is… Read more »
We make the mistake of assuming that the power elite try to stamp out the truth everywhere they possibly can as if the truth, to them, is like a fire about to take control and they fear it. No, they don’t and that is not how they work. Because of their immense power and the magic of propaganda and because only a small percentage of the population engages in critical thinking they can use the “truth” to better control how they propagandise us. For 9/11 they had a special propaganda campaign just for us – the critical thinkers. What is very important to them is that all of us – the believers of the official story and the critical thinkers alike – believe the 3,000-dead-6,000-injured part of the story. This is extremely important. The critical thinkers have an extremely arduous task in trying to persuade the believers that 9/11 was… Read more »
With respect flax, you’re basing a massive conclusion on a couple of a priori assumptions for which you produce no evidence. What is very important to them is that all of us – the believers of the official story and the critical thinkers alike – believe the 3,000-dead-6,000-injured part of the story. How do you know this was their thinking? You don’t, you simply assume it and then use this assumption to dismiss all evidence that people actually died. A major reason is that the loved ones of people who are murdered are much more likely to awaken from their propagandised state and march on the capitol demanding justice A considerable number of “the loved ones of people who were murdered” ARE demanding justice – but you call them fakers and liars. So, you claim 3,000 people didn’t die because there’s no evidence of families demanding justice, and when you’re… Read more »
You are strawmanning me Admin. I do not claim 3,000 people didn’t die because there’s no evidence of families demanding justice. I claim it for a number of reasons including that the number is not commensurate with the number of people who died and were injured. When you say considerable, please give me a clue as to what kind of number you mean and who the people are. We’re talking about the loved ones of 3,000 who died and 6,000 who were injured and the injured themselves. I notice there are people suffering and angry because of injury from inhalation of toxic dust (and similar) from 9/11 (and I certainly feel for them – that is truly, truly awful) but I’m not aware of a person who suffered physical injury on 9/11 who is fighting for justice. Do you know of any of the 6,000? A few questions for you,… Read more »
Just to make it clear. The main evidence for my claim that 3,000 dead, 6,000 injured is a lie is the complete lack of clear photographic evidence and the fact that the photographic evidence of the injured presented is completely consistent with people participating in a drill. I treat the small number of people demanding justice as more of a support to that evidence rather than being the main evidence of itself.
However, in the case of Bobby McIlvaine, I think the doctored photos is pretty compelling.
So are you saying McIlvaine still has a son named Bobby who is alive and well? Or are you saying he never had a son by that name?
Have you any evidence for this beside your non-expert opinion that the photos of Bobby look ‘doctored? Have you looked for social security data for Bobby? Birth certification? Education history? Have you tried reaching out to the family?
Is one subjectively questionable photo all you have to support the massive conclusion that this man’s whole life and death are fake?
We keep going around in circles, Admin, so I will try to make it so that doesn’t happen. I assert that:
— there is nothing in the visual record that shows clearly that someone died or was injured on 9/11
— there are things in the visual record perfectly consistent with participation in a drill
— for the claim that 3,000 died and 6,000 were injured on 9/11 to be true there must be something in the visual record clearly showing it
— as there is nothing in the visual record clearly showing death and injury and there are things consistent with participation in a drill the claim 3,000 died and 6,000 were injured is a lie
— because there is absolutely nothing in the visual record, if any people died or were injured, the number must be small
Do you have an argument with these assertions?
I completely swallowed these firefighters – completely – but now I think they’re either participating in a drill or actors and are an example of the “truth mixed with lies” propaganda pushed out to the truthers – the truth “suggestion of controlled demolition” plus “people in the buildings”. youtube.com/watch?v=gp9YmTnYP90
On second thoughts, I will answer your question directly, Admin. This is what I say in relation to the photo of Bobby McIlvaine. According to an insider and evidence elsewhere, the power elite give clues of their crimes through sloppiness of execution including in doctored photos. My opinion about this photo is that it is doctored and it is doctored sloppily. To my mind, expert opinion is not required because the doctoring is obvious due to very obvious problems with Bobby’s anatomy. We know instinctively how to judge the length of arms because we see them all the time. His arm is too short and it simply does not look as if it’s extending from his body correctly. It is strange the way it extends straight out. Do you not agree with that? Do you think it doesn’t look too short and that it doesn’t extend strangely or do you… Read more »
You can’t seriously be proposing that no planes hit the towers, right? Now I didn’t just assert that hijacked airliners hit the towers as in the official narrative, but of course planes hit the towers. Please please tell me that you aren’t seriously proposing the infinitely absurd CGI no plane theory. Or are you? What next? The nuke theory? The DEW theory?
If Flight 175 had hit the tower I may have believed it, asldkfj, but we aren’t shown it hitting the tower, we’re showing it penetrating the tower, in fact, we’re shown it “melting” into the tower and so no I don’t believe it because Newton’s 2nd and 3rd Laws of motion preclude a 200 ton airliner penetrating (or “melting” into) a 500,000 ton tower. And I think the explanation of how they did the CGI perfectly compelling. You don’t think Hollywood-style stuff only happens in Hollywood, do you? Of course, this CGI may well have happened there in any case. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/The-Law-of-Action-Reaction-(Revisited) youtube.com/watch?v=2c5_g7UTuGM I try to avoid elements that aren’t particularly important such as what exactly brought the buildings down – it was CD, that’s enough for me. Whether planes penetrated or not is also not so important either except I think it helps to have a sense of how much… Read more »
If Flight 175 had hit the tower I may have believed it, but we aren’t shown it hitting the tower, we’re showing it penetrating the tower, What would you expect it to do, bounce off like a rubber ball? in fact, we’re shown it “melting” into the tower and so no I don’t believe it because Newton’s 2nd and 3rd Laws of motion preclude a 200 ton airliner penetrating (or “melting” into) a 500,000 ton tower. No, they don’t. from your own reference: The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Second-Law For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law challenge: explain how the observed collision of UA-175 with WTC-2 contravenes these laws of physics, without making… Read more »
I’m sure that passenger plane jest hit these buildings but the speed of these two aircraft was clocked at 550 plus mph.
I have heard that at sea level the engines would need to have at least four times the amount of thrust as a conventional passenger jet. Conventional aircraft engines are capable of doing those speeds at 30k plus altitude where the air is thinner ( less friction )
but where there is much more friction and air resistance ( at sea level the air is denser) a plane flying at that speed even with four times more thrust would shake itself to bits.
So , for all I don’t doubt that two big aircraft hit the two buildings the question is : how could they fly at that speed at sea level without falling to pieces before they even got there?
Remotely controlled or not.
Because WTC7 housed ALL the dirt on the conspirators and the rest of the criminal fraternities in the Government. Quite frankly they counted on the sheep not noticing and believing everything they saw on TV. And lets face if 17 years later, despite oceans upon oceans of evidence, the sheep continue to graze. Looking up only briefly to get their fifteen minutes brainwash. Simply open this link and see who gained from this building collapsing? Clue – it wasn’t the investigating agencies, but THOSE WHO WERE BEING INVESTIGATED. http://www.wtc7.net/background.html One question – Giuliani had a specially $15 million secure bunker on the 23rd floor of WTC7, prepared in case of emergencies, yet when the ‘plane’ hit the first tower, he relocated to the special fully functioning command centre set up on pier 92??? Plus I think he had his hair dyed the day before, specially for his TV appearance. lol.… Read more »
Maybe the plane that was supposed to hit it ” crashed in Pennsylvania”, or as Rumsfeld mistakenly (? slip?) said ” was shot down”.
I’ve wondered about that too.
If the let’s roll passengers did stop the hijack and the building was already wired with explosives, then what to do?
There are several reasons they wanted WTC7 completely destroyed which you should research for yourself. The question you ask you should be asking yourself.
Consider a flimsy aluminum tube, with OBL’s L pilot in the hot seat, going at full speed, hits a massive box steel girder reinforced building at an acute angle. Instead of bouncing off like a mosquito off a net, it slices through like a hot knife into butter. No conspiracy here.. just a clever OBL. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g
Also.. no one has yet explained how the debris was cleared away in 4 hours overnight when it should have taken up to 5years.
See also:
“A Sad Anniversary: 17 Years Since Nine Eleven and a Sign on the Wall”: https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/a-sad-anniversary-17-years-since-nine-eleven-and-a-sign-on-the-wall/
Regards