78

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. I discuss some of the major, large-scale poll results in this article.
  3. That OBL was never indicted is not controversial. The reference to the FBI and hard evidence is supported here.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. The best single publication questioning NIST’s explanation of the destruction of the World Trade Center, including WTC 7, is Beyond Misinformation.
  8. 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.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rob
Reader
Rob

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 ADMINthis is literally untrue; the official government bodies appointed to explain the collapse of WTC7 were unable or unwilling to offer a complete explanation

Rhisiart Gwilym
Reader
Rhisiart Gwilym

‘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

Sandra Gibbon
Reader
Sandra Gibbon

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

Pained Scientist
Reader
Pained Scientist

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.

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

@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:
comment image
comment image
comment image

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911

Of course, you’ll say these are all fake, but you can’t use their absence to prove no airplanes actually crashed.

Your whole theory is non-refutable, because you just dismiss any evidence that contradicts it, as fake. That’s religion, not science. Like this:

do you think it’s possible for 3,000 people to be killed and 6,000 to be injured where the visual record shows no clear evidence of it? Alternatively, do you think there is clear evidence and, if so, can you point me to it?

As I recall, other people did exactly this in the comments for another article, but that hasn’t deterred you in the slightest. You’re committed to your non-rational theory, and no amount of evidence is going to change your mind. When challenged on the issue of Newton’s laws of motion, you dropped that argument, without changing the conclusions that were supposedly based on it. This is religion, not science.

There’s a reason that I’m not the only person alluding to “Sunstein” and “cognitive infiltration”.

Anyway, I’m done with this nonsense. Enjoy your delusions.

Antonyl
Reader
Antonyl

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.

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

As usual, the cognitive infiltrators specialize in irrelevant and mostly incoherent questions.

Antonyl
Reader
Antonyl

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.

rilme
Reader
rilme

Flaxgirl, you correctly say “my understanding of physics is virtually non-existent”, but then snow us with your “physics”. I will say no more.

flaxgirl
Reader

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?

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

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.

flaxgirl
Reader

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 of the building. As I say my understanding of physics is close to zero but I’m sure you will agree that the nose cone of a plane cannot survive through a steel frame building.
youtube.com/watch?v=WH5InKzdQHw

There is also no evidence of how these planes would have been auto-piloted. I’m assuming you agree there were no pilots?

There is also the fact that we know, in essence, that 9/11 was a psyop. I think we can infer that if the perps were able to fake the plane crashes rather than do them for real that is certainly the option they would have chosen as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to autopilot airliners in the manner required. So much less control over the operation. It seems to me the power elite love hoaxing us and they would have taken pride in making 9/11 as complete a hoax as possible with only the buildings being destroyed as that is the only thing they actually wanted for real. What do you think of Ace Baker’s video on how the footage was faked? youtube.com/watch?v=2c5_g7UTuGM

I’m curious to know why you think I’m a disinfo shill. What would be the point of my thesis that death and injury were staged? You can see on my website that I think we are being massively hoaxed and I have put up my challenge – do you think I’ve put up my challenge disingenuously? Do you think the 10 points I give for each of the theses about staging of events is disingenuous? How would that be possible? It is also obvious that I came to the realisation of no deaths and injuries only in June. I had two articles published in Off-Guardian that make no mention of death and injury being staged. Do you think I’m a shill that bided my time (I’m sure it happens) and am now just trying to spread my lies?

I’m obviously not the only person who believes the plane crashes were faked. Regardless of what you think of the physics presented on the webpage I linked to, do you think that person is a shill? Do you think that person doesn’t believe their argument using Newton’s Third Law and has just made up their argument to suit?

iamcrawford
Reader

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.

rilme
Reader
rilme
rilme
Reader
rilme
milosevic
Reader
milosevic

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.

Rhisiart Gwilym
Reader
Rhisiart Gwilym

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 peer-reviewed evidence makes it clear that there’s no longer any – credible – doubt that the three building collapses were CDs. And the imperative necessity for powerful people within the US/zionist ruling ‘elite’ to make officially-approved access to the buildings possible for the rigging team, over an extended period, rules out any other realworld-possible explanation for the atrocities than that they were an inside job. And, of course, if the WTC attacks were an inside job, then – inevitably – so were all the other carefully-coordinated elements of the atrocities that were committed that day.

11/9 absolutely demands another, properly independent and honest, enquiry, to replace the official jihadi cospithirry bollocks with some much-needed truth. 11/9 has to join the Reichstag Fire and the Gulf of Tonkin incident as one of the universally acknowledged false-flag scams of history. The push for truth about 11/9 is one of the essential lessons from history that we need to bequeath to future generations. I imagine that once the Anglozionist empire has gone the way of all empires, and the Russo-Chinese inheritor empires are securely in the ascendent, then it will become politically expedient to allow such a properly-honest enquiry to happen. Hope I’m still around then, to enjoy the deplorable schadenfreude of watching the egg-besplattered faces of all the suckers and crooks who’ve defended the official cospithirry; poor old good-in-parts George Omnibot, for one example; and the professional liar and smear artist for the Murdoch gang Comical Ollie Kamm for another. :O)

** Note to admin: I’ve called Kamm out by the above description often, and in public. And I’ve invited him, directly by email, to sue me for libel for publishing such a description. But he just chickens out every time. Simply requests that I stop emailing him. I don’t imagine there’ll be any blowback to Off-G for publishing my usual description of him in this comment.

George the Blot
Reader
George the Blot

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?

Admin
Reader

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.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

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 waters – you need a story that explains what we know better than the official narrative.

chaize
Reader
chaize

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.

okulo
Reader
okulo

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 for me is what would have been the reason given for terrorists attacking WTC7? WTC1, WTC2 and the Pentagon don’t really need explaining.

GeorgeBlot
Reader
GeorgeBlot

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?

Graham Hooper
Reader
Graham Hooper

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.

Hugh O'Neill
Reader
Hugh O'Neill

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.

flaxgirl
Reader

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 time they disappeared off the radar. There was a massive amount of fakery and hoaxery in 9/11. Massive. And there was a huge amount designed to distract. Not that we need to be distracted, we distract ourselves so easily over things that don’t really count too much.

This is an entertaining video on the ludicrousness that is the Shanksville “plane crash” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2_em8G6DJE

flaxgirl
Reader

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 they cannot also propagandise us into believing that 3,000 people were killed and 6,000 injured? And if they were able to do that, which option would they have chosen? To let the people in the buildings die as “collateral damage” and actively kill those in the non-crashing planes as part of implementation of their terror operation or do you think they would have chosen to simply fake the deaths and injuries? Was 9/11 a psyop (apart from the building collapses) or not? If it was really a psyop then they wouldn’t have killed and injured the people because they had no reason to kill them for real, they only wanted us to believe the people were killed. That is all. What level of sophistication do you think these people operate at? That they have to crudely kill people to create terror? I mean, I know they have no problem killing people, they do it all the time, but they do it to suit them and killing their own citizens in the buildings didn’t suit. Too many loved ones emerging from their propagandised state and marching on the capitol demanding justice.

I have done a 10-point Occam’s Razor exercise supporting the hypothesis that the claim that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured is a complete fabrication. http://www.occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

Rhisiart Gwilym
Reader
Rhisiart Gwilym

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 doubt’ test in any (honest) court of law – or any scientific peer-review team. That fully-scientific evidence-body provides all the proof needed – and some – that it was a false-flag. No need to lard in the weird – and frankly rather suspect – fairy-tales.

flaxgirl
Reader

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.

candideschmyles
Reader

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 adequately do the level of research required to validate your hypothesis however I would say I wish someone would because if true it is damning. The kind of research that would fully expose such a reality would have to be a judicial one with the power of subpoena. Anything less would simply meet too many brick walls.
To sum up and with respect I would say that your Occams Razor is more a stab in the dark. Without expert analysis of the photos you have nothing but evidenceless opinion. Without hard copies of the social security history and death certificates you have only speculation.
I think it incumbent now on everybody awake to the reality that 9/11 did not unfold as the official conspiracy theory states to get behind the solid evidence and avoid such esoteric nuances that are as yet impossible to prove.

flaxgirl
Reader

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 could easily be faked or participation in a drill. In fact, in this photo as I’ve already mentioned, it does not look real at all. We have to ask where all the other injured are. Why is there this isolated little group with only a couple of injured and lots of others? It looks odd. It doesn’t at all look like a real emergency situation. http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/8/7/2487397/pentagon.jpg

I state that that being the case the claim is false.

Can you point me to anything in the visual record of 9/11 that clearly shows injury or death?
Do you believe that for the claim of 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured to be legitimate there must be at least one clear example in the (available) visual record?

I also think it is a false and misleading assumption that meticulous research is always required for making claims. 9/11 was an Emperor’s New Clothes affair. Certainly, the meticulous research that has been done is fantastic to help people understand the truth and to fully support contradiction of the official story but it is not always required.

Unfortunately, meticulous research has NOT been done on the claim that 3,000 died and 6,000 were injured. Perhaps it never will be. However, I don’t think we need it as I believe that for the claim to be true there must be clear evidence in the visual record and there isn’t.

The point of using Occam’s Razor is that you are not trying to absolutely prove something, you’re only saying “this piece of evidence” supports “this hypothesis” with the fewest questions and assumptions. If you can get a number of pieces of evidence supporting your hypothesis while there are none supporting the opposing hypothesis, it’s quite compelling, don’t you think? Can you give me any pieces of evidence supporting the hypothesis that the claim of “3,000 died and 6,000 were injured on 9/11” is true that don’t involve possible disinformation agents (these people are included in my own three-part hypothesis).

The reason I push for the truth on deaths and injuries is that it is extremely important. I wouldn’t be pushing for some different theory on how the buildings came down because I don’t believe that is of any importance, CD is perfectly sufficient, whatever was involved. But the truth about deaths and injuries is extremely important and that is why I’m pushing it. As you can see it’s a lonely and thankless task.

candideschmyles
Reader

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 the peripheral theories that despite their actual importance still act to overcomplicate the issue. I appreciate you still have more passion for such details and it is churlish of me to pour cold water on them. I apologise.

flaxgirl
Reader

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 🙂

flaxgirl
Reader

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 need them – they could fake it so easily, with footage. 9/11 was a psyop, they didn’t try to simulate the story, they faked it big time. What actually happened was absolutely nothing to do with the story at all, except for the buildings coming down.

There is nothing exotic about the faked footage of Flight 175 into the South tower. It’s just Hollywood-type stuff and not very good at that. Ace Baker explains it all here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c5_g7UTuGM

Rhisiart Gwilym
Reader
Rhisiart Gwilym

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 the public domain to demolish the official cospithirry; several times over. It really isn’t necessary to step into the irrelevant-theorising quagmire. So I don’t. Sorry! No disrespect intend fg, but at my age I have to conserve my energy and parcel it out judiciously. 🙂

And btw, Occam’s Razor, much as I respect it as a crucial principle of rational enquiry for which we should all be eternally grateful to William, is no more than an arbitrary rule of thumb to help natural-philosophers select the most promising lines of enquiry. It’s not in the same league as the actual enquiries themselves: peer-reviewed, repeatable, investigative and experimental science, such as proving the existence and the physico-chemical nature of the red-gray chips, for example; or David Chandler’s NIST-demolishing, irrefutable demonstration of Building 7’s initial 2.25 seconds of absolute freefall. That sort of evidence is the closest that humans can hope to come to absolute proofs about anything. And there’s already plenty of that to nail the ‘OBL and the19 jihadis’ lie about 11/9.

flaxgirl
Reader

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 three in October last year. Not a single response despite lengthy email and YouTube exchanges with passionate believers of the opposing hypotheses.

The 3,000-dead-6,000-injured challenge I’ve only just issued, however, a truther I’m friendly with (but who is also friendly with one of the people I claim is a disinformation agent) believes the claim is true and he and a friend are working on the challenge – the first people I know of who’ve actually worked on my challenge. I’ll let you know how he goes. I have my money ready and waiting but I’m pretty confident I won’t have to give it up – I wouldn’t have issued the challenge, of course, unless I felt that way.

I couldn’t agree more with you about endless arguments about things that are not germane to the central argument, however, I think the truth about whether people died and were injured is completely germane. It is an essential part of the truth and it needs to get out.

I also think that you can make bold statements without meticulous research simply because certain things are so obvious. Do you think that you cannot say, “When an airliner crashes the evidence of it should be undisputable unless there is a good reason for it not to be, therefore, as in all four cases of the alleged plane crashes on 9/11 the evidence is disputable (highly disputable, in fact) and is disputable for no good reason, I state that they didn’t happen. In the case of Flight 175, fakery is obvious both in the actual footage and in the fact that Newton’s Second and Third Laws of Motion preclude a 200 ton airliner penetrating a 500,000 ton steel frame building.”

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/The-Law-of-Action-Reaction-(Revisited)

Similarly, there is nothing in the visual record, either photographic or videographic, that clearly shows a dead or injured person of the alleged 9,000 people we are told either died or were injured. What the visual record shows instead is only photos or video of people who could easily be participating in a drill or other types of fakery and in some examples they really look as if they could only be participating in a drill, notably, this photo in front of the Pentagon. http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/8/7/2487397/pentagon.jpg

I state that for such an event there should be clear evidence in the visual record of death and injury and as there isn’t, the claim is false – I do not claim no one died or was injured but certainly not the alleged 3 and 6 thousand.

Do you think it’s unreasonable to make those bold statements?

candideschmyles
Reader

No.

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

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.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

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.

flaxgirl
Reader

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 but there is obviously a great contrast).
Due to its much lower mass the plane will suffer massive deceleration when it hits the tower. It will be stopped.

The third law
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

From this website: https://911planeshoax.com/tag/911-impossible-physics
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. The faster the speed at the point of impact, the more damage that will be done to the plane. Try punching a steel girder. No matter how fast your hand is traveling, you will not be able to break through it; you will eventually break your hand. It matters not if the girder is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the girder; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same.

I ask you though, milosevic, 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 would you always choose the Mack truck?

flaxgirl
Reader

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.

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

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 the total mass of the airplane (including almost all of the jet fuel) travels all the way through the building and comes out the other side. Presumably it decelerated to some extent.

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

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 would you always choose the Mack truck?

I’m not sure what this is supposed to suggest. According to the Official Story, everybody in the 767s died, whereas the large majority of the people in the office towers were completely unhurt, and escaped from the buildings before they collapsed/exploded.

Which is exactly what you would expect, according to the car/truck analogy. Except that if there happened to be a person sitting on the front bumper of the truck at the time of the collision, they might not enjoy the experience, as the people on the specific floors that the 767s crashed into presumably did not.

But you claim that nobody actually died, because they weren’t even there, or something. So what’s your point?

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

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.

flaxgirl
Reader

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 claim that 3,000 died and 6,000 were injured on 9/11 (obviously, it’s not a matter of proving those exact numbers – it is about showing that the deaths and injuries were real and not staged) and get an emergency response coordinator to validate those 10 points.
http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/

Of, if you can’t be bothered with that, please state here in the comments any evidence to support the claim. If you have no evidence to support that claim then how are you justified in making nasty insinuations about me and referring to what I say as swill? Why make nasty insinuations when, presumably, you have all the evidence to contradict my “swill” at your fingertips?

What I’m saying is really not so revolutionary when you consider so many other events where death and injury have obviously been staged: Bologna train station, Sandy Hook, Boston Bombing, San Bernardino, Orlando, Berlin truck, Nice, Charlie Hebdo, Manchester bombing, Las Vegas shooting, Freeman High School, Stoneman-Douglas High School, Flinders St and Bourke St car rampages, Melbourne (Melbourne is the false-flag capital of Australia), Barcelona van rampage, Stockholm truck bombing, Mogadishu truck bombing and on and on. Wake up, Mulga!

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

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 (cartoon physics), and what actually happened?

What would you EXPECT to see?

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

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

flaxgirl
Reader

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 (using real planes would have been impossible – and there certainly is no convincing physical evidence of their wreckage) and they did some small amount of damage to the buildings on empty floors so that no one was hurt in the buildings. Anyone in the buildings was evacuated before they came down.

The greatest proof of my thesis is that the visual record shows no clear evidence of the claim that 3,000 died and 6,000 were injured.

My question to you, milosevic is: do you think it’s possible for 3,000 people to be killed and 6,000 to be injured where the visual record shows no clear evidence of it? Alternatively, do you think there is clear evidence and, if so, can you point me to it?

Maggie
Reader
Maggie

@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!

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

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

Rhisiart Gwilym
Reader
Rhisiart Gwilym

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…

okulo
Reader
okulo

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.

Rhisiart Gwilym
Reader
Rhisiart Gwilym

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.

WdIN
Reader
WdIN

It was already wired up read to blow, The Shanksville aircraft was probably supposed to hit it.

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

This is surely, by far the most likely explanation.

asldkfj
Reader

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?

Ken Cabeen
Reader
Ken Cabeen

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.

milosevic
Reader
milosevic

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 there ANYTHING it can’t accomplish?

flaxgirl
Reader

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 an inside conspiracy because the believers will reject that their own government would kill the people in the buildings and in the planes. And in this rejection the believers are absolutely correct! The government wouldn’t do that, it’s not their way. Sure, they’ll kill thousands upon thousands of people in remote countries and send their soldiers off to self-generated wars to die or to return and suicide but they wouldn’t kill the people in the buildings and planes for a number of reasons.

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 – the death of a loved one tends to make people much more acute to the truth. Another reason is that they didn’t have to kill the people because they’re very, very skilled in propaganda techniques and they know exactly what is needed to persuade people. It is truly astounding. I, myself, have recognised many other events as being staged and yet I was still fooled by the 3,000-dead-6,000-injured story because of the special propaganda campaign. When I finally awoke to the campaign and looked at the pictures of the injured it was a face-palm moment. They’re so obviously pictures of people participating in a drill. How could I not have seen it before? And they enjoy fooling us and pushing their hoaxery in our face. They get a kick out of it. They don’t even conduct their operations in the most realistic way. They had the terrorists pop up alive, they pre-announced WTC-7’s collapse by 20 minutes, they had a fluttered-down-from-a-fireball pristine passport even change terrorist ownership from Mohammad Atta to Satam al-Suqami.

So to answer your question, they gave us WTC-7’s collapse on a silver platter. The reason was that they knew that a small number of people would recognise that the twin towers collapsed by controlled demolition due to the basic laws of physics and that a small number would also recognise that no planes crashed. So the truth would be out, no way to stop it. But rather than even try to, they exploited it. They transformed the seeming liability of obvious controlled demolition into a magical propaganda asset! What they’ve done: they’ve paid a number of people to align with the truthers, voicing their suspicions of the government and joining in with the cries of “controlled demolition” while all the while talking of their loved one or colleagues who died or was injured. Clever, huh?

In argument against 9/11 being an inside conspiracy, the “too great a number” chestnut is often pulled out. From always being conscious of how many people had to actively collaborate or simply go along or turn a blind eye for the Holocaust to happen I never think “too great a number”. A rather significant number of people must know that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy and that the deaths and injuries were faked and they are keeping very quiet about it.

The problem is though that even if you recognise that people didn’t die or were injured you’re still up against it in persuading others of the truth because when people have experienced feelings of sorrow at a big tragedy it feels offensive, sacrilegious to question whether that tragedy really occurred. In my own case, even though I swallowed the official story for 13 years, from the first day I felt a strong sense of being manipulated and I also felt that the really big tragedy was the death and destruction wrought in foreign lands after 9/11 so it wasn’t so difficult for me to accommodate the idea that people didn’t really die or suffer injury on the day.

Maggie
Reader
Maggie

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.
https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-rudy-giuliani/

ABC Newscast that Giuliani denies making?:
“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_giuliani.html

Even the Danish Prime Minister knew of the collapse of the WTC’s 12 minutes before they did?
https://www.prisonplanet.com/danish-prime-minister-knew-wtc-would-collapse.html

And the BBC also knew……….

Don’t ask any more daft questions George. Put some research in and you will find the answers for yourself..

ttshasta
Reader
ttshasta

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?

candideschmyles
Reader

There are several reasons they wanted WTC7 completely destroyed which you should research for yourself. The question you ask you should be asking yourself.

Thomas Turk
Reader
Thomas Turk

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.

Schlüter
Reader

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