One Memory of 911

Print Friendly

People who were there at the time of, say, JFK’s assassination will tell you they have distinct memories of certain moments that they will carry with them forever. It may be something trivial, like the dangling thread on the bright yellow jacket worn by the woman standing beside you. It may be something said – or something seen. But it imprints – and it sticks with you.

I, too, have such a memory. Of September 11, 2001.

It is a small thing and may be something that stands out for entirely innocuous (or simply irrelevant) reasons.

But I have it, nonetheless.

First, some background. I was at the time an editorial writer for The Washington Times – you know, the Moonie-owned paper in DC that’s quite possibly a front for the CIA and is most definitely a mouthpiece for the neo-con right. (On the latter: There was a fax machine in the office that used every day to spit out “memos” from the now-infamous Partnership for a New American Century and Bill Kristol, which often became the basis for the following morning’s editorials. The Jerusalem Post was another favorite source for material.)

Well, later that morning, not long at all after the planes hit, I picked up on something that may be nothing – or might be something: The higher-ups at the paper were already using the lingo that’s still the lingua franca today. 911. Not, the attacks on the Trade Center – or something natural like that. Just the now-familar acronym-scree, 911 – like you used to say when you talked about calling the cops. I though it odd then and I still think it odd today, a decade later. How is it that 911 became coin of the realm so speedily? It was – to me – as though part of a very deliberate and carefully engineered PR program, prepared in advance and rolled-out on schedule.

911 has too much of the brand-name about it for my tastes – having done some copywriting, too, you see. Too much, at any rate, to have become so common so quickly. So almost instantaneously the agreed-upon terminology, like a parrot call.

How did this come about? What made so many people (well, people in a position to guide the discussion along certain channels) latch onto the date vs. the event itself?

What was so special about Tuesday, September 11?

Pear Harbor is not known as 12-7.

Is it not odd?

Well, it was to me – still is. I don’t why my ears perked up, but they did. I kind of made a mental note to myself, then put it in the background of my mind as the day’s events unfolded. We – the editorial writers – were shocked and scared and busy as hell that day. No real time to think much more about it. There were more pressing things on the mental menu, such as What Next?

Besides, I may have been the only one thinking about it – the sudden appearance and equally sudden acceptance of 911 as the new shorthand for Everything. Perhaps I still am.

Well, so what am I trying to say?

I’m not really sure. I have my own suspicions about the events of that day. In particular, I have questions about one of the major events of that day that is almost never discussed anymore and wasn’t much discussed even then – the strange collapse of WTC Building 7. I don’t know what happened there, but I sure would like to know. I do know that on the one hand, we have been told that the Twin Towers collapsed because structural steel – steel specifically designed to withstand the impact of a four-engined commercial jet (Boeing 707) was weakened by a blitz of jet aircraft impact (which, crucially, blew away vital fire-protectant insulation) and the subsequent inferno caused by jet fuel, which softened the now-unprotected vital core supports, leading to the collapse. But then, on the other hand, we have WTC7 – which was not hit by anything other than falling debris, suffered no high-temperature jet-fuel-fed inferno, yet still pancaked to the ground in what sure looked to me like free fall.

How? Why?

It has not been explained.

Just 911!

Remember the lessons of 911!

Have question? Remember the lessons of 911! GWB and Rudy Giuliani and most Republican pols since then erupt like bullfrogs with 911! whenever it’s clear no discussion – and certainly no questions – are wanted. We can’t forget the lessons of 911!

Repeat.

It has been thus ever since that day; for me, no more than two or three hours at the most after the first plane hit.

911!

Maybe it doesn’t mean anything. But maybe it does.

I wonder whether we’ll ever find out.

Share Button

  175 comments for “One Memory of 911

  1. Edward King
    September 6, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    Be careful Eric! Ask too many questions and you’ll start to sound like one of those “911 truthers”. Don’t you know the state is to never be questioned? Only “extremists” and right wind “nutjobs” question what their governments and media mouthpieces say. Just shut your mouth and pay homage to the brave men and women who died on 911 as well as the men in uniform fighting for our freedom. God Bless America.

    • September 6, 2011 at 6:38 pm

      Well, it’s too late for me, I guess!

      • Edward King
        September 6, 2011 at 6:40 pm

        Me too!

  2. dom
    September 6, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    So what happened to that other building?

    • JvG
      September 6, 2011 at 8:39 pm

      That would be controlled demolition with thermite. Ever wonder why all three buildings collaped at free-fall gravity speed? Why they imploded just like the ones in Las Vegas?

      Jet fuel is kerosene. it does not melt jet engines, or thin steel kerosene stoves used all over the world, and in the USA as little as ten years ago.

      http://www.whatreallyhappened.com has a lot of information on the collapses right now. Take a look. It might open your eyes.

      • Pete
        September 7, 2011 at 7:53 pm

        http://www.ae911truth.org has all the info anyone needs to know about 9-11.

        In the occult the number 33.33 is a very special number. Did you know that bush was sworn in exactly 33 weeks before 9-11? Also 9 = 3=3=3 and 11 X 3 = 33. See “Apolloyn Rising 2012″, by Thomas Horn and/or “The Temple at the Center of Time”, by David Flynn for more on this strange number. Also beware of November 11, 2011 = 11+11+11=33.

      • Gil
        September 8, 2011 at 12:35 pm

        “Kerosene doesn’t melt jet engines”? That sounds an awful lot like saying “petrol doesn’t melt a car engine”. If you ran a car engine without a cooling system you’ll get catastrophic engine failure. Truthers forget the hotter a metal gets the weaker it becomes. It gets weak and soft before it outright molten.

        • September 8, 2011 at 12:43 pm

          Are you that stupid?

          Yes, running a car without adequate cooling will result in it failing. It will seize up or throw a rod. But it will not result in it melting. And that (a car engine) is merely cast iron or aluminum alloy. A jet engine is made of ultra-high-temperature alloys, including titanium. Jet fuel fires do not – cannot – melt titanium.

          Go and research other jet aircraft crashes; you will find that parts like the engines usually survive either largely intact or in clearly recognizable large pieces. This was true even in the case of a supersonic aircraft, such as the six-engined XB-77 Valkyrie Mach 3 bomber, incidentally. Also the Concorde. Etc.

        • Gil
          September 8, 2011 at 1:30 pm

          Who said anything about melting? The WTC structure didn’t melt it weakened to the point it couldn’t support the tonnage above it. Believe or not metals aren’t all-powerful.

          • September 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm

            Idjit, there were pools of molten steel at the site, post collapse. This is a crucial piece of evidence because the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel. However, demolition chemicals such as thermite can melt steel.

          • Gil
            September 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm

            Who “finds” evidence of molten steel? Only the “truthers” do. If you read the link I posted before the author pointed out temperatures high enough to melt such steel would have created molten concrete too as well as said explosives are used for cutting steel not melting it and controlled demolitions don’t create blobs of molten steel either.

          • September 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm

            Christ! – the firefighters who were on scene testified to it; there are images (and video) of the glowing, molten metal all over the Internet.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkO0lZ7BZJc

            Is this all made up, too?

            Note: This was the day of the attacks; no “cutting” afterward was involved and besides, no such “cutting” to clear wreckage can account for pools of liquid steel…and no ordinary fires can liquify steel.

          • Brent P
            September 8, 2011 at 9:35 pm

            Gil, mainstream news covered the intense heat, the molten metal, in what was the basement levels, in the days following the collapses. They had thermal camera graphics of it!

          • methylamine
            September 9, 2011 at 6:49 pm

            Use your eyes. In pre-collapse videos of both towers, you can see yellow-hot streams of molten metal pouring out of the corners of both towers.

            Temperature has colors; yellow-hot steel is approximately 2,000 C. Thermite reacts at about 2700 C.

            Jet fuel in an open flame burns at 300 C.

            Structural steel loses 40% of its strength at about 700 C.

            And as Eric points out, there were pools of molten steel on-site six weeks after the collapse.

            Look at videos/pictures of the cleanup* and you can see girders being picked up with molten metal still dripping from their ends…a month after the collapse.

            No-one said the actual explosives caused the molten pools; they’re used for quick cuts and to pulverize concrete. The thermite/thermate was used to weaken or cut the largest steel structures, ones too thick to cut with shaped charges of a reasonable size. There are shaped charges sufficient for a 4 inch thick beam, but they make a big bang; thermite is quiet.

            * AKA “evidence destruction exercise”

    • September 6, 2011 at 8:41 pm

      WTC 7 was a 40-something story office building adjacent to the Twin Towers, part of the WTC complex. It collapsed – imploded – later that day. The video is startling. It looks exactly like a controlled demolition; the building free-falls onto its own footprint. How did this happen? A partial collapse, ok. But the whole building just neatly pancakes – whoosh, gone. It was not hit by airplanes; there was no jet fuel (or other high-temp) fire to weaken structural steel (which in any case – and this is absolutely key – would have been protected against fire by insulation that would still have been in place since no airplanes hit the building, hence, the stuff would not have been blown off). Yet the core supports all supposedly failed at the same moment, resulting in free-fall collapse. It’s really weird – and no explanation has ever been put forward to explain it… that I am aware of, anyhow.

      Here’s one video:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

      There are several others – take a look and see what you think.

      • JvG
        September 6, 2011 at 9:45 pm

        There is a clip on you-tube you might find interesting. It is called BBC WTC7. In this clip, a reporter from the bbc is reporting that WTC 7 has collapsed. However, there is a building that is smoking behind her. It is WTC 7. Note that WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. It collapsed all by its self in 7 seconds flat. This is the same speed as a coin dropped from the same height. Only controlled demolition can do that. WTC 1 and 2 fell just as rapidly.

        There have been severe fires in other tall buildings, non of whicj ever collapsed. Yet three buildings collapsed after two of them were hit by airplanes. By the way, when the buildings were designed, they were built strong enough to absorb impact by a Boeing 707. That airplane was as large as the 9-11 airplanes, and flew faster.

        • JvG
          September 6, 2011 at 9:49 pm

          I forgot to mention that the reporter was filmed while talking about the collapse of WTC7, the building is smoking, but STILL STANDING, and is visible behind her shoulder.

      • dom
        September 6, 2011 at 11:36 pm

        That is damn weird! Everything fell perfect!

        • JvG
          September 7, 2011 at 12:04 am

          Controlled demolition causes buildings to collapse into their own footprint, minimizing damage to adjacent buildings. True building collapses are messier and more random. Only portions of buildings fall over.Look at earthquake damage for example.

          WTC 1 and 2 had central elevator towers that were built of strong steel I beams and lots of reinforced concrete. They were built like the proverbial brick outhouse. yet this core supposedly turned into dust by being exposed to low temperature kerosene fires? Hmm..

      • Pete
        September 7, 2011 at 7:58 pm

        Did you know there was an ongoing investigation into the dealings of some of the biggest financial houses in the world? Take a guess about where the ALL evidence was being stored. Darn shame it was all destroyed….

        • methylamine
          September 9, 2011 at 6:59 pm

          Darn shame. And purely coincidental that the financial records that might have told us where the DoD’s missing $2.3T went were exactly where the “airplane” hit the Pentagon.

          Truly, a day of remarkable coincidences.

          But I’m proooouuud to be an American, where at least I know I’m freeeee.

  3. September 6, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    I agree with the neocons that what happened on 911 was a murderous act of unspeakable evil….and that the perpetrators should be hunted down and brought to justice.

    Too bad the true identity of those perpetrators remains covered up.

    What makes me more pessimistic than anything else about America’s future is the large number of citizens who unquestioningly embrace the “official version” of what happened.

    • JvG
      September 6, 2011 at 10:05 pm

      Take a look at the website I quoted. It really appears to be an inside job, done by the neo-cons in our own government, with help from the Mossad. It provided a convienient excuse to grab the oil fields and pipeline routes in the mid-east. Who benefits? Oil companies, and Isreal. Take a look at the evidence. There is a lot of information, all very well researched.

      look on You-tube for an old song done by Jackson Browne back in the 1980s. It is called Lives In The Balance.

    • Gil
      September 7, 2011 at 2:49 am

      You mean the gubmint did Sept. 11? According to Libertarians if Muslim terrorists did do Sept. 11 then it was understandable act of retaliation for the murdering the U.S. gubmint has been doing in the Middle East.

      • September 7, 2011 at 9:53 am

        I don’t know. But I would like to know. Just like I’d be interested in the truth about other things, such as the JFK assassination. I don’t buy the official story, is all.

        • Westie
          April 21, 2012 at 10:26 pm

          Eric, I’m new around here but like the cut of your site’s jib! I think 911 is of a piece with other inside jobs, Oklahoma City Bombing, 1993 WTC Bombing and the coverup on Flt #800. It’s all controlled fear for power. Note also Branch Davidians…other set up ‘Militias’….Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, Globull Warming, Fiat Currency….and so forth but, but we must be SAAAFFF! I like your antithesis poster Clover, such a perfect patsey.

          • April 21, 2012 at 10:51 pm

            Thanks, Westie – likewise!

      • Pete
        September 7, 2011 at 8:03 pm

        Did the Muslims clean up all the evidence before an investigation could be done? Just like the Murrah building! Immediately after Murrah Clinton signs the anti liberty “Domestic Terrorism Act”. Immediately after 9-11 Bush signs the Bill of Rights death sentence known as the USA Partriot Act. Funny how these draconian bills are written in advance of some disaster and suddenly appear right after one hits.

        • Brent P
          September 8, 2011 at 4:04 am

          They are usually bills or composed of parts of bills of legislation that previously failed. The patriot act is largely composed of Clinton era expansions of government police state power that had failed.

          Never waste a crisis.

          • September 8, 2011 at 10:43 am

            A lot of the scheisse we’re dealing with today did indeed begin with Clintigula – and the Ruby Ridge/Waco fiascoes, which led to the Oklahoma City event. There was a major push at the time to discredit the then-growing “militia” movement and McVeigh was served up as the perfect cat’s paw. I remember watching the ATF assault on the Waco compound along with my colleagues at The Washington Times, in the editorial page offices. One of them quipped, as the building went up in flames, that it was an action worthy of Jurgen Stroop (SS General who razed the Jewish ghetto in Poland).

  4. Gil
    September 7, 2011 at 2:47 am

    Free fall = controlled demolition? How else is a building supposed to fall? Gravity only works one way.

    • September 7, 2011 at 10:11 am

      Free fall = nothing solid underneath to interrupt the fall. For example, a coin dropped off the roof of a building. But how does a tall building – a reinforced steel structure – free fall from the top down unless all supporting structures underneath have already been severed? There was no apparent resistance as the buildings fell – and this is absolutely unprecedented outside of controlled demolitions. Numerous tall buildings have experienced severe fires and structural damage. Not one ever free-fell in the way that WTC7 did. How do you explain that? Remember, the 911 Commission said the reason the Twin Towers fell was because of the combination of jet aircraft impact (which – note – did not cause critical damage to the structure, but supposedly set the stage for the collapse by blowing away fire-protective materials that had been used to cover the structural steel supports) and the fire from jet fuel, which then weakened the exposed steel, leading to fatigue and eventual collapse. No planes hit WTC 7. No jet fuel fire. Yet the building’s structural supports (supposedly) weakened and failed in such a way as to result in a symmetric, perfectly timed implosion into the building’s own footprint – something that has never happened in the history of tall buildings… excepting controlled demolitions.

      PS: Were you aware that subsequent independent investigation has discovered traces of a very powerful demolition chemical at the scene? That the 911 Commission very glaringly refused to even check for signs of such things?

      PS: How do you account for the large pools of molten (not fatigued) steel clearly visible after the collapse of the WTC Towers? Do you know the melting point of steel?

      PS: Why was all the WTC steel very quickly taken away and destroyed?

      PS: Were you aware that the WTC buildings were specifically designed (by law) to withstand the impact of a large, four-engined commercial jet?

      PS: How does a raghead who according to the testimony of his flight instructors could barely control a low-speed single engined trainer execute a banking spiral descent in a 500 MPH twin-engined heavy jet, then fly said jet literally at less than a couple of feet off the ground for the final several hundred yards approach to the Pentagon? Experienced military pilots have testified that such maneuvering could only have been done (if it could have been done at all) by a highly skilled professional pilot with extensive experience. Yet we are supposed to believe a raghead who could barely handle a Cessna did it…

      Raise any questions in your mind?

      Here’s a video that just might:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28QukKjwLtI

      • Gil
        September 7, 2011 at 2:47 pm

        So what are saying? Suicidal, highly-trained CIAs agents hijacked passenger planes and crashed them while other CIA agents had planted explosives at vital points in the WTC buildings all for the sake of blaming Middle Easterners to start endless wars? It’s either that or Muslim terrorists got lucky. There’s no third explanation.

        On the other hand, how hard is it to steer a plane? The actual pilots had the planes moving through the hijackers merely had to steer it to the destination.

        http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

        • dom
          September 7, 2011 at 2:56 pm

          Hmmm.. If we are going this route, I would say the planes were remotely controlled.

          • Gil
            September 8, 2011 at 4:59 am

            Planes? Or missiles disguised as planes? The actual planes were simply diverted and the passengers taken to a large pit and summarily executed and the pit filled in? And so on.

          • September 8, 2011 at 10:38 am

            Clover, you’re just misdirecting again. You haven’t responded to several very specific points (your usual MO) and instead go off an another tangent, with typically not-serious little jibes. Why not try to deal with the questions raised? Can you explain WTC 7? Do you really believe a half-trained Abdullah rated as marginal by his flight instructors who could barely control a single engine 110 MPH Cessna had the skill to execute a tight corkscrew spiral descent in a commercial twin-engined heavy jet traveling at three times that speed?

            Really?

          • Gil
            September 8, 2011 at 12:10 pm

            * “Independent investigations”? “Investigators” only truthers have heard of? Truthers immediately hear “sulphur residue” and think “thermite” when others think “gypsum”.

            * The link I linked before showed the suspect metal was glowing hot not molten per se. Then again there’s a huge much amount of crushing energy in a collapsing giant skyscraper.

            * Because authorities don’t fesl they have to leave the rubble there indefinitely for truthers to sift through?

            * They did withstand the impacts – the ongoing fires weakened the structure.

            * Why the hell not? A toddler couldn’t drive a car from point A to point B but he could drive a car already going down a highway on cruise control that a grown-up prepared and then steer off the highway and ram it into a shopfront.

            http://discovermagazine.com/2002/oct/featbuildings

            http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/921879/

          • September 8, 2011 at 12:39 pm

            Clover, are you a pilot? Have you ever spoken to one? Your equating a toddler steering an already moving (at relatively low speeds) car into a tree or some such with a half-trained Abdullah adroitly piloting a heavy jet, executing complex maneuvers at very high speeds, without losing control, is absurd and not even worth discussing further. You clearly have no knowledge of aircraft or of piloting. Or for that matter, of driving. Let’s see a toddler control a car doing 140 MPH for even a few seconds…. not even half the speed of the jets of 911.

            I recommend you speak with someone who actually does know what’s involved with flying a commercial jet – and not merely maintaining a heading or altitude, either – but rather, executing complex course and altitude changes, as well as violent maneuvering equivalent to that performed by combat aircraft.

            Molten metal: Not “hot.” Liquid, flowing steel. Explain that. “Crushing energy” does not melt steel.

            Iron spheres/thermite (not “sulfur”) residue: Explain that.

            “Impact”: WT7 was not impacted; the fires were low-temp. Even NIST says so. (Not diesel-fed, etc.) Explain that.

            Explain a symmetrical, simultaneous collapse at free-fall speed. It has never happened before – ever – outside of controlled implosions. Explain that.

          • Gil
            September 8, 2011 at 1:39 pm

            Why do I have to explain “evidence” that only thruthers have found and non-truther investigators didn’t? I’ll only copy&paste from orthodox sites and you & co. would state “well that what ‘they’ want to believe but we have the real experts who know the trugh but they keep getting suppressed by mainstream media”.

            As before there are only two exclusive possibilities – the planes as battering rams by Muslim terrorists vs giant setup false-flag operation by the CIA.

          • September 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm

            So, if the “official” explanation ignores something (for instance, the decision not to even investigate the possibility that accelerants or bombs might have been used) then by definition, it doesn’t exist? In other words, the “official” explanation contains not just the truth but all the possible truth and anything not included in the “official” explanation is by definition not even a possibility?

            Typical Clover…

          • Gil
            September 8, 2011 at 3:49 pm

            Yes I ignore evidence only “truthers” have found but strangely no one else did. Oh, wait they did but they quickly trucked it all away . . .

          • September 8, 2011 at 4:03 pm

            So, if a house burns down and there is no investigation into possible arson, then (obviously) arson was not a possibility… Cloverian logic is always something to behold.

          • September 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm

            PS: Ever wonder why the large hotel adjacent to WTC Towers did not collapse onto its own footprint? Why the several other large buildings that were part of the WTC complex did not symmetrically collapse, either? Why, instead, large portions of all those buildings somehow remained standing? Why no other steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed completely, symmetrically and into its own footprint…. except when it was deliberately imploded?

        • September 7, 2011 at 5:23 pm

          It’s more involved than that. I have a friend who is a former Navy (carrier) pilot. He doesn’t buy it, either. At 400-plus knots airspeed, you better know what you’re doing before you touch any controls. Now, minor steering inputs – maybe. But a banking spiral descent to appx. 20 yards off the deck? Then hold the airplane (at 300-plus knots) at that altitude while keeping it steady (and level) for the final “run” into the Pentagon?

          You’re buying that?

          • methylamine
            September 7, 2011 at 7:55 pm

            Besides–at the Pentagon site: no airplane debris; where are the seats, the wings, where are the wings’ impact marks on the buildings, the dead passengers, where are the engines?

            These engines weight about five tons, and their cores are the highest-grade steel, titanium, and nickel alloys available. Their melting temperatures are astronomical–after all they live in a stream of high-pressure burning jet fuel. They’re heavy. And they’re large. Where’d they go?

            At the Flight 93 crash site there was one picture released of an engine being excavated from the crater; but it looks like an APU (the small turbine engine used to start the main engines)–not a main engine. Where’d they go?

            And Eric you’re right to point first at Building 7; it’s the unanswered question free of obfuscation by the burning-jet-fuel-melting-steel nonsense.

            No steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to fire, and certainly not at free-fall speed neatly into its own footprint.

            Yup, plenty of very valid questions about the whole thing.

            Nevermind how convenient that day was to the warmongering neocons who’d called for “a new Pearl Harbor” in the nefarious PNAC document…and had conveniently prepared all the legal framework for the Fourth Reich in the form of the Patriot Act and other enabling laws.

            I keep asking myself “why don’t people GET this? It’s so obvious!”

            But they don’t want to get it. It’s too momentous. It means re-evaluating your cherished beliefs about your benign government, your “representatives”, people you purportedly voted for. To accept the truth means a mental revolution that is very, very uncomfortable.

            When I realized what had been done, I went on a two-week rampage…not really, but I was angry, bitter, frustrated, confused; in short, a mess. It’s painful to feel like a sucker, and it hurts to have been made a dupe.

            Easier to pretend it didn’t happen.

    • Boothe
      September 8, 2011 at 2:06 am

      Gil, who are you? Are you CIA, FBI, BATFE, Mossad or what? What do you do for a living? You’ve never answered that and I’ve asked you at least three times now. I don’t believe you’re a total idiot, so that put’s you as being a troll and probably “working for the man”. False flag operations have been a key tool of governments from the very beginning of any form of organized society. The U.S.A. shares one thing with every other country in the world: The State.

      When we look at the damage an individual actor can do (like Jared Lee Loughner or Anders Breivik) compared to what The State can do (and has done), there is absolutely no comparison. In the 20th century alone (excluding wars) governments have slaughtered somewhere in the neighborhood of 160,000,000+ (that’s right, over one hundred sixty million!) of their own citizens! Is it any stretch to believe that a group of globetrotting elitists with an international financial and political axe to grind would at least allow, if not aid and abet an attack on American soil that would liquidate a mere 3,500 people? Some of these “leaders” probably got off on it!

      Let me assure you, people like Dubya or Dick Cheney wouldn’t even blink at the towers going down as long as it wasn’t one of their kids in there (and I’m being generous, because I’m not sure they’re even that compassionate). These people operate under the premise that: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” -Joseph Goebbels (Hitler’s propaganda minister). Sound familiar?

      The beauty of American politics is that the liar will be gone at the next election and the new liar will cover for him (or at least pardon him), create another whopper for the voters (can you say “Hope and Change”?) and then be able to count on his successor to protect him when the public figures it out.

      Gil, we’re dealing with people in government, finance and corporate institutions that will do virtually anything for wealth, power and adulation. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that they would have any moral reservations about killing off a few thousand of their countrymen to achieve their goals?

      • September 8, 2011 at 10:59 am

        Just a few facts for Gil – which of course he’ll ignore:

        * Gulf of Tonkin “incident” – never happened; manufactured to arouse public anger and grease the way for US escalation in Vietnam.

        * Operation Northwoods – JFK-era CIA proposal to mount a false flag attack by “Cuba” on American soil, including the shooting of American civilians and attacks on commercial aviation, in order to justify an assault on Cuba and the Castro regime.

        Just two items. Incontrovertible facts that prove the government, or elements of the government, not only can but have engaged in deliberate plots that have included violence against innocent civilians in order to further a policy agenda.

        Well, Gil – how about it?

      • Gil
        September 8, 2011 at 11:16 am

        If you seriously believe the U.S. Government is that bad then you should be getting the hell out of there, pronto!

        • September 8, 2011 at 11:38 am

          I don’t “believe” – I know.

          Boothe and others have already explained it to you at length, several times. But you blithely skip over every factual, substantive point raised – and spew irrelevancies.

          In just the past ten years, the US government has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq over a deliberate lie – “WMD” and a “connection” to 911. Is that “bad” enough for you?

          Just one of the many examples already cited.

          Here’s a documentary that might raise some questions in your mind:

          http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1028/066/NL/9_11:_New_15-Minute_Documentary_You_Have_To_See.html

        • Boothe
          September 8, 2011 at 7:06 pm

          Gee Gil, how about we stay in OUR country and fight to return it to a Constitutional Republic once again? Did that thought ever cross your mind? Of course not. As Eric pointed out, cloverite logic (an oxymoron methinks) is truly something to behold. At this point we should be doing anything we can to resist: Dancing in the Jefferson Memorial, refusing to fly and telling the airlines “none of my money until the TSA is gone”, questioning every official story that doesn’t add up, filming the police and other public servants and posting the videos on the net, remaining silent when questioned by gubmint thugs, calling our congress-critters, anything you can think of to assert your rights and restore liberty!

          This is a war on the middle class and it has been declared on us by trans-national corporate thieves in banking, the military/industrial complex, the petro-chemical-pharmaceutical cartels and our own “public servants”. Look at the taxes taken out on your paycheck stub if you don’t believe that; if you still have a job. Just remember, the first casualty in any war is The Truth.

          • Gil
            September 9, 2011 at 1:04 am

            Yeah right! Like you and your friends are really going to hunker down and start shooting. I’ll believe that when I see that.

            Or what else? You fill in your tax form and then spit on it before posting it?

          • Boothe
            September 9, 2011 at 1:17 pm

            Gil, what part of non-violent resistance is it that you can’t comprehend? Under the current circumstances “hunkering down” is nothing but suicide. But if you were aware of much, besides the small area around the computer desk in your mother’s basement, you’d have already seen: successful lawsuits against Obamacare, the upsurge in the 10th Amendment movement, Californians telling the federales to keep their hands off their pot (and legalization is spreading), numerous very embarassing films and articles documenting police abuse (and cops being removed from duty), as well as state nullification of federal laws (including firearms laws). My wife and I personally helped put a crooked cop in jail. Ever heard of Campaign for Liberty? How about project hwo project “Fast and Furious” is already forcing bureauRATs to step down? Obama, the man that was going to shut down all the coal fired power plants in America has reined in the EPA on new evironmental regs! Do some research and start your brain prior to engaging the keyboard.

            And unlike you simpering panty-waists, we haven’t let our government round up our privately held arms (you may recall that the British tried that here in 1775 and it didn’t turn out too well for them). So if your worst case scenario actually occured, we still have the means to mount an actual defense (and if you think armed citizens are ineffective, maybe you’d better read a little history, especially of Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires).

            The point is you have to understand that you are under attack, who your enemy is, what his methods are and what you can do counter it. Counter attack doesn’t have to be violent Gil, Ghandi proved that. The Internet has allowed us to exspose many of the deeds of evil men to the light of truth which is the first step in stopping them (why do you think governments want to control the Net so badly).

            Gil, no one’s forcing you to take the red pill, you’re apparently here on your own, unless the agency you work for assigned this you. If the latter is the case, then you have one of two possibilities: (a) you’re a psycopath who cannot understand normal people, you have no empathy or compassion, cannot be reasoned with (and would be an excellent candidate for gubmint service). Or (b) you’re “normal” and took the job because you were hard up, couldn’t compete in the private sector and now you’re suffering from what is known as cognitive dissonance (look it up).

            By raising the issues and presenting the evidence that we do here, conflicting thoughts are running rampant through your head disturbing your comfortable little cloverite worldview. Come out of the Matrix Gil, there’s a real world out here, with some really interesting people in it doing a lot of good things despite the best efforts of people like you to control us.

          • Gil
            September 11, 2011 at 5:10 pm

            Armed citizens are efffective when they’re willing to literally fight and die (i.e. Afghanis). Resorting to passive-aggressiveness isn’t effective and is usually more likely to get you into big trouble for puny victories.

  5. SojournerMoon
    September 7, 2011 at 2:50 am

    Let’s say I have a lot of questions and concerns about the events on that day myself. Things don’t add up, and not just in NYC. But regarding your “911″ point, I have a few recollections.

    I suspect because “9-1-1″ already had a significant meaning in American lingo, essentially meaning emergency, it was very easy to adopt as the primary term for the events on this day. Other terms were rather long and unwieldy, though we had been using “World Trade Center bombing” for the earlier attack in the parking garage for a while. It wasn’t nearly as well known.

    I also distinctly remember a video of some New Yorkers that evening talking about the day’s events. One vividly recalled a conversation with another person who pointed out, “You know what today is?” The second person answered, “Yeah. September 11th.” The first responded, “Exactly. 9-1-1.” It couldn’t have been better implanted in memory if it were a marketing campaign and someone was saying “where’s the beef.” Bam. Instant pop culture term.

    To me, the more interesting question, which you alluded to, was why? If you accept that it was a bunch of Middle Eastern terrorists, would they have intentionally planned the attack to occur on a date that was so marketable to Americans? Possibly, but seems unlikely. No other terrorist attacks seem to be timed on the basis of symbols unique to Americans. It’s possible it was just a coincidence.

    Regardless of that, though, 9/11 has become one of the biggest marketing successes in American history. It sold most of the country on the need to retaliate, and was bent, somehow, into an attack upon Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, despite the fact that most of the suspected terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, an Arab state with a government that happens to be just as oppressive, in many ways, as Afghanistan or Iraq was, but because they were friends with American corporations, were never even looked at.

    Since Russia fell, and China wasn’t cooperating, we needed a new boogyman. Whether intentional or not, 9/11 provided the perfect distraction, much like Pearl Harbor had done before. Ever notice all those comparisons to Pearl Harbor back at the time?

    Hang on a sec. . . Some nicely dressed gentlemen in a black Suburban just pulled up out front.

    • September 7, 2011 at 10:00 am

      Yes, indeed. That was (is) exactly what I wondered about… how curious that the attacks occurred on a date that also just happened to be “marketable” into a simplistic slogan – a slogan that became the catch-all excuse for a flowering police state, unprovoked and endless wars, bare-fanged executive rule by decree… etc.

  6. Brent P
    September 7, 2011 at 3:05 am

    I am a mechanical engineer by training and trade, thus when I look at the events I look at them from an engineering perspective. I don’t do structures for a living but I have a basic understanding that comes with the profession and education. In the first months after the attack I didn’t believe what are now called ‘truthers’. The towers failed exactly like I expected a tube structure to when pierced. The problem came when those truthers got building plans and the government’s story came out.

    If desired I can go into details of why the failures of WTC 1,2,& 7 don’t make sense to me given the explanations from the government. Years ago I used to try to explain it to people, hoping they would realize something was wrong the way I did, from the basic physics and engineering. It was pointless. The cloverite arguing would begin and derail the discussion. Even though this is a more friendly forum I just avoid going into it as a rule. Instead I have a simple request of anyone who thinks we are told the truth.

    We are told that building 7, cantilevered over a sub-station, failed straight down from ‘fire and being hit with WTC 1 & 2 debris’. Please search out photos of WTC 3,4,5,& 6. These buildings had far more fire and were hit by far more debris. Look at them at the end of the day. Asymmetric failures, significant fire damage, but the buildings were still largely standing.

    BTW, 5&6 shielded 7 from much of the debris.

    The media will never discuss the building failures technically. We will just get one emotional story after the next. People are so easily manipulated.

    • September 7, 2011 at 9:56 am

      Brent, please do give us your detailed reasoning. The Clovers here are few and far between – and under my control. I for one would be very interested in your professional opinion. Thanks in advance….

      • Brent P
        September 8, 2011 at 6:04 am

        Ok… Keep in mind I am not a structural engineer.My view is based on engineering principles and what the government has said and what the “truthers” have dug out that I’ve seen.

        It is well known that the WTC towers had a strong and rather conventional cage inner core with a tube-like structure for the outer walls. Between these two structures were the floor trusses.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc_floor_truss_system.png

        The official (FEMA) explanation is that the fire proofing on the trusses failed because it was brittle. Knocked off on impact. The fire then caused the floor trusses to fail and the building came down.

        For awhile I believed that the failures were just as one would expect. At that time I only knew of the outer tube-like design. Tubes are very good in compression but piercing them or damaging them can cause them to buckle and fail straight down.

        When I learned details about the core I still held to the belief but doubts began. The real change is when I learned about the floor trusses. They were comparatively weak. They seemed only designed for floor loads. IMO They couldn’t transfer significant load between the core and the outer “tube”.

        http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=105

        Now nothing made sense. I can see the outer tube failing… but it should have left core standing. I could see floors failing from fire but it should have left “tube” and core standing.

        These bolts (7/8 in) or the brackets would just shear… the brackets would break, the trusses themselves would break. desks, computers and people would fall to the next floor… floors inside could cascade… but the strength wasn’t there to pull the core or outer walls down with the floors. The floors didn’t have a strong enough connection or the strength themselves. The trusses individually were FAR weaker than the structures they supposedly pulled with them.

        Media has tried to pawn this off on ‘cheap’ design or ‘lightweight’ design. It is both, but it’s also sensible design. Floors just hold desks, file cabinets, people, etc. There’s no reason for them to be super strong. The vertical members, yes. Together the floor trusses probably helped with wind loads, but these towers were designed to flex with the wind. The towers were a good design from everything I could see.

        Now the initial failures do seem to be at the impact points. So with the government version (NIST) the “tube” is holding up damaged core through the floor trusses and roof hat truss. But that’s not possible IMO because the floor trusses were the weaker structure. hat truss maybe… This spider web of thin trusses holding up a dangling core??? I understand the failures of the trusses… I don’t get how this pulled the rest of the building down. and no deflection on the roof?

        http://www.aws.org/wj/supplement/wj0907-263.pdf

        The trusses fail, the floors get over loaded… they even cascade… but how do they pull the rest? effectively straight down at the same time? This failure should leave the core and tube standing. I can see the hat truss pulling but the top part started moving as unit, not pulling inward from the roof.

        I can’t make the floor truss theory work in my mind. The NIST theory is more refined (than FEMA) with the outer walls bending from load.. but is it really from the floor trusses pulling or because the tube itself has a big hole in it? The bending from the weight above. How are the floor trusses pulling? They aren’t that strong, that’s key to fire theory. Why fire caused them to fail.

        I don’t get how it all times out… how these relatively thin steel floor trusses pull the structures… They say that happened. I just don’t see it.

        Just look at the photos in the NIST report (page 8):
        http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

        Those thin little trusses pull in the structural outer walls…. I don’t see it. The floors fail. They break, not the columns they are attached to…. How does the strong part of the structure break but not the weak part?

        On WTC 7… well offical here: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm If we believe the building was a like a house of cards (remove one card and it falls), a building designed such that floors could be removed. A building that was cantilevered falling straight down… it should have leaned over. doesn’t make sense.

        Information is missing.

        • September 8, 2011 at 10:33 am

          The aspect that seemed fishy to me then – and still does today – is the symmetry of failure. If the buildings had toppled, or portions had buckled, ok. But the literal pulverization of the building almost instantaneously? Free-falling into its own footprint (WTC 7)?

          That’s not just countertintuitive; it’s unprecedented – and it makes no sense.

          • Brent P
            September 8, 2011 at 10:34 pm

            There is some asymmetry when the sections above the impact break loose… they rotate a bit.. but then straighten out as it hits the rest of the building.

            What I think should have been seen… well not seen because it would have happened inside, is floor trusses failing and floors cascading. then maybe, if whatever assumptions that NIST made were correct the outer walls would pull in on to the core… but that’s not what is on the video. The video shows the part above the impact hole fall as one big unit and hammer crush the next floor and then cascade.

            The tower with the lower impact failed first, that makes sense. More load above the damage. But how does the core get pulverized at the same rate the tube fails? That has to be a force that was factors of hundreds or thousands times beyond the strength of the stronger of the two such that structures below offered essentially no resistance. I don’t have anyway of calculating the weight above the damage or the strength of the structure below it.

            This I am calling the hammer theory of collapse. It can explain what we see after the tops break free provided those numbers work out. Not how they broke free as whole units. With enough mass to so overwhelm the structure below, they should have rotated towards the key failure (what we might have seen) but that rotation should not have stopped, only slowed at the pivot as the roof kept rotating. Not stopped. Then the remaining tower would have had a sideways force at it’s new top which should make it lean (not seen). I would have to believe that the top overwhelmed the rest of the structure yet was straightened out by it where the building did not even visibly react to the sideways load of the rotating top section.

            I just can’t make the forces work out without some really big nonsensical assumptions on the rigidity of the floor trusses and their connections. Which I guess NIST must have done when they got to this point.

          • dom
            September 9, 2011 at 12:04 am

            “hammer theory of collapse” Very nice theory name! You guys got me reviewing http://www.ae911truth.org big time and there are a shitload of data there. It’s crazy amounts. The more I look into it the more it seems like explosives (other than jet fuel) were involved. There are pictures of molten steel-like waterfalls coming from the building before collapse and huge puddles after. Also, if all it took to bring down a building in a perfect footprint were to crash a plane into it then why the do we have demolition experts. What?.. you need to bring the building down in perfect form? Just crash a beater jet into it! -done

  7. JvG
    September 7, 2011 at 4:46 am

    I am impressed and amazed about how this discussion is going. The points Eric made and I commented on are considered the worst form of crazy talk and disrespect to the nation and the people in uniform on many websites. Yet here on a political/car website, this seems to be acceptable.

    • September 7, 2011 at 9:51 am

      I’m encouraged! My goal in launching this site was to have a place where people could discuss heretical views (any views) but intelligently. I think we’ve achieved that!

      • Edward King
        September 7, 2011 at 12:47 pm

        And you will notice that most people on here hold libertarian views. The very basis of libertariansim is reason and respect, even if we happen to disagree with each other. Clovers simply like to engage in hysterical outbursts when anyone questions one of their sacred cows. The state being the supreme deity.

  8. Davidus Romanus
    September 7, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    My second indelible memory of 9-11 (I won’t go into the first) was getting back to a TV and seeing the video of the towers go down. The first words out of my mouth were, “That looks like controlled demolition.” That’s the memory has stuck with me. I have never changed my mind.

  9. Bill Jones
    September 7, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this…Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah…Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes…And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defense system the slip…Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely…Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two… and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall speed, for the first time in history. Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground… only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI Meanwhile down in Washington…Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing…Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little…Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world’s most heavily defended building……all without a single shot being fired…. or ruining the nicely mowed lawn… and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video……Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania…So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later…And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants… except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana……Further south in Florida…President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children… shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger…In New York…Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously…While back in Washington, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination…And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in lamestream media reports and if you don’t believe this, you are a conspiracy theorist.

    • dom
      September 7, 2011 at 5:36 pm

      But what is there to gain from doing this? The people who would have been behind the conspiracy are already rich.

      • Edward King
        September 7, 2011 at 6:51 pm

        For the same reason that we are daily losing freedom. Power. The elites already have power and money, but they want to cement it in place forever. One of the things that I saw commented on recently was that free markets allow upward mobility to the poor and middle class. It also allows downward mobility of the rich and powerful. The bankster bailouts are the prime example.

        The technology exists now to completely change the socioeconomic landscape and the current distribution of wealth and power. We live in a era were information is becoming increasingly decentralized, and this poses a great threat to the elites. Once addicted to power, it becomes increasingly difficult to let go. Just as Paul Krugman noted a few weeks ago, a potential threat to our collective security can serve to bring people with differences together. A clear terrorist threat (or at least a perceived threat) will shut down all argument against a huge bloated government.

        We always hear the mantra of how 911 changed everything. This is exactly what they wanted. To stifle dissent and portray anyone who questioned the statist quo as a terrorist sympathizer, thereby quelling intelligent discourse. We hear everyday about sexual violations going through airport security and many excuse such things with the notion that this is necessary for our safety.

        So you can easily see what can be gained from such an act as 911.

      • JvG
        September 7, 2011 at 6:55 pm

        The gain is in getting public support and troops to take over the oil fields in Iraq, the pipeline transportation route accross Afghanistan, and possibly the oil fields in Iran. The oil fields in Libya are now up for grabs. Mohamar and Saddam wanted to trade oil in currencies other than the USD. They did not want to deal with Rothchild controlled banks. That was a fatal mistake for Saddam, and might be for Mohamar. Wars are generally fought for resources, and to enrich those who profit from war. Like the armament industries, and the Rothchild banks, who loan money to both sides of a conflict, like they did in WW 1 and 2. W s grandfather Prescott loaned a lot of money to Nazi Germany. Look it up.

        Consider that most wars are started over false flag attacks. The purpose is to stir up public support for wars of convience. Examples are the coal dust explosion the the USS Maine in Havana harbor (Spanish American War)The gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnam).

        Germany used the bombing of the Riechstag in 1933 to install laws called the Enabling Act. The laws were quite similar to the “Patriot” Act. Hmm….

        The 911 incident is a prime example of a false flag attack. It takes a lot of work in advance to install explosives to take down buildings. It takes planning to arrange for the Air Force to have a drill simulating multiple high jackings. Conveniently that day was 9-11. That meant that air force people not in the loop could not tell if what they were seeing was the drill, or the real thing. It also takes planning for FEMA to have lots of people in NYC on 9-10-01. It takes planning for groups of people tp place puts, or bets that certain airline stocks, and the stock market in general would go down in a major way. People did just that, and made major money. Lucky Larry, the guy that had just bought the World Trade Center, insured the buildings against terrorism. He made lots of money. By the way, the trade centers had issues with corrosion of the building siding. The buildings steel supports were loaded with asbestos, which needed to be removed. The work would have cost billions. Suddenly this was no longer a problem, and Lucky Larry made billions of dollars.

        Profit is made by people with the right connections, and by those who are privy to future events.

        After the incident, the “false flag” was blamed on the Arabs that very day, without any research. The 500 page Patriot Act was enacted shortly aftewards.

        Quite profitable for the right people. By the way, the motto of the Mossad is : By deception we shall do war.

        • dom
          September 7, 2011 at 7:47 pm

          I knew what the answer was going to be to my question, but you and Edward King put it way better than I could have. Call me simple-minded.. With a sweet set of tools, some land, decent house, and a few toys to tinker with I am as happy as can be. If I had more money I would still be the same, just with more of each thing. Power over others is something I never really think about and pretty much just find it hard the understand people who think otherwise. A lot of sick-fucks in this world!

          • methylamine
            September 7, 2011 at 8:10 pm

            Dom, EXACTLY!

            I believe there are two species of human. 98% of humans are empathic, and the remaining 2% are sociopaths (aka psychopaths, subtle differences).

            Sociopaths lack empathy primarily, among other dysfunctional character traits; and they crave power.

            Wanting power over other people is a sickness in itself.

            History could be re-written as the battle between these two sub-species of human, as a conflict initiated by the 2% to dominate the 98%.

            H.G. Wells–who by the way was a key player in the Fabian society and wanted it the way he described it–hinted at this in “The Time Machine” with the split between the Morlocks and the Eloi. A phrase I’ve read often coming from elites–such as Nick Rockefeller in talking to Aaron Russo–is “eater or eaten”, as in, “Would you rather be an eater or eaten?”

            In a sociopath’s world view, there is only predation, not cooperation; eater or eaten. Coupled with some economic illiteracy, this becomes a zero-sum game, and depriving us of resources is paramount. Those are THEIR resources, after all.

          • JvG
            September 7, 2011 at 8:37 pm

            Dom,

            As some of you know, I am in the financial business, and am sick of what I am doing. I am sick of the market manipulation and bullshit. I am investing in ways that make lots of money when inflation kicks in.

            Given a little more time, I want to live a lifestyle similiar to what you wrote about. I want to live in a foreign country. The lies and propaganda that followed 911 conviced me to get out of here. I have watched how politics in Germany evolved in the 1930s. It appears that the USA is on the same path. Things are getting scary.

          • Edward King
            September 7, 2011 at 9:35 pm

            Methylamine, research has shown that approximately between 4-6% of the human race is composed of psycopaths. I am currently reading a book called Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted For Political Purposes by Andrew M. Lobaczewski.

            The author of the book was a citizen of one of the former Soviet Republics who recounts his study of psycopaths and the terror they reign upon society. It is an absolute must read for anyone who wants a greater understanding of how psycopaths wreak havoc.

            I don’t believe we can alter society for the better unless the mass of human beings understand that there are predators among us who have no conscience or any idea of the value of human life.

          • Brent P
            September 8, 2011 at 6:47 am

            The problem is the masses believe the sociopaths make the sun come up in the morning. It’s been the same scams with various detail changes for the last several thousand years. The masses fall for it because they are manipulated emotionally.

            The problem is they are almost entirely emotional. Exposing the scams doesn’t make them hate who scammed them, they hate who exposed the scam. Who spoiled their illusion.

            It’s not really a battle of the mass vs the small minority of sociopaths. The masses don’t grasp it. It’s two minorities, who are I think at times, very much alike except for one dip switch. One wants and craves power and doesn’t respect others. The other doesn’t care for power and does respect others.

            Most of us here are in that second minority. The masses are like some teenage girl who would rather go out with the local bad boy and gets angry when someone tells her the guy isn’t any good for her. We can tell masses all we want they are doing the wrong thing, they aren’t going to believe us until there’s another pile of millions and millions of dead bodies they can see.

          • September 8, 2011 at 10:25 am

            Brent, I think you’ve articulated it precisely. Both “minorities” are smart enough to understand what’s afoot – how the game is played – only our group isn’t interested in playing. Coaching, actually. In a way, perhaps the Old Testament Jews were right; the masses (goyim) really are little better than cattle. Only I still don’t want to be the one sending them down the chute… weird, huh?

          • methylamine
            September 9, 2011 at 7:27 pm

            @Edward:

            Excellent book! I read that too. My background is in psychiatry, so I had some familiarity with it…but interestingly, there is no official diagnosis of sociopath/psychopath; just “antisocial personality disorder”. Mainstream psych puts prevalence at about 3% for males, 1% for females although anecdotally I can confirm the figure is MUCH higher than that for females :)

            And I 100% agree: when we rebuild, we must teach people how to recognize this evil.

            Most people are psychologically unprepared to deal with someone who is literally a monster; it’s impossible for them to understand a mentality completely free of remorse, guilt, empathy, or conscience.

            There are several good books on the topic besides Political Ponerology. Look for “The Mask of Sanity” and “The Sociopath Next Door”.

            WOW! What a great discussion, and what a bunch of interesting people on this site. I feel better every time I come here.

          • September 9, 2011 at 9:45 pm

            I’ve read “The Sociopath Next Door.” An excellent book, chiefly (in my view) because it doesn’t focus on the stereotypical serial killer type but on the day-to-day narcissists and anti-social personality types we are much more apt to encounter – and have to deal with.

            Much recommended.

          • methylamine
            September 9, 2011 at 7:31 pm

            @Brent:

            brilliant insight and a great analogy too!

          • Edward King
            September 9, 2011 at 7:59 pm

            My first time delving into to the world of psychopathology was with the book “The Mask of Sanity”. It really opened my eyes to the kinds of predators among us.

            From then on, I gained a completely new perspective of how society came to be the way it is. Political Ponerology expounded on that further, explaining how societies become afflicted with destructive ideologies that we see so pervasively around the world.

            Because so much of our society is ruled by psychopaths, they are in positions to influence the thinking of society at large. We see this in the US with worship of the military, an agent of death and destruction. Until such a time as most people understand who their real enemy is, hope for a better future and a more peaceful society will forever remain out of reach.

          • September 9, 2011 at 9:41 pm

            I also find this subject fascinating. And, I see a dilemma: How do the non-psychopaths effectively combat the psychopaths?

            Are you familiar with the HBO show, Dexter?

            I think the answer lies there… we need “good” psychopaths; people who have/had the affliction but somehow reformed. They are uniquely positioned to identify – and deal with – the unreformed ones. Because they understand.

          • Edward King
            September 9, 2011 at 10:44 pm

            Yes, I have watched Dexter and it gives a very interesting perspective on psychopaths. The one problem I have with it though is that not all psychopaths are violent or have some type of bloodlust. From my very limited understanding of the subject, the vast majority of psychopaths are as varied as non-psychopaths. They have their own wants and desires, that have nothing to do with engaging in criminality.

            This is the part that makes them so difficult to discover. Most people hear the term psychopath and immediately think of some kind of serial killer or madman. But this is not the case. The hallmark of a psychopath is not violence or depravity, but lack of conscience, remorse, guilt, or concern for how their actions might affect others. One can think of psychopathy as the pinnacle of narcissism, where achieving ones goals above all other consideration is paramount.

            If a psychopath can achieve his or her goals within the confines of the law they will do so. If not then they will break the law. They are very good at mimicking the emotions of what we would consider normal people and they use this to further their own ends. It really is difficult to distinguish psychopaths from normal humans.

            Either way they exist and just like in all things education is a must if we are to protect ourselves and our love ones from predation.

          • Boothe
            September 10, 2011 at 4:27 am

            I too am currently reading Political Ponerology (that book explains a lot as to why we have become the USSA). It is fascinating and heartens me tremendously that so many of us of like mind have gathered here at Eric’s site.

            We just got home from a preparedness expo and it was really encouraging to meet personally with so many people that want to take our country back for the express purpose of being left alone. I get the feeling the people that will be left if and when the STHF on a grand scale aren’t going to make good servants for the elite.

        • HighDesertGuy
          September 13, 2011 at 11:10 pm

          Nicely summarized.
          Are you familiar with the analysis and books of F. William Engdahl? Look him up.

    • HighDesertGuy
      September 13, 2011 at 11:03 pm

      That synopsis of the official version was great Bill! It is great to find a forum where thinking people can discuss this taboo subject. Eric, explain the use of the word ‘Clover’ please. Keep up the good work!
      And poor Gullible Gil is typical of most people I know when it comes to this important subject. It is the linchpin issue of our times and the truth of it deserves to be understood by everyone.

      • September 13, 2011 at 11:06 pm

        Hi Bill,

        “Clover” was inspired by a particularly relentless (and relentlessly statist) poster here; I’ve written several articles dissecting the phenomenon. See the “politics” tab on the top menu bar and scroll down a bit… I think you’ll enjoy it!

      • methylamine
        September 14, 2011 at 1:21 am

        @HighDesertGuy:

        Truly it is the linchpin of history for the last 70 years, since Pearl Harbor. The symmetry knocks me over.

        It’s the biggest psychological hurdle to clear; once you’ve got it, you can see the Matrix clearly. But it’s a doozy! The greatest battle is not understanding the obvious science; it’s accepting the monumental horror of such a bold and monstrous lie…and what it means to your entire conception of “your” government and culture.

        • September 14, 2011 at 11:08 am

          And the deeper one digs….

          Example: Years ago I came across a story about something called “Operation Northwoods.” (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ) It was a plan, submitted by the CIA to President Kennedy, to stage a false-flag “Cuban” attack on America, including attacks on civilian aviation and the shooting in the streets of American civilians – for the purpose of inciting war frenzy, so as to justify an America attack on Cuba. It seemed Loony Bin to me at first… until I looked into it and confirmed that it was in fact a very real plan that had in fact been crafted by the CIA and was submitted to Kennedy. Though JFK rejected it and the plan was not carried out, the relevant point to take from this is that “our” government – or at least, elements of it – is absolutely, demonstrably capable of cynically staging deadly attacks against American citizens to further a policy agenda.

          Then there is the so-called “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” – the pretext used to justify sending American ground troops en mass into Vietnam. The “incident” never happened. There was no North Vietnamese attack on US forces. It was a confection. But it served its purpose.

          Another fun fact o’ history: The MK Ultra program. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_Ultra ) Unknowing civilians were fed mind-altering drugs (including LSD) as part of an attempt to “program” them to perform various tasks assigned them by their controllers. All done under the official auspices of “our” government.

          Back in the ’90s, when I was on the editorial page staff of The Washington Times, I and my colleagues gathered to watch the immolation of the Branch Davidians at Waco. One of my colleagues shook his head in disgust and called it an action worthy of Jurgen Stroop (for the Clovers out there, Stroop was the SS General who razed the Jewish Ghetto in Warsaw). And the pretext for this? Deliberately contrived (and wholly false) “gun charges” designed to elicit media and public support for “gun control.” The media had been assembled by the BATF to be present on-site for the “big bust.” Only it didn’t go as planned when the victims fought back…

          Just a small sampling; just a few unassailable, factual events that prove what “our” government is capable of.

          But the Clovers just chew their cud and gaze adoringly at the farmer…

          • babydriver
            September 15, 2011 at 5:48 am

            Reminds of a Far Side cartoon: The ducks, chicken and cattle are in the barn discussing a physics problem when the farmer walks in. The animals all beging mooing and clucking etc.

  10. Boothe
    September 7, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Eric, sorry I didn’t weigh in on this sooner. I encourage people to learn about the burning of the Reichstag and the rise of Hitler. Whether you believe it was a Communist plot, a lone wolf arsonist or false flag operation is irrelevant: the German National Socialist Workers Party (a.k.a. Nazis) took control and we all know how that turned out! Let us reflect on Rahm Emmanuel’s statement: “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” If you don’t have a good crisis, you can always create one. The FBI was fully aware of the initial plot to bomb the WTC in 1993 and allowed the perpetrators to carry out their plan. There was a crisis, but even after that, the American people still weren’t ready to relinquish their rights.

    So, in 1995 the Alfred P. Murrah building was supposedly bombed by “homegrown” terrorists, but many unanswered questions remain and Tim McVeigh sure won’t be answering them. There was interview with the Murrah building architect in the Richmond Times Dispatch right after it happened and he claimed that was a bomb resistant building. Is should suffice to say that a truck load of ANFO couldn’t have done that degree of internal structural damage to the Murrah building from the street, not to mention the two distinct seismographic and audio events recorded at the time. If you’ll recall, the gubmint saw to the immediate disposal of all the forensic evidence from that site very rapidly (just like the wreckage of the WTC). In the wake of OKC, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was signed into law by Slick Willie and it seriously encroached on our right to Habeas Corpus. Hmmm? Foreplay for the Patriot Act perhaps?

    Take a look only at the timeline of insider trading events leading up to “911″ and you’ll smell more than one rat.

    http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=insiderTrading

    That alone should set off alarm bells in the mind of any sane, reasonable person. A lot of people profited handsomely from this tragedy; but monetary windfalls aside, the gubmint itself gained unbelievable power in the aftermath. Passage of the Patriot Act profited the gubmint with sweeping powers that King George III wouldn’t have even dreamt of! And the American people practically begged for it!

    There is no way a piece of legislation the size of the Patriot Act was so artfully crafted in the short time span of 9/11/01 to 10/26/01 when Dubya signed it into law. That liberty-eating document had to have been held in standby for the right crisis; then was immediately trotted out when the American sheeple were ready and willing to accept it. The ploy worked just as planned. We were warned; FDR admitted nothing happens by accident in DC and that was back in the 30’s.

    To piece all this together, we need to look back at the involvement of U.S. intelligence with key Nazi scientists after WWII (ref. Project Paper Clip). We must explore U.S. banking and corporate ties with the Nazis during WWII. We must question why key provisions of the 1938 Nazi gun control act were passed into U.S. law in 1968. Why we have a public school system based on the 19th century Prussian model and are now building “internment” facilities around the nation. This isn’t conspiracy theory; these things are publicly available facts.

    Evil men took over Germany and wrought havoc on their country and the rest of the world (Churchill, Roosevelt, Mussolini and Stalin get credit too). Evil men live and die, but the nature of evil does not change. Evil men have sought wealth, power and adulation since time immemorial. Why should we consider ourselves so “exceptional” that this pattern can’t repeat itself right here and right now in our government and society? Why would evil men waste time inventing new methods to accomplish their ends, when suitable and proven blueprints already exist?

    There are always intelligent, analytical people in any populace that will ask embarrassing questions and will not go away until they get answers or unless they are silenced by force. So key players in our gubmint and their media sycophants have labeled these people, their enemies, as; “conspiracy theorists”, “tinfoil hat crowd”, “tea baggers”, “birthers”, “truthers”, etc. They know they must discredit and marginalize anyone asking legitimate questions about suspicious events or risk exposure of the truth and their attendant loss of power, liberty and fortune.

    Ask yourself: Could fractional reserve banking, fiat currency, massive gubmint debt, the war on drugs, the war on terror, environmental / energy regulation, military occupation of over 130 foreign countries, ad nauseam, just be the result of bureaucratic errors and stupidity? Or are we witnessing the largest power and wealth grab ever perpetrated on a people in the history of the world? I don’t think there’s a conspiracy at all. I think it’s a plan, the plan is working and it’s right out in the open for those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear that are willing to look and listen.

    • Edward King
      September 7, 2011 at 9:40 pm

      Well said. I always have found it funny how people could believe that the government could somehow bumble its way into so much power.

  11. babydriver
    September 7, 2011 at 10:32 pm

    What can I say but ditto, ditto and ditto again?
    I await the return of Jesus and the fireworks show that will come with him. You won’t want to miss it!

  12. barbara
    September 8, 2011 at 12:30 am

    I was in Tower One on 9/11/01 when the plane hit. Going down the stairs I was struck at the extent of the damage so far from the actual site of the hit. When I entered the lobby and ran out the west entrance, it looked like bombs hit. That thought has stayed with me for ten years. I didn’t then, and do not now, believe that the building “melted.” It exploded.

    Frankly, I do not believe anything about the “official” story. Thousands died (the dead victims); other thousands went through hell (the live victims). I was lucky, I do well in a tough situation. Didn’t stick around after I saw bodies drop. Found a subway and got on it – with black soot all over me from the smoke – and went home. Missed the building collapse and the tons of dirt and debris that washed over everything. Was back at work on Thursday in a satellite office and never looked back.

    As for the deification of the first responders: I am no less grateful to them. Too many died needlessly. But the real first responders were those in the building who helped others. Who dragged others out; who pushed and prodded people to move out quickly; who died helping others. Like Abe Zelmanowitz, who stayed behind with quadriplegic co-worker Ed Beyea. Both perished.

    I could go on, but so what. These endless commemorations are a sham and a disgrace, meant only to benefit politicians and other parasites. I’m tired of the fraud and lying.

    Great piece, Eric.

    • dom
      September 8, 2011 at 1:00 am

      “That thought has stayed with me for ten years. I didn’t then, and do not now, believe that the building “melted.” It exploded.”

      Wow, and this is a first hand account. Freaking insane! Thank you for sharing!

    • JvG
      September 8, 2011 at 1:18 am

      I have read about the damage in the lobby. I have read accounts of explosions in the basement just before the planes hit. They supposedly damaged the sprinkler control valves. So no sprinklers on the floors the planes hit.

      Barbera, what did the lobby look like? If the only damage initially was from the planes high above, the lobby should have still been intact when you walked through them.

      Which floor of the building did you work in, and what did you see?

      I have read so much information over the years, but have not had a chance to write someone who was actually there. Thank you so much for being part of this discussion!

      • barbara
        September 8, 2011 at 2:38 pm

        I was in Tower One on the 28th floor. The impact nearly knocked me off my feet and swung open my file drawers. I saw the plane parts fall outside my window. A VP on my floor said a plane hit. I yelled for everyone to get out. There was a lot of smoke and water as we were going down the stairs (that’s how I got covered in soot). People were going very slow and I yelled at them to move it as we were in danger. They jeered at me and told me to shut up. No cell phones were working.

        There were firemen in the lobby and there was a lot of rubble. I thought how strange it was that the damage was so extensive this far down from where the plane hit. We ran out the West lobby exit and headed toward the river. We did not know that the second plane had hit Tower Two.

        We waited and watched as our co-workers came out. When I saw the bodies fall, I told a co-worker that I was getting out of the area. She and I walked until we found a subway and got on. We did not realize we were black with soot. I remember thinking how normal everything looked. I got out at a stop far from my home, but started walking. As I passed a bank, I saw on a TV that Tower One had fallen.

        When I got home, I called my sister in LA (thank god for landlines; I will never give mine up). My sister was hysterical because she thought I was dead.

        I did not watch any TV at all. I did not allow the images to imprint on my brain. I did normal things: food shopping, etc. I saved my sanity.

        Wednesday night, I got a call from one my company’s remote offices. I was requested to go into a satellite office the next day. I did.

        Ten years later. I remember my nine colleagues who perished. And the thousands who died for…what? The lies, the fraud, the deception, the politics. So many questions unanswered. The real lessons of 9/11 have not been learned.

        Thank you all for your kind words. On 9/11, please pray or think good thoughts for my nine colleagues and the thousands of others who died or suffered through that day.
        They deserve the truth, but they won’t get it.

    • Boothe
      September 8, 2011 at 4:39 am

      Barbara, I too wish to thank you so much for your input. There are many of us out here that agree with you on the fraud and lying and we are with you in spirit. The whole affair was tragic regardless of who was responsible and I thank Providence for your safe egress and your presence on this site.

    • September 8, 2011 at 11:00 am

      Thank you, Barbara, for sharing this first-hand account with us.

  13. September 8, 2011 at 1:21 am

    My memory that stands out is exactly the same. I remember thinking that morning that today will go down in infamy. What’s today? Sept 11. hmmmm ..911 What a coincidence.
    What if it was Aug 12 – 812? No rhythm to that. Or even Sept 24 –924
    I thought I was the only one thinking that the day was carefully selected.

    • JvG
      September 8, 2011 at 1:43 am

      Someone wrote in about a soon-to-come significant date 11-11-11.
      That is also known as Veterans day. I hope that this double significance does not give any one any ideas.

      There was a significant date of a British train bombing a year or two ago. Hmm.

      All the powers that be need is some reason to clamp down even harder. I hope this does not come to pass.

      • Boothe
        September 8, 2011 at 5:28 pm

        Che Guevara explained the use of terrorism in his book Guerilla Warfare. The terrorist hits civilian targets to instill fear in the populace, who then call for government intervention. This leads to government crackdowns, searches, seizures and a police state. This of course, does nothing to stop the terrorists who continue to hit additional civilian targets leading to more public outcry and ever more oppressive government measures. This pattern is repeated until the government oppression becomes so unbearable to the very same people that begged for it, a popular revolt results.

        Of course modern governments are very much aware of this strategy. They in fact turn the tables on their citizens by employing these very same guerilla tactics to increase and consolidate their power. A false flag school yard shooting here, a mall shooting there and pretty soon the people are saying “duh gubmint need to do sumpin bout dat!” So you end up with the Patriot Act, The Department of Fatherland…no…”Homeland” Security, ATF, FBI, ICE, TSA, etc., searching your bags, feeling your bag, stealing your property and giving you a wood shampoo or a little electro-shock therapy if you object. Some free country, huh?

        I find it very interesting and suspiciously coincidental that Eduardo Scencion just up and decides to show up at an IHOP in Reno with an “AK-47″ and shoot five National Guardsmen just as the whole “Fast and Furious” fiasco blows up in the ATF and the administration’s faces. Right in the wake of Mike Bloomberg’s outcry for the feds to do something because 24 people were shot in 24 hours in the Big Apple? Barry O did promise that they’d get some more gun control in place “under the radar”. Maybe if those Guardmen had been trusted to bear their own arms in public this would have turned out a little different…..

        The CIA proved back in the 60′s that mind control works. Granted, only reliably on about 20% of the population, but you can do a lot of damage with a 1 in 5 success rate. I have seen too many “coincidental” mass shootings in my lifetime occurring at just the right time from a legislative and political “gun control” standpoint to believe they were random events. Then I watched as the lamestream media sensationalized and emotionalized them for maximum public fear and outrage. If you want to accomplish a goal, like disarming the public, there must be a catalyst to generate public outcry for or at least acquiescence to disarming civilians. Since normal run of the mill sociopaths are so unpredictable and unreliable, the state might just have to take matters into their own hands and supply a nut-job to shoot things up just to keeps the agenda running on schedule. That couldn’t happen, now could it?

        As King Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but anymore I don’t believe much of anything that comes from the so called “reliable” sources our clover buddy likes to cite. And based on a 20th century rife with incidents of mass democide, I don’t doubt that our public servants would resort to a few well placed public shootings to further their own ends.

        • Brent P
          September 8, 2011 at 11:01 pm

          Ever notice how these mass shooters so much of the time turn out to be on or just off of various drugs designed to treat metal illnesses? How CIA/military doctors seem to end up involved? (at least according to what Alex Jones digs up out of the media)

          • September 9, 2011 at 10:21 am

            True – of course, given how pervasive pills (in particular, mood-altering “anti-depressants,” Ritalin and so on) are, more people are medicated than ever before in the history of mankind; probably half the country is taking something these days…

          • methylamine
            September 9, 2011 at 7:42 pm

            That was another reason I left psychiatry; it’s barely more than a front for the pharmaceutical companies now.

            Those wonderful, magical SSRI’s–Prozac, Paxil, etc–turns out, can have some seriously nasty side effects. Little things. Like complete and total psychotic breaks with depersonalization.

            10% of the country–almost 30 million people–were taking antidepressants in 2005.

            Can you imagine what’s going to happen if their supply is interrupted?

          • Brent P
            September 9, 2011 at 7:59 pm

            So it goes:

            http://www.aol.com/2011/09/09/ihop-shooting_n_955429.html

            “The 32-year-old store worker who killed four people and wounded seven others at a capital city IHOP restaurant was being treated with medication for longtime mental problems, investigators said.”

            “”It’s almost as if he was a normal person who had a major psychological defect that was triggered by something,” said Joe Laub, an attorney”

            “”He’s been on medication for a long period of his life. And he was considered to be doing fine,” Furlong said.”

            Poo tee weet.

  14. dom
    September 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    Short clip from http://www.ae911truth.org


  15. Gil
    September 10, 2011 at 11:18 am

    If the gubmint wanted to false-flag attack the towers and maximise deaths and blame Muslims then why didn’t they go down the simplest path of planting powerful bombs at the bases of the buildings like in 1993 or the Oklahoma bombing? There would have been way more deaths especially as towers would have toppled sideways like dominos. It would be way more easier than divert four planes and fly them (or look-alike drones) high up into the towers.

    • September 10, 2011 at 11:30 am

      Neither method is simple, Clover – that’s the whole point. To topple the WTC towers or any large, steel-framed building, requires extensive, careful preparation and precisely executed undercutting of multiple structural points. A van or truck full of TNT parked in the garage (as in the first attempt on the WTC) won’t cause the building to topple or collapse; it will just make a big mess in the immediate area of the blast – which is precisely what did happen. Speaking of which, ever wonder why the Oklahoma City building did not symmetrically collapse at free-fall onto its own footprint? Or why that has never happened – ever – to any steel-framed building anywhere in the world… outside of a controlled demolition? (And remember: The WTC towers were specifically designed to withstand the impact of a four-engined jet, the Boeing 707. And WTC 7 wasnot hit by anything except debris; and there were no high-temp. fires, either. The NST report even conceded that. Yet it somehow experienced a complete, simultaneous collapse of all its structural elements and free-fell onto its own footprint in about 8 seconds… )

      But, once again, you just skip over all the previous points – the hard facts – brought up to raise questions about the Official Story and breeze into some new conjecture. Your sole object seems to be to constantly shift the terms of the debate by obfuscating or ignoring what was brought up previously and trying to direct the conversation into some new line of idiocy. (Example, your moronic equating of a toddler “driving” an already moving car into a tree or some such with a half-trained Cessna wannabe-pilot successfully executing extreme course and altitude changes, angles of attack (an aviation term you’re no doubt unfamiliar with) in a heavy commercial jet at several hundred MPH airspeed.)

      I think Boothe may be right; I think you may indeed be one of those creatures who is paid to troll the web, posting garbage on sites that try to get at the truth of what happened that day.

      Or, you’re just what you are… a Clover.

      • Gil
        September 10, 2011 at 2:57 pm

        So are you suggesting CIA workers were endlessly planting explosives all throughout the towers in preparation for Sept. 11 like elves? Weakening a building for a professional drop takes time and no people noticed anything suspicious? Fancy that.

        Yes a 707 not a 767. But the buiding did withstand the impact but not the ongoing fires. And yes I’m ignoring “evidence” from truther “experts”.

        P.S. Me get paid? I wish!

        • September 10, 2011 at 3:53 pm

          Clover, the “how” is a secondary question. We’re talking about the event itself. You continue to ignore every factual point raised that questions the Official Story. You then dismiss as “truthers” people who ask questions about things specifically ignored – not even investigated – by the “experts” of the 911 Commission, including the possibility that explosives or demolition chemicals might have been used. You value “we didn’t even check into it” more highly than the conclusions reached by experts who actually did look into it.

          Yes, the Towers were hit by 767s (which by the way are about the same size as a 707 and carry about the same fuel load), and you keep repeating the mantra that the subsequent fires weakened the structure (even though the buildings were designed for such an eventuality, and had been insulated to protect the structural steel from being weakened by fires) yet continue to ignore/evade the fact that WTC 7 was not hit by airplanes and there were no high-temp. fires- yet suddenly and symmetrically collapsed into its own footprint in less than 8 seconds… something that has never – ever- happened before in the history of steel-framed buildings… except when deliberately imploded.

          What is your expertise, pray tell, to dismiss out of hand the questions raised by people with engineering degrees (and degrees in physics and chemistry; architects and so on)? Your knowledge of aircraft and aviation has already been amply displayed.

          • Gil
            September 11, 2011 at 3:19 am

            They weren’t designed for what happened on Sept 11. The Empire State Building had a stronger frame and the fires were put out quickly so it survived a plane crash most intact. But then by your reasoning the Titanic couldn’t have sank by natural causes and must been sabotaged by conspirators because it was designed with a speical hull to protect against what ended up sinking it. I’m not as concerned with WTC7 as much as the two giant towers. Besides even the link I initially posted even considered the possibility that the WTC7 was deliberately brought down safely rather than waiting for it to collapse.

            Yesh I’ll dismiss “experts” who can find stuff that experts don’t find. Then again people like you would dismiss scientists who are pro-Global Warming but their qualifications are not in Climatology.

          • September 11, 2011 at 10:27 am

            Says who – you?

            Who are you? What are your credentials?

            You’ve shown you know very little about cars; it’s clear you know next to nothing about airplanes or aviation. I doubt very much you know anything about structural engineering or physics, either.

            The fact is the WTC Towers were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a large commercial jet – including (obviously) the resultant fires from the impact.

            The fact is no steel-framed skyscraper has ever failed as a result of an airplane impact or fire.

            The fact is WTC 7 building was not hit by an airplane, or subjected to extreme hi-temperature fires – yet it collapsed symmetrically onto its own footprint in an 8 second freefall – something that has never happened before, ever, outside of controlled demolition.

            Now we get to the meat of the matter. You admit: “Besides even the link I initially posted even considered the possibility that the WTC7 was deliberately brought down safely rather than waiting for it to collapse.”

            Pea-brain: That would have required extensive preparation before the event. It could not have been done in just a couple of hours. It takes days/weeks/months to prep a building for controlled demolition.

            But a low-wattage Clover can’t even connect this glaring fact to the logical, inevitable conclusion.

          • Brent P
            September 11, 2011 at 5:47 am

            Gil, the Titanic has been studied by countless independent private groups. And guess what, it has been proven that the official explanation in 1912 was WRONG.

            Of course the government has made it essentially impossible for such private investigation of the building failures it has used to reshape the nation.

            BTW,The core structure of the WTC was essentially conventional like the empire state building. See this photo:
            http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/samples/docs/p2/site1099c.jpg

            And

            http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/construction-1.jpg

            And

            http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/wtc2small_1.jpg

            and

            http://img414.imageshack.us/img414/5467/dsc00169xf1.jpg

            I could go on. The structure is not what the 9-11 commission tells us it is. Why does government lie? To make their theory work.

            The core would not be pulled down by floor truss failures. It should not fail symmetrically.

            Also keep in mind that air liners are made of thin aluminum.

            But at the end of the day photos of the WTC towers being built is about as good as having a photo of a UFO. Far too many people believe only what comes from authority. If authority told them day was night they would believe it. There’s a reason why Saddam Hussein had “Baghdad Bob”. Americans and others laugh at it, but they fall for the same thing over and over again.

          • Gil
            September 11, 2011 at 3:50 pm

            Pray tell BrentP what happened to the Titanic? A bomb was planted there too? The only weakness of the Titanic that came to light in the modern era was with metal brittleness which the designers of the early 1900′s didn’t know about.

            However I can and have linked sites where experts state that no skyscraper can withstand being slammed with an airliner and have jet fuel burning for extended periods. But no, for you the key word “truther sites” is “truth” and any site or source that states otherwise is a “liar source”.

          • Gil
            September 11, 2011 at 5:07 pm

            Geez Eric if I pointed out a button that could destroy the U.S. Government in a heartbeat you’d blister your fingers by incessantly pressing it.

            For you the truther sites must be correct because they have the word truth in them therefore any other site are liar sites.

            Hence:

            Liar source for how the WTC was designed for impact but not for the fires that followed:

            http://www.science-writing.org/id29.html

            * Liar source pointing out the WTC had a weaker frame than the Empire State Building to keep costs down:

            http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

            Liar report stating fire was the cause of the WTC7 collapse:

            http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

            A liar source showing the difference structure of the WTC towers as well as other buildings that have collapsed from fire before Sept. 11:

            http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

            A fake timeline showing alleged Muslim pilots take flying lessons with little on how to take off and land:

            http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=complete_911_timeline_alleged_hijackers__flight_training&timeline=complete_911_timeline

            Best of all of government-released fake photo showing plane debris at the Pentagon:

            http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon#flight77debris

          • September 11, 2011 at 11:34 pm

            Sorry, Clover – wrong again. Let’s address each item in turn.

            First, jet fuel fires:

            “The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources).”

            Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC’s One and Two (Chapter Two).

            Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

            “If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed.”

            Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC’s One and Two (Chapter Two).

            What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the “official” explanation is a lie.

            Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

            Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

            It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

            It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 – C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

            It has a flash point within the range 42° C – 72° C (110° F – 162° F).

            And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

            Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

            (1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

            (2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

            (3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

            Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

            Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

            In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

            Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

            We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

            For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

            (4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

            However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

            Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

            So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

            Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

            Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is “along for the ride” and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

            (5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

            From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

            CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
            = 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
            = 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
            = 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

            In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

            Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

            Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

            So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

            will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

            This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

            That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

            39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
            97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
            349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
            500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
            1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

            To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

            Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
            Nitrogen 1,038
            Water Vapor 1,690
            Carbon Dioxide 845
            Lightweight Concrete 800
            Steel 450

            Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

            39,857 x 1,690 x (T – 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
            97,429 x 845 x (T – 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
            349,680 x 1,038 x (T – 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
            500,000 x 450 x (T – 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
            1,400,000 x 800 x (T – 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

            The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° – T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T – 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

            So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

            = (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T – 25)
            = (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T – 25) Joules
            = 1,857,653,675 x (T – 25) Joules.

            Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

            1,857,653,675 x (T – 25) = 477,400,000,000
            1,857,653,675 x T – 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

            Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

            So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T – 25 = 282 – 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

            Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

            “The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes”

            Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC’s One and Two (Chapter Two).

            Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

            Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: “We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that’s when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped.”

            Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: “The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I’m covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I’m digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway.”

            Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: “Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That’s how I got so burned.”

            Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

            Summarizing:

            We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

            Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

            Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

            It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

            “In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.”

            Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

            Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

            Conclusion:

            The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

            So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

          • September 11, 2011 at 11:41 pm

            Next, you Clover, you:

            The floors were not structural elements; their collapse is one thing. The core, however, would not have simply imploded downward. That is what you’re missing/evading.

            All the examples in your little video, by the way, show buildings falling into chunks or falling over, but never imploding – at freefall speed into their own footprint.

          • September 11, 2011 at 11:48 pm

            Next, you try another bait and switch. No one here ever claimed the hijackers never took basic flying lessons. What was brought up is the nonsensical idea that a barely trained Cessna pilot could successfully execute a series of course/altitude changes, including a banking spiral descent, in a heavy jumbo jet, at 400-plus MPH You have now ignored multiple challenges to your parrot-like recitation of non sequiturs, including comparing piloting a commercial jet with a a toddler “driving” a car into a tree and implying that keeping an already-flying jet on its prior heading is about the same thing as executing violent/extreme course/altitude changes.

            You’re an ignoramus. You know nothing about cars or aviation – and about as much about engineering, too.

            Come clean, Clover, and tell us which low-rent government bureaucracy you “work” for….

          • Gil
            September 12, 2011 at 12:07 am

            You got your site and I got mine. I could keep linking sites but you’ll never be happy especially as they fuel your suspicions of the U.S. Government being at the heart of the evil New World Order.

            Poorly trained? If I was intent of ramming a semi-trailer loaded with explosives into a building and I went to take driving lessons. The instructor would be complaining how I was doing poorly because I had no interest in driving safely but only interested in steering and what the crash-capabilities of a semi are. Likewise the hijackers were deeemed doing terrible because they had no interest in flying safely but that wasn’t their intent.

          • September 12, 2011 at 12:36 am

            More non sequiturs – more evasions – more displays of ignorance and Cloverite blockheadedness…

            Come clean: Tell us what you do for a living?

          • September 13, 2011 at 12:43 pm

            Posting links is not an argument, Clover. Why not address the points (the facts) raised? The fact that you always just ignore factual counterpoints (apparently, because you know you can’t respond to them) is very telling.

            Note carefully, too:

            No one here is giving the “why” – other than some general speculation. Because it’s hard to do more than that, absent specific, incontrovertible facts.

            But we are questioning the “what” and “how” – because there are specific, incontrovertible facts that give the lie to the Official Story and the 911 Commission whitewash.

          • BrentP
            September 12, 2011 at 2:01 am

            Gil, once again when you have no actual rebuttal you rely on ridicule, lies, and personal attack. Really. Grow up. Anyway…

            Much has changed regarding the failure of the Titanic since the discovery of the wreck. There have been numerous programs on the investigations of the wreck. With each one some new detail is brought forth that changes, better refines, the events of that night.

            The fire failure theory of the WTC, depending on which version one picks, relies on certain assumptions. The first assumption was the one you stated (in your own special way) in your post, that the core was not a conventional structure with horizontal supports. Not only does that defy logic, because something that tall wouldn’t work without them, it defies the evidence in the photos of the towers’ construction. The second assumption is that the floor truss failures could pull down the main structure of the core and/or outer walls. This is proven false by the construction and attachment of the floor trusses.

            A sky scraper sustaining it or not was not what replied to. I replied to your nonsense regarding the structure. I provided photographs to show it was not the way you stated. Perhaps any sky scraper would fail with such hit, that is irrelevant to my posts. My posts have been regarding the failure and the government theories we are supposed to accept.

            Symmetry in a structure’s failure is very rare. But we saw three times in one day. It is so rare that careful attempts at creating symmetrical failure of a structure may fail.

            If you note I have not relied on any “truther” cites. I do so purposely. My cites are NIST, FEMA, an engineering paper from welding organization, photographs, and so on. I won’t cite a “truther” website, publication, interview or anything else because I’ve dealt with your kind before and I intentionally close off the line of argument you are attempting before it starts. And I don’t need to cite truthers because the evidence is right in your face from official sources. But like they count on, you just jump to the end and read the conclusions.

            You can cite boiled down nonsense like popular mechanics all you want. It’s there to make your kind feel better, to reinforce your faith. They will make one or both of the assumptions I mentioned above and probably more to do it. Or they will do like you and use ridicule and smear by picking the most insane theories they can find and smearing anyone who dares question with them.

            Unless you’re going to prove all those photographs fakes, tell me what I’ve used from the NIST reports, etc is wrong, don’t bother replying.

        • JvG
          September 10, 2011 at 5:44 pm

          Gil,

          The whole point and PROOF of the consipiracy is that it took airplanes AND controlled demolition to bring down the buildings. The airplanes alone would not do the job. It took pre-planning and installing the thermite and explosives. That process took weeks. If that it not a consipiracy, than I would not know what else it could be. http://WWW.WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM has a lot of excellent factual information today. Take a look. It will open a lot of eyes. Gil, you are either a shill for the powers that be, or an ostrich. The probem with being an ostrich is that ones meaty ass is quite attracive the to lions and hyeneas out there. They love ostriches. One thing I have noticed though. I have tried to educate 911 ostriches, and they prefer to kick those who try to save them rather than pulling their head out of the sand and taking a good look around.

          • BrentP
            September 11, 2011 at 12:21 am

            Explosives in the towers or not doesn’t matter. It’s just means to the end. What is more important is the case of foreknowledge and involvement on the part of the US federal government.

            When it becomes clear that the US federal government through one department or another is involved with or intentionally stands down regarding every media significant* act of terrorism and planned terrorism in the USA, the means don’t matter so much.

            *terrorism which the state was not involved with on some level does not find much media attention for it shows the ineptitude of the state. I don’t why it is less usable because the ones they have their paws in also can be interpreted as ineptitude, but for some reason it is.

          • Boothe
            September 12, 2011 at 11:19 am

            JvG, it doesn’t seem to matter what the subject is; when you raise unpleasant questions and expose the truth, many people will hate you for it. When you challenge their deeply held beliefs and preconceptions, it makes them very uncomfortable. Take Gil for example: he at least pretends to want the government to be his friend, to take care of his safety, to be his security blanket. Without that veneer of security, his whole world becomes very frightening. After all, there bad people out there that might do bad things to him. He forgets that the vast majority of bad things that were done to people on a mass scale, historically were done by other people in government or people with government sanction (the church, medicine, etc.). It’s very hard to come to grips with that shining light up on a hill being the burning remains of a once great nation.

          • September 12, 2011 at 11:25 am

            See today’s http://www.vdare.com for an outstanding article by Paul Craig Roberts….

        • Boothe
          September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm

          Actually Clover, an IT professional from the UK did notice some rather unusual “workers” with tool boxes in the building prior to a power outage right before the attack. As I recall, was on site to back up their systems and traded days off with one of his co-workers. So he was home when the attack occurred, saw it happen on TV and called in to his office to tell his coworkers to get out. I’ve been trying to find the link of his account for you (if someone else has that link please let me know what it is).

          The Pentagon is particulary interesting, because a Boeing 757 has two large engines mounted under the wings. If the angle and altitude of approach at impact were correct as documented by the “official” sources, then there ought to be two plow marks in the lawn and those two engines should have gone somewhere and caused additional damage and/or left obvious remains. There’s debris alright, but where are the trenches and those two engines?

          Gil, I’ve had so many people (including the police and Time magazine) lie to me over the years (proveably and flagrantly lie right to my face) that unless I really know the facts, I am automatically suspicious of any official “story”. Last year, I watched a co-worker negligently damage a very expensive piece of equipment. He then asked me what he’d done wrong so I explained it to him. Two says later, when there were questions about how this piece of equipment was destroyed he disavowed any knowledge. I confronted him in private later; he stood right in front of me, looked me in the eye, emphatically denied what another technician and I had witnessed and told me I was wrong. It was a classic case of Groucho Marx’s skit where he gets caught making out with the woman and denies it; ‘Who you gonna’ believe, me or your own eyes?’.

          Even if what happened on 9-11 wasn’t a 100% “inside job”, there were plenty of people who knew well in advance, at the very least allowed it happen (if not encouraging it) and have taken the money (and power) and run, and are now engaging in the age old practice of covering their asses. One of the first things they did was dispose of most of the forensic evidence so any independent researchers wouldn’t have much to go on. Trying to insinuate that those of us who seek the truth are somehow un-American or crazy is utterly ludicrous. Questioning the veracity and motives of the people who aspire to wield the lethal force that is government is a hallmark of being a true American.

          • dom
            September 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm

            In regard to your personal experience with liars, I’ve experienced the exact same thing. I’ve learned to just completely ignore it and make no comment to them. Note it well in my head and not forget. Good intelligence on who the scum bags are is valuable information.

          • Boothe
            September 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm

            Gil, go here and read this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/94675.html#more-94675

            If this doesn’t strike a chord with you on the human compassion level, there is no hope for you because you are very probably a war monger and a sociopath. Of course, that would make you a great candidate for government employment. For a clearer understanding of what I mean by that go here: http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo213.html

          • Gil
            September 14, 2011 at 12:32 pm

            Even if . . .? Uh-oh! You starting to weaken? Saying a terrorist attack was going to happen on U.S. soil after a series of successful attack (e.g. the U.S. Cole) for which the U.S. Government did little to nothing about (A.K.A. the Libertarian response)isn’t news. That warning appeared in a “Reader’s Digest” book well before Sept. 11 but the author was predicted a nuclear bomb or a dirty bomb than planes as missile. Then again the U.S. have nukes so why not use a nuke as a false-flag attack and say that the terrorists got it from the former Soviet Union?

      • Boothe
        September 10, 2011 at 3:07 pm

        Eric, doesn’t it stand to reason that one must first be a Clover in order to become a troll?

    • BrentP
      September 10, 2011 at 5:14 pm

      Gil, you might want to look up the court case of the FBI informant on the 1993 WTC bombing. The FBI tried to nail him but this guy out smarted them. He recorded his conversations with FBI agents. Turns out the FBI -allowed- the bombing to go forward and may have been behind it. Emad Salem, look it up yourself.

  16. methylamine
    September 12, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    @Eric:

    THANK YOU for that strict physical breakdown–I absolutely love chemistry (majored in bio-chem as an undergrad) and hearing a white-box explanation is incredibly refreshing. I haven’t seen that analysis before, and it’s absolutely devastating!dd

    Gil can’t answer it so he says “you have your sites and I have mine”.

    Idiot. Fucking idiot. And that goes for all Clovers. There ARE no sites to contradict that type of analysis, because the science is incontrovertible.

    In the end it goes back to cognitive dissonance; Clovers simply can’t afford, psychologically, to explore the truth because they have so much invested in Big Daddy State. If they accept the truth, it takes their Wooby away…and they have to face the world naked.

    This infantilization of men is intentional. Men have been raised for the last fifty-odd years to remain children long after age eighteen by the Prussian-inspired public schools. Case in point: we’re witnessing the collapse of the country, but sports attendance is at an all-time high. To maintain the illusion of eternal childhood, they must displace faith in their fathers–which should transition to faith in themselves at adulthood–to faith in the State, which becomes a proxy father. And you don’t question your father!

    It reminds me of “Stalin’s chicken”. When a general asked Stalin how he ruled so effectively, he had a lackey bring him a chicken. He proceeded to almost completely pluck the chicken–an extremely painful process for the chicken. The chicken ran away upon being released, but it was a cold day and it soon returned to huddle against his leg. That is the Clover mentality.

    There’s another great analogy for statism: the State comes to your house, steals your money, and breaks your legs. The next day, it brings splints and bandages. The day after, it brings crutches–all bought with the money it stole from you. Then it says “See? Without me, you couldn’t walk!”

    • September 12, 2011 at 5:56 pm

      Roger that – but it’ll be glossed over completely by Clover, if he even responds at all.

      Just beeeeelieve!

      And you will receive.

    • Gil
      September 14, 2011 at 8:14 am

      Answer what pray tell? I kept linking sites that crashing alrliner into giant skyscrapers works but no they’re all government shills. Just as if people were to have barged into Area 51 in the ’70s they’d find the movie sets used to fake Moon landings. As if the government could safely send people to the Moon and back while private operators are barely capable of getting of the Earth’s atmosphere.

      Stalin’s chicken probably represents you better – you complain about the government but dutifully obey the law and pay your taxes on time. Push-lease, when you’ve done something really hardcore like shooting dead a cop for trying to give you a breathiliser then you start called yourself a freedom-fighter.

      • September 14, 2011 at 10:24 am

        Clover, referencing politicians and political whitewashes doesn’t cut it. The facts – the physical evidence, the science – has been put forward but like the Clover you are, you ignore/evade it. There are many things that don’t jibe with what we are given as the Official Story, but the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of WTC 7 is the smoking gun. That kind of thing just does not happen outside of controlled demolition – ever. Because it can’t. Steel-framed skyscrapers do not lose all their core supports at virtually the same moment, then free-fall in 8 seconds into their own footprint. It just doesn’t happen.

        The “why” and “what for” are debatable; the fact of the collapse is not – and once you’ve crossed that intellectual Rubicon, everything else follows. WTC 7 was deliberately taken down – but that could not have been done spur of the moment; it had to have been prepared beforehand. Which means foreknowledge of what was coming. There is no getting around this, which is why WTC 7 is now in the Memory Hole – never discussed by the mainstream media and almost entirely forgotten by the general public.

        Then there are the physical facts about the Towers themselves; the chemistry was explained here in detail. Objective scientific facts. And you – some Clover who probably doesn’t even have a liberal arts BA – just breeze right on by damning facts presented by people with hard science backgrounds who know WTF they are talking about.

        And then, the fairy tale about how (literally, according to you) childishly easy it is to execute complex maneuvers in a twin-engine commercial jet – why, it’s just like a kid talking the wheel of an already-moving car and “driving” it into a tree!

        Except, the better analogy would be a kid attempting to maintain control of a high-performance car traveling 140 MPH. Which of course, he might do for a few seconds, even perhaps a minute – if the road was perfectly straight and smooth and all he had to do was keep it pointed in the direction it was going. And even then, he’d still lose control and crash within a very short time, as soon as the situation required him to actually control the car.

        Have you ever driven a car at sustained speeds of 140 MPH? Including turns? I have. Even the most minor road irregularities or steering inputs can have dramatic – and lethal – consequences. It requires orders of magnitude more skill than putting a Camry in “drive” and rolling down the street at 40 MPH.

        Have you ever piloted an airplane? If you had, you’d know that in addition to dealing with up and down as well as left and right and speed (including maintaining the right speed for flying conditions, to avoid stalling, etc.) you also have to learn numerous controls as well as the meaning of multiple instrument readings that no driver has to deal with. And this is the most basic flying – very conservative inputs in a low-speed piston-powered light aircraft such as the trainers that the Abdullahs supposedly acquired their Mad Skillz in. You, in your catatonic ignorance of aviation, think that a person who has at best demonstrated minimal proficiency in a Cessna has the skill to jump into the left seat of a 500 MPH heavy jet, then fly it at the edge of the capability of its airframe, including violent course/altitude changes and – in the case of the Pentagon – a steep angled banking spiral followed by a “run” at mere feet off the deck for several hundred yards before crashing into the building.

        You blink vacuously like a contented sheep – accepting this as not merely plausible but the Whole Troof and nothing but. Because the government (which is all-wise and always looking out for out best interests) tells you so.

        Baaaa Baaaa Baaa!

      • Boothe
        September 16, 2011 at 3:05 pm

        Gil, first off your agressive violence stance, as if anyone here feels the need to impress you with their status as a “freedom-fighter”, lends credence to my theory that you are an agent provocateur trolling for suicidal morons to entrap. We’ve seen more than one instance of our government using paid informants to “hire” hard-up unemployed “radical Muslims” to commit acts of terrorism that were then foiled by the very same people that set them up in the first place! Out of 310 million people, there aren’t enough genuine violent radicals available to justify the police state agenda, so law enforcement agencies have to incite problems to keep the public in fear and their budgets intact. You carry the stench of an instigator.

        I’ve read many of “your” links Gil (and had read some of the same stuff before). Mostly these folks engage in ad hominem attacks on so-called “truthers” and simply raise more questions, they don’t provide proof that “truthers” are wrong or “debunk” anything. Sure, there are some far out blogs on the Net that theorize everything from energy weapons to alien spacecraft (some of which I suspect are posted by people like you to discredit people like us who are asking legitimate questions). There are a lot of holes in the official story, there is clearly an effort to hide evidence and there are many of us who have dealt with bureaucrats and politicians and know they lie on a routine basis. Once again Gil, are you in law enforcement, intelligence or otherwise employed by the government? If not what do you do for a living?

        • dom
          September 16, 2011 at 4:07 pm

          Nice looking place for wireless access at a Cafe.

          Goon's Location

          I’m curious how Gil discovered the epautos website?

          • Boothe
            September 16, 2011 at 4:59 pm

            The troll’s handler at NSA probably gave him a list of links based on a keyword search from their “supercomputer” and this site was on it. Awesome! It’s kind of hard to justify your agency’s existence (and the subsequent squandering of billions of taxpayer dollars) unless you can find big scary wind mills to joust with….you know….like taxpayers that ask troublesome questions. Our present “leaders” are an embarassment to us to say the least. :(

          • dom
            September 16, 2011 at 5:10 pm

            It’s also weird because there is a law school right near that too! Either way I’ll probably just leave his comments in the spam queue from here on out, or just ban his ip address.

  17. Don
    September 12, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    As Jesse Richards, the editor of TVNewsLies.org has written, no one who has researched 9/11, still believes the government’s story. No one. The real conspiracy “theory” about 9/11 is the government’s official story. Once anyone fully researches 9/11, one would have to suspend all rational thinking and scientific processes – to still be able to believe the offical government story.

    Many excellent resources have already been mentioned in the comments above. I would challenge anyone who still believes the official government story of 9/11, to study all of the resources previously mentioned – and then let us know if you still believe the government.

  18. BrentP
    September 12, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    The thing is, like just about any government study or report what is necessary to show it wrong is often right in the report itself. 9/11 is no exception. It takes very little study to show the government theory is false. The obvious omissions of facts that were on the TV news, the parts where a photograph or text shows thing to be one way but the conclusions another. The way each government report tries to stick to the same basic narrative but also morphs the story to fix where the last one was caught. All it takes to see government is lying is to pay attention. Investigating is far more work than needed to see that the government’s story is unbelievable.

    • Gil
      September 14, 2011 at 8:15 am

      So what “really” happened that day? Strange few are willing to put their necks on the line and tell the “true” story of events.

      • September 14, 2011 at 10:44 am

        Clover, it was a complex event and we’ll probably never know the “whole story.” What we can know – with the certainty that comes from physical evidence and facts – is that the Official Story is bogus. What that implies is a separate question. One does not have to know why a murder took place to know for a fact that a murder has, in fact, taken place.

        Meanwhile, we know the events of that day lead directly to our (utterly unjustified) invasion and occupation of Iraq (something fervently sought by certain elements long before the day of 911) as well as the hurried, almost frantic passage of police state legislation eviscerating our former rights.

        Who benefits?

        That is the beginning of all inquiry.

        • Gil
          September 14, 2011 at 12:26 pm

          No seriously, why not be willing to hypothesise a scenario such as – the inexplicable bump on the undercarriage one of the photos of a 767 must have been a remote-control receiver turning the 767 effectively to a drone and thus CIA agents disguised as Middle Easterners hijacked the plane, install the RC receivers, parachuted to safety while their fellow agents were secretly installing thermite charges throughout the buildings months (if not years) earlier.

          P.S. Then again I heard the conspiracy theory that had the U.S. left Japan alone and supplied them in their subjucation of the Chinese then not only would have war been averted but the Chinese Communists wouldn’t have gained power and, ultimately, such non-interventions would’ve saved ten of million of lives.

          • September 14, 2011 at 12:33 pm

            Another childish response; one that (again) ignores the serious questions raised, based on facts and physical evidence – such as the improbability of a steel-framed structure collapsing at freefall speed, symmetrically, onto its own footrpint. Or the impossibility of steel liquifying as a result of fires that could not, did not, reach the necessary temperatures. Etc.

            Instead, you try to belittle and ridicule – but only make yourself look more ridiculous.

          • Gil
            September 14, 2011 at 12:49 pm

            Are you kidding me? You & co. are highly insinuating the only way you feel the buildings could have collapsed was a controlled demolition and that only professional pilots could have steered the plane to their targets. Hence your assertions it must be deduced the buildings must have been laced with thermite charges throughout the structures in advanced and professional pilots don’t have a death wish so the planes must be remote controlled hence truthers sight something attachment to the undercarriage of a plane from a photo before it crashed hence it must been remote-controlled. After all, notice how all the drone planes have come out of the woodwork since Sept. 11.

          • September 14, 2011 at 3:44 pm

            No, Clover, I am not “kidding” you.

            I – and others – have pointed to facts and the testimony of experts – while you cling reverently to the story told by politicians.

            Again, what is your expertise?

            You clearly know nothing about cars or aviation or engineering.

          • dom
            September 14, 2011 at 1:23 pm

            @Gil

            Dood, we’ve had drones in the skies for a decade or more. I think some have pilots sitting state-side flying them from across the world. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with modern remote control technology. It’s a bit more advanced than the Tyco RC cars you played with as a kid in the parking lot.

          • Gil
            September 14, 2011 at 3:44 pm

            Gee. Dom, therefore technology existed to remotely smash the planes into various Sept. 11 targets without any CIA operatives being killed but the passengers/witnesses were all killed . . .

          • September 14, 2011 at 6:13 pm

            Non sequitur.

            You’re the one who keeps bringing up this business about the airplanes having been remotely controlled. I’ve been discussing the improbability of amateur Cessna pilots successfully flying a 500 MPH heavy jet; and note carefully (again): Not merely keeping it “straight and level” on a course already set by the real pilots. I mean executing dramatic course/altitude changes – including severe descents and steep angles – without crashing the aircraft. This is akin to maintaining control of a race car on a road course at very high speeds – something that requires a great deal of skill, training and practice. If anything, flying the commercial jet is more challenging, because (among other things) there is the issue of maintaining correct airspeed in relation to other inputs, pitch, yaw, and several other things.

            Clover, you know nothing – nothing! – about cars, aircraft or engineering. So why do you reject the skepticism of people who do know something about those things? Or do you accept the Official Story because you know nothing – and just trust what you are told?

          • dom
            September 14, 2011 at 3:52 pm

            @Gil

            “therefore technology existed to remotely smash the planes”

            Answer: Yes, I think so.

          • JvG
            September 14, 2011 at 10:55 pm

            Regarding the remote controlled highjacked airplanes on 9/11.

            You might want to look up a guy by the name of Dov Zakheim. He was appointed the Under Sectretary of Defense. He was appointed in May of 2001. His previous job. immediatly before that was the CEO of a company called System Planning Corporation. Its busness is the remote control of aircraft. They also built equipment that could control up to 8 aircraft at a time. They could override input by human pilots. He was also the founder of Project For A New American Century. He was one of the 15 Israeli citizens in the Bush adminisration.

            By the way, 9/11/2001 was also the date of a drill. Air traffic controllers were dealing with 22 “simulated” highjacked aircraft signals that day. Only 4 of them were real. Perhaps that is why the Air Force did not intervene that day, except for the likely shootdown of the plane over Pennsylvania.

            It is just another co-incidence that the Under Secretary of Defense is also the ex CEO of a company that built state of the art remote control equipment for passenger jets as well as the master system to controll 8 aircraft at once. Also that an AWACS plane was seen circing over NYC that day. Also curious how Mr Zakheim was one of the founding members of PNAC. Also how PNAC wrote in 1998 how the American People would not tolerate proposals (such as the PATRIOT act) and foreign wars unless there was to be what they called “A Pearl Harbor type event”.

            It is interesting how Mr Zakheim was appointed to a position in the Defense Department in May of 2001. He was in the right place at the right time. Just coincidence…..

          • September 15, 2011 at 10:06 am

            Personal story in re Zakheim:

            When I was on the editorial page staff of The Washington Times, this cretin had a direct beeline to the editorial/op-ed page. I found it startling. The editorial page editor would immediately shove whatever dreck he’d called or faxed in onto the page for the next day’s paper. I remember thinking at the time, “Who the Hell is this guy?” And also that he must have “the negatives” – pictures of the editorial page editor screwing a goat or something…

            There were other cases like this, too – including someone named Cord Meyer. Perhaps you recognize the name?

          • BrentP
            September 15, 2011 at 1:34 am

            Unlike yourself Gil, I learned how to write scientific papers in the 5th grade. This means I also know how _READ_ them. All that one needs to know the government is lying is to read their reports. It helps to be exposed to evidence that is indisputable that the government did not include as well. I learned quite a bit on how government does “science” and “engineering” years ago when I studied all things road and driving on my own. How it bent data and outright had conclusions that didn’t match the rest of paper. Thus I read a government report to pull out the data, the facts and make up my own mind.

            So why should I create theories? Oh, so you can go on the offensive, because unless I make an opening for you Gil, you have no defense, no rebuttal against my arguments. Remember, there’s a reason I don’t use “truther” cites, so people like you can flounder around and look silly when you attempt to smear like above, so you can’t effectively create an argument of attacking the source. The source is government, the institution you love, so you’re left between a rock and a hard place and I know better to allow you to wiggle out with such redirection.

            I’ve heard that it part of the code of the power elite to put the truth right in the face of people, but if they then accept the lie they deserve whatever happens to them. I don’t know if it is true or not, but it is one explanation of why government publications are often the best source of facts to argue against the government. Then again it may be more mundane… good people in the system who can’t bring themselves to lie about the facts, but make a conclusion management will approve of.

          • Boothe
            September 15, 2011 at 3:49 am

            BrentP, I read a classic example of government pseudo-scientists being cosmically compelled to tell the truth in their own report just today. I am attending a seminar on air quality regulations and one of the upcoming rules has to do with mercury in boiler stack gases (it’s infinitesimal BTW). The EPA has studied airborne mercury deposition rates in various watersheds across the U.S. The initial data didn’t yield the results they expected so right in their own report, very artfully of course, they come out and say ‘we adjusted the data to make it read what we originally expected’. But it gets even better; the clairvoyants at the EPA are somehow able to produce maps showing what the mercury deposition rates will be in 2016 (never mind that in our current economy, as more manufacturing moves overseas, base loads will probably remain flat, if not decrease). After all the end justifies the means because it’s all about compliance, fines and revenue…oops…I meant “public health”, “air quality” and “the children”!

          • Edward King
            September 15, 2011 at 4:08 am

            Boothe, even after everything you have explained, the lies, deceit, the utter corruption of the facts, the government will still be held up as a force for good against the evil that is the private sector. If a private company did what you say the EPA did, leftist and clovers would come out and say that this is why we need government. The private sector can never be trusted to do what is right. It needs to be regulated out of existence, or at least severely limited.

            If one is brave enough to point out that the state is run by men, and that these men have their own agenda, then one is engaging in “conspiracy theorism”. After all everyone knows that the state is a bulwark of good and selflessness. Only the finest men and women, who only have the welfare of society in mind work for the state. Without these noble men and women, who would protect us from the evil corporations that the state grants a special privilege.

            Boothe. it is obvious that you have nothing but contempt for society by pointing out the bias of those men and women in the EPA who only have out best interest at heart. How dare you? Be a good clover and submit. Submit. Submit. Be a good slave, I mean citizen, and swear fealty to your God, the USA.

          • Gil
            September 15, 2011 at 5:19 am

            The real reason you folks aren’t willing to postulate any scenarios is for two reasons:

            1. It’s easier to attack than defend.

            2. If you state that the U.S. Government is evil and took down the towers themselves while blaming Middle Easterners then you risk being branded as traitors and will disappear via the Patriot Act where you’ll tortured to death.

          • September 15, 2011 at 9:52 am

            Clover, that would be speculation – as explained at length already. We are discussing physical facts, science – which are objectively verifiable.

            You’ve added nothing to the discussion other than emoting, government-worship and distraction.

          • Gil
            September 15, 2011 at 1:04 pm

            But saying a bunch of Middle Eastern hijackers brought down the buildings would be just plain lying, right? After all, you’re quick to supply the “real” evidence so why not draw the obvious conclusions?

            If you think those building were in total free fall then explosive charges must have been used throughout the building. If you that glowing liquid trickling down the building was molten steel then huge amounts of energy were used suggesting more high-powered explosives. If you think the jets could only have been piloted by professionals then it must have been secret agents. If you think that the only country that benefitted from Sept. 11 was the U.S. then it was them who caused Sept. 11, i.e. a false flag attack. If you think there’s no way such would be terrorists could have got as far as they did without alerting the authorities then it was an inside job and the U.S. secret agents had all the time in the world to make sure Sept. 11 would be a day no one would forget.

          • September 15, 2011 at 3:47 pm

            Clover, I’m not disputing that planes were flown into the WTC Towers. I am questioning the government’s claim that this event caused the WTC Towers to completely collapse (not just the floors, or parts of the building – but the whole buildings, all at once, including the structural core). I am pointing out that there were pools of liquid molten steel in the wreckage, a fact – and also pointing out the fact that steel requires a very high temperature to melt – much higher than a fire involving jet fuel (which dissipated rapidly) and ordinary office materials. I am pointing out the fact that WTC fell at exactly the same rate as a bowling ball dropped off its roof with nothing but air underneath it. Freefall. A fact.

            You steadfastly refuse to address these specific points, because you can’t.

          • BrentP
            September 16, 2011 at 2:15 am

            Gil, of course it’s easier to be the critic, that’s why you want a “theory” that not only includes how, but who. That way you can poke at it, go on with more ridicule, etc. Essentially do as Paul Craig Roberts outlines here: http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts324.html

            I’m not going even ponder who, however it should be obvious that ‘who’ has the government on his side one way or another* whomever it is. Perhaps you should ask a question that will help you find the answer yourself, “Cui bono?”.

            *could be as simple as manipulating the psychology of a bureaucrat or elected office holder to cover his ass.

          • Gil
            September 16, 2011 at 2:48 am

            At least Creationists know what they think their alternative story is when they take potshots at Evolution. You take potshots at the belief that handful of terrorists hijack planes and used them as battering rams but aren’t put to suggest an alternative though it’s obvious you’re insinuating the U.S. Government did it all and framed those handful of Middle Easterners.

            Yes I have addressed your issues but you don’t want to read any of the links. After you know a rudimentary search would come with the said answers but you would find it all

            E.g.:

            http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

          • BrentP
            September 16, 2011 at 3:27 am

            Boothe, that is so typical of anything government.. but you got one where all the techniques were rolled into one report. It’s everywhere… from red light cameras to climate change. In Chicago, to show the red light cameras improve safety they only count collisions *IN* the intersection. That is beyond the plane of the curbs. Nail the brakes to stop in the span of a short yellow and get rear-ended… not counted. It happened outside the intersection. Everything is manipulated but the manipulations are almost always outlined, admitted. It’s right in people’s faces. But time and time again, I find myself the kook because I read (or skimmed to) the meat of a government report.

  19. Mike in Spotsy
    March 24, 2012 at 1:17 am

    I know this an old post, and this is response a tad — but just a tad — off topic, but I want to recommend a book. Anyone remember TWA flight 800 that exploded after taking off from JFK in 1996? There were about 100 eyewitnesses who saw a rocket trail head for the plane, including some experienced former military pilots, but the government has always denied that. The government explanation never made any sense, and many still believe that one of the US Navy ships that were engaged in training operations in the area accidentally shot the plane down.

    Well, this book is purely fiction, but the Nelson DeMille novel “Night Fall” is totally fascinating. And it does eventually tie in with 9/11…in a very surprising way. Nuff said: don’t want to spoil it for any who might read the book.

    • dom
      March 24, 2012 at 1:34 am

      Is that the plane with the empty gas tank filled with fumes and the corroded fuel pump lines that arced and the pressure in the tank was just low enough the oxygen in the atmosphere got sucked into the tank and the moon’s alignment with the sun was just right that it caused a magnified glass effect on the plane and and..?

      I made some of that up.

    • BrentP
      March 24, 2012 at 5:30 am

      When did a government story ever make sense? They are at best fairy tale versions of reality and at worse simply fairy tales.

      While I have not researched the missile theories of flight 800 there is a theory that seems well supported on the possibility it was a real act of terrorism. It was an act that was previously attempted but did not bring down the targeted plane. They were off by a row or two of seats. one or two passengers killed as I recall and the plane damaged but the pilot was able to land the aircraft. It made sense when I listened to the theory that flight 800 was the successful execution of that method.

      Why would the government cover up an act of terrorism? Because it is not good for those in the government to play up real acts of terrorism in most cases. Not good for them in any way. They cover them up or try to make them go away as fast as possible. It’s embarrassing for them.

      Then there are the acts that serve their purposes which are played up to the maximum and then some. The ones that seem to fit into an existing plan. Like the need for a new pearl harbor to carry out a particular agenda.

      so it goes… Poo-tee-weet

    • March 24, 2012 at 10:31 am

      Hey Mike,

      I will check it out (the book) and I remember TWA 800 very well. I was on a Ford press junket in Alaska when it happened. I also know about the numerous witnesses who came forward and found the testimony of the experienced military pilots very persuasive. There’s so much I know that’s provably true about the government’s machinations (including MK-ULtra, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin “incident,” the Liberty coverup – just to name a few – that I suspect, with good reason, the creatures running it to be capable of anything – including shooting down a passenger jet (and much worse besides). Once you realize the government is run by sociopaths, you come to accept the awful truth – and become aware that literally anything is possible. Even likely.

      • May 8, 2012 at 2:30 am

        Two interesting tidbits on the Navy’s shootdown…

        My father was involved in the development of the Aegis program — he was that rare physicist who worked for the DeathStar but despised it and then some. He once related to me the details of an interesting incident
        wherein the performance characteristics of a shipboard missile system was being evaluated along the eastern seaboard. On this occasion, a missile had been fired, after which the technician tasked with monitoring its progress momentarily left his post. When he returned to his CRT, he was shocked to observe not one, but two blips on the screen. The first, of course, was the missile under test; the second. however, was a passenger airliner, on the return leg of a transcontinental flight and the missile was homing in on it! Now granted, it was outfitted with a dummy warhead, but its kinetic energy alone imparted sufficient throw-weight to take out the airplane. Fortunately for all parties concerned, the missile contained an emergency pyrotechnic charge which was remotely detonated! A similar scenario doubtless occurred in the case of flight 800, only someone was asleep at the switch.

        The explanation of Flight 800s demise put forth by the Navy was sheer pish. The fuel probes/transducers housed within fuel cells consist of concentrically arrayed aluminum tubes which together form the electrodes of a capacitor. The fuel itself comprises the dielectric, and as it is depleted, the resulting change in capacitance is rescaled on the cockpit indicator as gallons of fuel remaining. The voltage across the probes is typically 5 or 28 volts dc. The current drawn is all but nonexistent — we’re talking pico-amps here! So obsessed are aircraft makers with weight, that the wires attached to these probes are often uninsulated; I have bought and sold many of them. There is no possibility whatsoever that a spark could occur even were hot and ground shorted out! Any competent aircraft fuel system service tech knows this. Were Boeing a purely civilian airframe manufacturer, DoD would have found itself on the losing end of a lawsuit.

        An NSA spysat observed and filmed the entire Flight 800 debacle. Although the NSA has admitted this, it has steadfastly refused to release the footage, citing reasons of National Security — Gee, now where have I heard that before? Instead, the Pentagon quickly evicted the FAA, the sole entity qualified to investigate the case. Then it summoned FBI lackeys to lie on its behalf and finally, it ordered its CIA proxy/doxies to churn out a computer generated anime that purported to “solve” the case.

        Just another day at the office for the Warlords of E-ring…

        Cheers, JQP

    • March 24, 2012 at 10:46 am

      PS: The other day I watched the Zapruder footage again. With the ‘Net, it’s accessible in high definition and you can watch frame by frame. It’s interesting how Kennedy’s brain matter and chunks of skull blow toward the rear of the car. You can also see in the frame-by-frames just after the moment of the kill shot (the one that shows the right side of his head explode) a large protuberance appear at the back of his head.

      Had Ruby not so conveniently disposed of Oswald, I probably would never have looked deeper into this ugly event. But once you begin to look….

      Caveat: The above does not mean I am a fan of Kennedy’s. That’s not the issue here…

      • BrentP
        March 24, 2012 at 3:28 pm

        JFK did a few things that clearly upset the powers that be. Just a few off the top of my head:
        1) Resisted war.
        2) Silver backed, treasury issued money.
        3) running his mouth off about secret societies, etc.
        4) went after organized crime.

        There was a lot of the usual bad about JFK too, after all he managed to get elected president the usual way. But something he did or was doing that got him shot.

      • Mike in Spotsy
        May 8, 2012 at 3:22 am

        Hey Eric, remember the Lew Rockwell rule: if the government says something, it’s a lie. You’ll never go broke betting on that one.

        I always seem to be hawking books on here (disclaimer: I am not an agent for any of them…lol), but “JFK and the Unspeakable”, by James W. Douglass, makes a strong case that the CIA took JFK out. He was becoming too much of a threat to the military/industrial complex that his predecessor warned about.

        • May 8, 2012 at 10:17 am

          Yup!

          On JFK: The “why” is a subject for endless (an interesting!) speculation. I’m not a huge fan of Kennedy’s – but based on all I’ve read about him, the argument that he was a liability because he resented the way he’d been directed and controlled all his life by his father – and so had come to resent being controlled and directed by anyone (and did not fear the repercussions) strikes me as a reasonable working hypothesis. The convenient silencing of Oswald “out of concern for Mrs. Kennedy” is a bit much, too.

  20. DownshiftFast5to1
    July 28, 2013 at 8:44 pm

    NEWLY OBTAINED VIDEO: 9/11 Firefighters Reveal Bombs Destroyed WTC lobby – Sunday, July 28, 2013

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/newly-obtained-video-911-firefighters.html

    That seems to go hand in glove with this:

    The Evil of the National-Security State

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/jacob-g-hornberger/the-murder-of-jfk/

    • DownshiftFast5to1
      July 28, 2013 at 11:30 pm

      I see now that the 9/11 video was uploaded in 2010.

      It was new to me, anyway.

      Same with some of the info in, The Evil of the National-Security State.

      Wild stuff. … The truth is like that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *