Open mike 09/11/2010

93 comments on “Open mike 09/11/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. travellerev 1

   9 November 2010 at 6:44 am

   A couple of days ago Noam Chomsky, left wing intellectual and one of my heroes made a U-turn in his opinion about what transpired on 9-11.

   Until recently Noam Chomsky to my utter disappointment was of the opinion that the events of 911 was blowback from the US foreign policies and that the government would never perpetrate such a crime on its own population. Even in the event of 911 being a false flag event it was of no importance since what we should be doing was looking at the here and now and that in fact the 911 truth movement had taken a lot of energy away from the “real” anti war movement.

   So when Noam Chomski just a few days ago stated that since there is no evidence that 19 young men under the spell of an old Saudi man in Afghanistan actually attacked the US on 911 and that therefore the war in Afghanistan was illegal and even criminal this meant a huge turnaround for him.

   While I realise that Noam Chomskis assertion is not the same as admitting there are huge discrepancies in the official CT I hope that you will agree with me that if a man of Noam Chomskies intelligence admits that no reasonable evidence was given to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and that therefore the war in Afghanistan is illegal the request for a new and independent investigation into the events on 911 is reasonable. If this investigation shows that no evidence exists for the involvement of 19 predominantly Saudi young men under the command of an elderly Saudi man attacked the US which is why we attacked Afghanistan in the first place than I propose it is equally reasonable an new investigation should be started as to whom did so on that day. (In fact the whole Saudi-Afghanistan connection looks a bit dodgy, doesn’t it? Especially if you realise the US is selling $60 billion worth of weapons to the Saudis.)

   So thank you Noam Chomski for finally coming out on the side of those of us who ask questions and want answers. I can’t wait to see where this man’s considerable intellect will lead him next.
   • Zorr 1.1

     9 November 2010 at 7:26 am

     uh

     Noam Chomsky is merely stating that he is of the same opinion as most of the experts that the men involved in 9-11 were not related “professionally” (as it were) to Al-Qaeda. Not that they didn’t do it but that they did it without being connected to Osama bin Laden.

     Stupid Truther moron.
     • travellerev 1.1.1

       9 November 2010 at 8:31 am

       Zorr,

       In response to your if I may say so somewhat terse and very bizarre comment I would like to request the names of some of those “experts”.

       Here are some of the “experts” who were convinced that we should attack Afghanistan precisely because of the attackers connections to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda:

       Meet:

       Cofer Black: career CIA 28 years and the person who was going to bring the head of Osama bin Laden back after 911.

       Anthony Schaffer: Long term army intelligence career. He now acknowledges that 911 commission was a huge cover up and wants like us a new and independent investigation. Not because he believes that 911 was a cover up but because he wants to know why his information about Mohammed Atta and “Able danger” were not included in the final report.

       Here is an interesting article analysing the MSM connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of 911.

       In fact it was Cheney himself who flabbergasted the world on September 2008 by announcing to the world that nobody had ever connected Osama bin Laden with the events of 911.
       • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1

         9 November 2010 at 8:56 am

         What about the phone calls between Mohamed Atta and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed?

         Also Yosri Fouda’s book “masterminds of terror” details his interviews with KSM and other senior AQ figures, prior to their capture.

         It is very likely that OBL would have little if any organisational knowledge about a 9/11 style op. he might give go ahead for a lrage scale attack on the US homeland, and play no further role. That’s part of whata cellular organisation is for, to make it next to impossible to connect the senior leadership to individual events. It’s the reason, for exaple, that the magfia bosses spent so much time not behind bars. “can’t prove a connection”.

         Anyway, all this truther nonsense is just COINTEL propaganda designed to make the antiwar movement look bad. You need to wake up.
         • travellerev 1.1.1.1.1

           9 November 2010 at 9:51 am

           Hi Bookie,

           That is an interesting point you bring up there.

           Of course KSM was waterboarded a 183 times in March 2003 alone so I hope you understand my reserve about his confessions. Something Bush, one of the main players at the time of the attacks of 911just confessed to ordering but I think this is a legitimate point and should be part of the independent investigation.

           Especially since it was just announced that NZ could, within the year be involved in full military exercises with the US. (I mean would you like NZ soldiers to die in wars only serving the super rich while killing millions of innocent Muslims and god forbid our boys?)

           Remember it was the US government who alleged the connection with Osama bin Laden and has therefore under national and international law the obligation to proof their allegations and should most certainly not be the reason to invade two countries one of which even in their allegations had absolutely no part in the attacks.

           Asking questions and bringing forth proof as to why these questions are relevant such as scientists finding Nanothermite in the WTC dust should never be detrimental to a peace movement. I therefore put it to you that the argument you put forth is one of the strongest COINTELPRO manipulational tools.

           Here are four statements of international scientists who have independently investigated dust samples of the dust gathered at the ground Zero site and around NY on that day.

           Prof S Jones on the chain of custody.
           Nils Harrit on Nano chemistry and the Thermite found in the dust.
           Mark Basile inviting every scientist to test the dust samples.
           and finally
           Jeff Farrer a physicist who describes the procedure in which he found the highly sophisticated (as in only able to be manufactured in high grade military plants and laboratory.

           I’m afraid Bookie, it is you who has to do the waking up.
           • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1.1.1

             9 November 2010 at 10:33 am

             Nah. COINTELPRO is used to make your opponents look stupid/irrelevent. the easiest way to do that isn’t to argue with them, but to exagerate their claims, exagerate the truth, exagerate that which you seek to hide.

             The phone calls between Atta and AQ, and KSM’s interviews all took place before he was arrested, so his waterboarding post-capture is not relevent.

             (I mean would you like NZ soldiers to die in wars only serving the super rich while killing millions of innocent Muslims and god forbid our boys?)

             Piss off with this shit eve. The truthers have done more than anyone to destroy the credibility of the antiwar movement.

             I’ve read plenty of their stuff, and none of it amounts to a hill of beans compared to the various reports from islamists and arab news sources, both pre and post 9/11, that document AQ’s aims, strategies and capabilities.

             Till you account for those sources, or show some indication that you know about them, I’ll not waste my time any further.
             • travellerev …

               9 November 2010 at 12:02 pm

               I take it that means you did not watch the video’s of the videos made of the four scientists who are only a few of those who were able to identify Nano-thermite particles (Highly developed thermite only produced in military plants in the US) and Iron spheres ( molten micro spheres only accountable for if NT or Thermite is used) in the dust samples?

               To this date we still have to see and open and transparent court case of KSM and nobody is denying the existence of Mohamed Atta. We would like to see his role investigated in a new and independent investigation into the events of 911.

               As would we the role of Anwar al Awlaki. The new and improved leader of al Qaeda operating from Yemen who was killed last year but keeps popping up all over the place with the latest and greatest terror attacks and turns out to be a house guest of the CIA. (According to Fox news that is)

               Steel pylons the size and many times the weight of the planes flown into the buildings flew out over several football field lengths away from the buildings. We would like to know where the energy came from to do that. The registered and aknowledged time it took for the buildings to collapse were 6.5 seconds WTC7 not hit by a plane, 10 and 11 seconds buildings 1and 2 that is just impossible with Kerosene or jet fuel in only two buildings as its source. Besides the collapse of building 7 was anticipated and other than the tree world trade buildings no steel framed building before or after has ever collapsed.

               As far as looking stupid I’m in very good company. All people who are fighting to stop the wars. People some of whom I’ve met and who I regularly communicate with. Who are your company? Oh, let me guess some naive underinformed Kiwi stone age hippies who lack the real anger of going for the throat of the ruling elite or some sadly misinformed students thinking they’ve seen it all in their youthful hubris. What’s more they apparently claim ownership of the “anti war” movement and are to scared to think outside the box to investigate for themselves.

               The “Peace” movement you talk about doesn’t need any help looking stupid and irrelevant. They are doing a great job all by themselves.

               I leave you with a request of the family members for 911 truth who in NY alone collected 80.000 signatures for a new and independent investigation into the events of 911. The judge who was supposed to make an intelligent and informed judgement asked “What building?” when they said they wanted a new investigation. Go figure, a NY judge who didn’t know a third building had collapsed that day.

               For AC,

               Read the above. Watch the video’s of the scientists who found Nano thermite in the dust and watch the video of the family members who want a new investigation. I hope you understand why I put their interests above those of a sleepy “left wing” gaggle of “peace”activists in this country. They just pay lip service to the cause while they live on their sustainable farms or go to the next lecture on global warming with a nice presentation of Al Gore and his money spinning little fairytale while his limo to his private jet keeps warm with the motor running.

               And don’t even begineth with me about being a global warming denier because I can assure you I do my part being a responsible energy efficient citizen.
               • Armchair Critic …

                 9 November 2010 at 1:19 pm

                 For AC,
                 Read the above. Watch the video’s of the scientists who found Nano thermite in the dust and watch the video of the family members who want a new investigation.
                 Thanks Ev, done. Doesn’t explain why there is no visible dust cloud from the rapid expansion of gas created by the explosion that vaporised the columns immediately before the collapse sequence began. It seems that the explosions used some previously unheard of method that produces massive forces without the resulting gas expansion, using top secret military technology that is free to ignore Newton’s Third Law. Or that it was done using a demolition technique that is not used commonly elsewhere because it is more difficult to reliably implement (although it worked this time). No, I’m still of the opinion that the official version and the truther versions are not viable.
                 I hope you understand why I put their interests above those of a sleepy “left wing” gaggle of “peace”activists in this country.
                 I assure you I do understand you motives. My question is about your methods and whether they are the best way to achieve your desired outcomes. Having said that, I doubt anything I write will cause you to change your approach.
                 They just pay lip service to the cause while they live on their sustainable farms or go to the next lecture on global warming with a nice presentation of Al Gore and his money spinning little fairytale while his limo to his private jet keeps warm with the motor running.
                 Beginning to get a little off topic there…
                 And don’t even begineth with me about being a global warming denier because I can assure you I do my part being a responsible energy efficient citizen.
                 And now you are miles away. Who said anything about you not playing you part or being a global warming denier? How is your position on that subject related to controlled demolition of the WTC?
                 Again, there is ample evidence that the US government have done a lot of atrocious stuff with no justification for many decades. I had formed a less than favourable opinion of them well before 2001. Surely your opinion is not based solely on these events. On the assumption that you have other reasons for believing the US government is not acting in the best interests of its citizens, or the rest of the world, and you want that to change, I must ask – are you sure you are going about this the right way?
                 Sure, some conspiracies are real. But they are theories and therefore the subject of debate, scrutiny, wild claims, uncertainty and skepticism. Making progress with them is at best difficult and in general impossible. It seems to me that you have picked the wrong battle. You’ve never struck me as the sort that buys Lotto tickets, yet your position on this subject is a much greater gamble. I respect your opinion and position and I hope you can understand that I think you are wasting your time and, to some extent, everyone elses.
                 • travellerev …

                   9 November 2010 at 2:06 pm

                   Here is the list of signs that the buildings were indeed brought down by it an albeit unconventional sequence of controlled ex/implosions. It was compiled by Architects and Engineers (and I might add scientists) for 911 truth. They do it much better than me. Not need for the suspension of Newton’s third law. In fact the Official CT completely ignores the three Laws so there is progress it seems from a discussion I had with T-rex here ages ago.

                   I take the leads of those family members. In your face and on the street I’m afraid. Never allowing people to forget they lost loved ones in the attacks.

                   There are conspiracies but they are theories? Huh?

                   Conspiracy= two or more people acting together in secrecy to achieve a goal (most likely not in the interest of anybody but their own hence the need for secrecy).

                   Yep, the gulf of Tonkin which dragged the Kiwi’s into another unsavoury war (ooh oops another false flag event finally admitted about two years ago), Operation Northwoods (A plan not actually activated but proposed involving airplanes and fake hijackings and crashes) The sinking of the Maine (Another false flag operation to get the Americans to got to war.

                   Conspiracy theory= A speculation about a possible conspiracy.
                   Conspiracy theorist+ engaging in theorising about said theory.

                   Demand for a new and independent investigation based on discrepancies between the prevailing story about an event and the science contradicting that story= Normal when something happens which might be a crime.

                   I’m sure you agree with me that if someone is murdered the people who lost that person are entitled to an investigation into the murder and I’m sure you would not want to call that a waste of time and effort.

                   What’s more I’m sure you will agree with me that if as a society we would let a murder go uninvestigated and the murderer go we would all loose as a society because more people might think they might get away with murder.

                   The same with fraud and illegal wars of aggression. After the events two wars were started which were based on evidence Noam Chomski who very much subscribed until recently to the “lets not waste time on 911” now deems are insufficient thereby making the wars illegal.

                   One young Kiwi recently lost his life in Afghanistan, over a million Iraqis lost their life in an illegal war started in the aftermath of the attacks, god knows how many Afghani’s were killed and now Pakistan and Yemen are for the chop and more than 70.000 first responders are dying with the dust of those buildings in their lungs. 3000 world citizens amongst whom 78 Muslims and a Kiwi were murdered on that faithful day and even the commissioners of the now disgraced 911 commission agree they were lied to from left, right and centre. For the sake of all of those I think that going back to that day and start an new and independent investigation into who and how they perpetrated the events of 911 is not waste of time.

                   Yeah, you are right but the general stupid reactions are usually: Moon landings, Global warming and other assorted shit so there I tried to stop that in the bud.
                   • Armchair Critic …

                     9 November 2010 at 2:32 pm

                     Sorry Ev, I meant theory in the sense that it has not been conclusively proved. Even the people in the videos you linked to do not all claim proof, they claim expertise and strong evidence. I’m not keen on playing semantics.
           • Armchair Critic 1.1.1.1.1.2

             9 November 2010 at 11:01 am

             Gotta say I’m with PB and TVOR on this one. Their point, that you are barking up the wrong tree, strikes a real chord. From my reading of the debate over this one I think there is a lot of common ground. I think:
             – The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are immoral, and illegal.
             – The basis for these invasions is weak, and contrived.
             I can not fathom what is achieved by debating how the justification for the invasions were contrived. IMO it serves only to distract from the point that the invasions are illegal and immoral.
             In terms of the contention that the buildings were blown up with nanothermite, I don’t believe it for a minute. After your discussion with TVOR on the Open Mike a couple of weeks ago I watched the videos of the buildings collapsing repeatedly. Initally I wanted to see the famous “freefall velocities”. Maybe they occur, maybe not. The existence of freefall velocities suggests the use of explosives, but does not prove it.
             What struck me was the lack of an explosion cloud. So I watched a whole lot more videos of controlled demolitions to see if there was a distinct explosion cloud in them. Even when shaped charges are used. And it seems that in every other cases the rapid formation of gas that occurs when an explosion that is big enough to blow up a building creates a very distinctive cloud around the site of the explosion, immediately before the colapse starts.
             So back to the WTC. Big buildings, therefore big explosions required, but no visible explosion cloud in any of the videos. Edited out in all the youtube footage by some clever geek? Or are the 911 truth movement using the logic that the buildings collapsed and it could not have been due to planes crashing into them or a large fire, so it must have been an explosion from a controlled demolition. It’s not bad logic, and the presence of a previously unheard of explosive material in the resulting dust provides some excellent support. But the lack of the characteristic explosion cloud?
             I find it really telling that the main evidence of controlled demolition is traces of explosives in dust, rather than video evidence of an explosion occurring. If an explosion could be seen in any video the truther movement would be trumpeting it from the parapets as their primary source of proof. But they aren’t, the best they can do is traces of nanothermite.
             Which leaves the choice:
             – 19 men highjack four airliners and crash them into three buildings. Seems unlikely
             – The US government uses experimental explosives (explosive that are still unavailable to demolition experts) to demolish the largest structures ever demolished with controlled explosions, without a visible explosion occuring (for the first time in history), on its own territory, in order to start a couple of wars, without anyone blowing the whistle on them. Seems less likely.
             On 11 September 2001 someone murdered about 3,000 people in NY. For the last eight years a number of countries have been illegally occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, murdering innocent citizens and plundering the country’s resources. Both are wrong, both must be addressed. The later is much worse a wrong and it is ongoing; it needs our urgent attention and is a higher priority.
             • freedom …

               9 November 2010 at 12:22 pm

               hay armchair, what do you call those massive pyroclastic coluds forming at the beginning of the TOP DOWN DEMOLITION of WTC 1&2. What is that tell tale sinking of the Airconditioning housing atop WTC7 just before it too falls into its own footprint. Shall we ask about ‘the path of least resistance’ when looking at fifteen floors toppling over at the top of the Tower only to be dust seconds later?

               So a few floors collapsed and sent dust billowing out of the buildings, fine, then how do you explain that steel framework identified to be from the upper Ten stories of WTC2 were found 400+ feet away embedded in another building?

               Also why would Demolition Companies be given topgrade military-developed Thermite when they do not need it. The stuff they use everyday works really well and is about a tenth of the cost of Nano-thermade ‘paintable’ explosive compounds used in the 9/11 Attacks

               As far as you saying there is no evidence of a controlled demolition, i am still laughing. The numerous Squibs are evident in footage everywhere and here is the important bit about WTC 1 &2…it is a TOP DOWN DEMOLITION. This was a custom deigned job with a somewhat rare collection of ‘job specs’ The widely seen footage of other controlled demolitions is misleading as they operate under a different mechanism of collpase. WTC 7 is the more classic ‘cut and pull’ demo-job.

               Oh and why, on the weekend before the attack, for the very first time since the 1993 WTC bombings, Bomb Sniffing Dogs were taken out of the WTC. Could it be because the ingition charges being placed that weekend would have been detected?
               (Thermite and Nano-Thermade require ignition. Untill a catlyst charge is set the compound is inert – )

               How did the sub-basements of WTC1&2 get destroyed by explosions BEFORE any planes hit the towers? What are the explosions that are clearly audible on numerous reports and even referred to by numerous TV reporters and witnesses.
               The best unbiased source for these events is 911 Raw, an unedited realtime dvd where the explosions prior to collapse are recorded for all to witness. The footage was taken across at Hoboken,and has been verified as authentic and unaltered.

               BTW
               i wholeheartedly agree that concentrating on ending Wars should be a priority!!!
               • Armchair Critic …

                 9 November 2010 at 2:54 pm

                 hay armchair, what do you call those massive pyroclastic coluds forming at the beginning of the TOP DOWN DEMOLITION of WTC 1&2.
                 Not sure they meet the true definition of pyroclastic, but in the interests of addressing your points I’ll run with it, pausing only to point out that your choice of words is biased and tends to stifle discussion. I have not formed an opinion on whether this is accidental or delibrate but I’ll assume the former. I call them
                 debris clouds.

                 What is that tell tale sinking of the Airconditioning housing atop WTC7 just before it too falls into its own footprint.
                 It is a sign the building is commencing its collapse. Without x-ray vision into the building structure or cctv footage from within the buuilding we can only hypothesize about what initiates the collapse.
                 Shall we ask about ‘the path of least resistance’ when looking at fifteen floors toppling over at the top of the Tower only to be dust seconds later?
                 Go on, don’t be coy. I was working as a structural engineer at the time and I know enough about strucutral engineering, and engineering principles in general, to discuss the subject. I advise you don’t under-estimate my experience or qualifications in this field.
                 So a few floors collapsed and sent dust billowing out of the buildings, fine, then how do you explain that steel framework identified to be from the upper Ten stories of WTC2 were found 400+ feet away embedded in another building?
                 It’s not my theory to explain. I’ve asked the question about the controlled demolition theory. I want to see the big explosion demolishing the big buildings, not a few huffs and puffs. Top-down demolition is inefficient and expensive, and difficult to implement.
                 Also why would Demolition Companies be given topgrade military-developed Thermite when they do not need it. The stuff they use everyday works really well and is about a tenth of the cost of Nano-thermade ‘paintable’ explosive compounds used in the 9/11 Attacks
                 Now you are outside my area of expertise. Why wouldn’t the evil government henchmen fill a number of cars with high explosives, park them in the basements of the WTC and simulatneously detonate them, having taken of responsibility for securty of the carpark over several years, then balme AQ/OBL/KSM/whoever? Don’t know that either, but it seems more plausible, and reliable, than controlled demolition.
                 As far as you saying there is no evidence of a controlled demolition, i am still laughing.
                 Irrespective of who did 911 it is no laughing matter. How callous are you?
                 The numerous Squibs are evident in footage everywhere…
                 The Titanic hit lots of little icecubes before it sunk. They didn’t sink it, though.
                 and here is the important bit about WTC 1 &2…it is a TOP DOWN DEMOLITION. This was a custom deigned job with a somewhat rare collection of ‘job specs’ The widely seen footage of other controlled demolitions is misleading as they operate under a different mechanism of collpase. WTC 7 is the more classic ‘cut and pull’ demo-job.
                 So a different spec for each building. Why complicate the spec? Why not demolish them all the same way?
                 Oh and why, on the weekend before the attack, for the very first time since the 1993 WTC bombings, Bomb Sniffing Dogs were taken out of the WTC. Could it be because the ingition charges being placed that weekend would have been detected?
                 (Thermite and Nano-Thermade require ignition. Untill a catlyst charge is set the compound is inert – )
                 Could be. There are other plausible explanations, too. Here’s a question – were the bomb sniffing dogs trained to detect either substance? The “topgrade military-developed Thermite” is pretty expensive and difficult to manufacture. So it would be quite uncomon and dificult to obtain.
                 How did the sub-basements of WTC1&2 get destroyed by explosions BEFORE any planes hit the towers?
                 A subject we could debate endlessly, without getting close to agreeing.
                 What are the explosions that are clearly audible on numerous reports and even referred to by numerous TV reporters and witnesses.
                 And why don’t they produce anything like the size of the explosion required to vaporize the columns?
                 The best unbiased source for these events is 911 Raw, an unedited realtime dvd where the explosions prior to collapse are recorded for all to witness. The footage was taken across at Hoboken,and has been verified as authentic and unaltered.
                 I’m very skeptical about the whole subject.
                 BTW
                 i wholeheartedly agree that concentrating on ending Wars should be a priority!!!
                 Fantastic.
                 Don’t get me wrong on the subject – I’m not saying the US government were not involved, I’m open to the idea. What I am saying is the ideas put forward by the 911 truth movement are no less foolish than the ideas they criticise. As far as I am concerned no one has put forward a plausible explanation.
                 • lprent …

                   9 November 2010 at 3:55 pm

                   Not sure they meet the true definition of pyroclastic

                   They don’t – the clue is in the ‘pyro’ which means pretty damn hot…
                   • Armchair Critic …

                     9 November 2010 at 4:13 pm

                     Yeah, I know. Trying to avoid a head-to-head confrontation on semantic grounds.
                     I’m wondering whether TVoR et al have convinced ev and freedom of the error of their ways and they’ve given up the 911 truth thing, or whether the record for the longest comment is about to be broken.
                   • freedom …

                     9 November 2010 at 4:59 pm

                     ‘pyro’ was a clumsy choice of words.

                     i was meaning to include the qualifier of ‘resemble pyroclastic clouds’ and I freely admit a symantic error.

                     the reference to pyroclastic cloud is to the velocity, force and magnitude of debris mass that is being ejected from the initiated collapse. I am well aware that we have no way to verify the heat of the cloud, though as there was very little heat damage to persons or property when the cloud enveloped Manhatten, I do not perceive it to be a major factor in the ensuing destruction.

                     There are numerous non-responses in your reply above, and today i am short on time to address them, but one glaring statement deserves attention-

                     “Top-down demolition is inefficient and expensive, and difficult to implement.” (well d’uh! )

                     Future work orders to meet contemporary building regulations in Manhatten were going to cost around one billion US dollars to renovate WTC 1&2, as well as bring the out of date systems in-line with modern technology. As a confessed structural engineer you would understand the magnitude of that job. Faced with a billion dollar re-fit the demo was a fortuitous co-incidence.
                   • Armchair Critic …

                     9 November 2010 at 5:23 pm

                     There are numerous non-responses in your reply above…
                     C’mon, gimme credit, I quoted everything you said and commented on it. I won’t pretend to have all the answers. How about you admit the same for the questions I asked of you. You are not the only one short of time.
                     but one glaring statement deserves attention-
                     “Top-down demolition is inefficient and expensive, and difficult to implement.” (well d’uh! )
                     I’d hardly count “well d’uh” as “attention”. I’ll reiterate my point on the assumption it was insufficiently clear.
                     There were more reliable ways to demolish the buildings, yet the alleged conspirators chose an inefficient, expensive and unreliable method. That doesn’t make sense.
                     Future work orders to meet contemporary building regulations in Manhatten were going to cost around one billion US dollars to renovate WTC 1&2, as well as bring the out of date systems in-line with modern technology.
                     OK.
                     As a confessed structural engineer you would understand the magnitude of that job.
                     Not sure this is relevant but, for the record, I am not currently a practicing structural engineer.
                     Faced with a billion dollar re-fit the demo was a fortuitous co-incidence.
                     I assume you are suggesting that one of the reasons for 911 was to avoid these costs. The building standards were set by a government organisation. As far as I can see the Ports Authority, who owned the buildings, were government-owned. In situations such as the one you hint at, the most common method of resolution is through negotiation, because this is cheaper, quicker and less risky than conspiring to blow buildings up. And they involve the deaths of many less people. You offered to explain “paths of least resistance” in a previous comment. How about you apply your logic to this aspect of the conspiracy?
                   • travellerev …

                     9 November 2010 at 5:28 pm

                     According to Wikipedia the gases in a pyroclastic flow can reach up to 1000 °C. This is a “hot” pyroclastic flow and can develop speeds of up to 700 km per hour.

                     The North tower stood 417m high had 110 floors contained 600.000 tons of concrete and some 200.000 tons of steel. The South tower was more than a 100m taller because of the radio mast.

                     All of that pulverised within 10 seconds at a speed of a little less than 60 meters per second or 216 km per hour.

                     According to this table steel does not melt under 1360 °C and Iron takes a whopping 1530 °C to melt. This a photo sample of the billions of iron spheres (not a by product of melting steel by the way) found in the dust of the WTC towers. So my guess is that keeping in mind Newton’s three laws of motion as AC pointed out somewhere a long the line something must have been hot enough to produce these minuscule iron spheres far exceeding pyroclastic temperatures.

                     Added to that satellite pictures of the WTC site showed that extremely high temperatures persisted under ground for months

                     Again pointing at the temperatures and the three laws of motion somewhere along the line something must have been extremely energetic. No plane and no amount of Jet fuel could have caused this and in the case of WTC 7 there was no plane and no Jet fuel and that went down at the same speed with the same pulverisation of the building materials.

                     I put it to you that while the speed may not have been the maximum speed for a pyroclastic flow the temperatures at some stage most certainly were.
                     We must also keep in mind that the speed was not dictated by an explosion like from a volcano but by an astonishing speedy conversion of solid concrete held together by a steel frame into a pyroclastic flow of dust.

                     Iprent don’t patronise me it doesn’t look good OK? I know I test your patience from time to time but I support my statements with facts and I truly think that it is an important enough subject even for New Zealand which seems to think on the whole that we are save distance away not to have to worry about anything, to expose myself to ridicule over here.

                     I’ll tell you what: Invite me over to Wellington and put me up against a team of architects and scientists and I’ll debate them step by step on this subject. And if I win which I’m confident I will you will organise a meeting with every major politician you can get your hands on for me and one other 911 truther of my choice because if 911 was not perpetrated by 19 young Saudi’s who got lucky getting passed the best air defence system in the world then we have a massive problem. Especially since we are soon to be involved in Military exercises with the military of the country in which these events occurred.

                     If on the other hand I loose (rules will have to be set of course) I will never ever publish on this subject on this blog again.

                     I’ll publish this challenge on my facebook page too so there can be no misunderstanding here.

                     Hope to hear from you soon.
         • freedom 1.1.1.1.2

           9 November 2010 at 11:43 am

           PB,

           Truthers, no matter how disdainful their existence in this perfect little propoganda filled world, have one thing on there side. The Truth!

           If you would only spend a couple of hours giving honest inquiry into the subject of 9/11 then you would find questions that the Official Story simply does not, will not and in many cases cannot answer. On many questions of the day they simply refuse to answer.

           An example, The official Story decided that the 47 steel columns that held up 110 floors in each of the Twin Towers was stopping the computer model from proving the ‘Pancake Collapse Theory’, so what do they do? They decided not to include the columns. The 9/11 Commission Report simply chose not to mention them in the structural analyses of the event. Constantly throughout the investigation, eveidence is removed , eg-all the cctv footage from the Pentagon, or sent to China for ‘Recycling’ eg-all the steel from ground Zero (which was removed BEFORE an official investigation of 9/11 was even begun)

           Why did over 400 days pass before any investigation of the events of 9/11was enacted? They told you on the day and in the aftermath,who had done it, where the hijackers came from and what type of boxcutter they used, yet they cannot answer how two six tonne jet engines (and the rest of the palne, seats, tail, wings etc) made of Steel and Alloys can evaporate in the Pentagon fireball yet 180+ people, made of flesh and bone, can be identified through body parts “strewn around the area”

           Too difficult to look at? Go down easy street then, start with Building 7. The third tower to fall on that tragic day. yes three skyscrapers fell on 9/11. Building 7 was a 47 story steel frame building that fell down with no practical explanation. 9/11 Deniers have so much trouble accepting the proof of controlled demolition, despite the fact they saw it happen. This will not go away. Fact is fact and propoganda can sell you anything…

           Get your head aligned with the focus of the perps, this is not about the US government but factions within it and Governments everywhere. The people who committed this atrocity have no sovereignty but are well versed in the power of allegiances.
           The Industrial Military Puppeteers are massive criminals who are doing whatever is necessary in the incremental progression towards a Global Prison Planet.

           There is ample proof of this motive. I am not going to hand feed you a mass of links as there are paths you must find for yourself, for your own judgment is the only one you should trust. But please stop believing the lies and look at the evidence. Pick one aspect, say Building 7, and spend one hour being honest and unbiased in your research. Forget Politics and Money and right and left, stick to questions of known physical science. If after an hour investigating the collapse of Building 7 you still believe the official theory of ‘Thermal Expansion’ , I would then ask why did the investigators fundamentally change their explanation of the event three times over eight years, leaving us with a ‘brand new (unique, never seen before or since) failure-event’ that should have at the very least led to serious Building Code adjustments for steel frame buildings.

           Ask yourself a simple question.
           What do the Truthers have to gain from this campaign? We are an international wave of independant people with no agenda or motive other than proving the reality of events from September 11 2001. Now ask yourself what does an Industrial-Military-Corpocracy have to gain from the events of 9/11, and do they have means and opportunity to achieve it?

           We face a truth your eyes forgot
           • AndyB 1.1.1.1.2.1

             9 November 2010 at 12:13 pm

             You seem to ignore the facts that:

             • many eyewitnesses saw a plane crash into the Pentagon;

             • the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site;

             • eyewitness reports and photographs show plane debris at the Pentagon crash site;

             • passengers on American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls, reporting their aircraft had been hijacked; and

             This is just the start of the list of reasons why you would have to be crazy to think it was not a plane that hit the pentagon.
             • travellerev …

               9 November 2010 at 12:30 pm

               All good points and much used to deviate from real questions we have with regards to unexplained scientific impossibilities as we described above such as the impossible collapse of WTC 7.

               Over 100 video’s of the attack on the Pentagon have been confiscated by the FBI. Of course if a plane hit the Pentagon there will be victims at the scene. If the perpetrators were prepared to kill thousands in the WTC they would have n problem with some more at the Pentagon.

               We would like to see a new and independent investigation including the 100 confiscated videos into what happened at the Pentagon too because unless we have those as we have ample video’s of the events in NY and dust from the buildings and many witness statements with regards to the explosions bringing the buildings down all is mere speculation.

               But thanks for bringing that up.
             • freedom …

               9 November 2010 at 12:44 pm

               You seem to ignore the facts that:

               • many eyewitnesses saw a plane crash into the Pentagon;
               Only a couple of people reported a plane, most said it was a small plane not a Boeing 757-223. which is not a small plane. ‘The plane’ had to fly over a freeway at six feet above the tarmac, crashing light poles out of the ground ( all poles show they were unbolted, not broken) before crashing into the side of the Pentagon leaving only an initial impact hole of 16 feet. Yes 16 feet. The oft shown collapsed Pentagon wall did not happen untill hours after the ‘impact’. Two points here, one, there were large cable reels directly in front of the crash line, yet were undamaged, two with a wingspan of 124 feet how can the impact hole be only 16 feet?

               ——————————————————-

               • the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site;

               How can two six tonne jet engines (and the rest of the plane, seats, tail, wings etc) made of Steel and Alloys evaporate in the Pentagon fireball yet 180+ people, made of flesh and bone, can be identified through body parts “strewn around the area”
               ————————————
               • eyewitness reports and photographs show plane debris at the Pentagon crash site;

               men in white shirts and ties collecting ‘EVIDENCE’ before an investigation began and ‘EVIDENCE’ not seen since!No wing sections, no Tail section, no seats, luggage etc, oh and how come the only engine parts found come from not a Boeing 757-223, but an engine more commonly used in Cruise missiles and Drone aircraft
               ————————————————————————-
               • passengers on American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls, reporting their aircraft had been hijacked; and

               if it was so easy to make a cell call from an American Airlines plane why did the same company make a huge deal out of their In-Air Cell Service they launched in 2004. ?
               Why does the transcripts of these calls read like a bad disaster movie? Including the infamous ” It’s me Mom, Mark Bingham, you believe me don’t you?’
               when did you ever use your last name when talking to your MUM?

               This is just the start of the list of reasons why you would have to be crazy to think it was not a plane a boeing 757-223 that hit the pentagon.
               • freedom …

                 9 November 2010 at 12:54 pm

                 oops, last line shouls have read..
                 This is just the start of the list of reasons why you would have to be crazy to think it was a boeing 757-223 that hit the pentagon
               • AndyB …

                 9 November 2010 at 1:16 pm

                 dont have time to get into a game of comment tennis with you but i will say the following:

                 “Only a couple of people reported a plane, most said it was a small plane not a Boeing 757-223. which is not a small plane. ‘The plane’ had to fly over a freeway at six feet above the tarmac”

                 only a couple of people?!? enough said, there where dozens, if not 100’s of people.

                 “How can two six tonne jet engines (and the rest of the plane, seats, tail, wings etc) made of Steel and Alloys evaporate in the Pentagon fireball”

                 But they didn’t evaporate, there are plenty of photographs of plane wreckage, including, landing gear, seat frames, engine components (including main fan assembly), body panels, etc.

                 “how can the impact hole be only 16 feet”

                 The impact hole in the front of the pentagon was a crap load bigger than 16 feet. Even before the wall collapse. Being that the body section of a 757 is about 12 – 14 feet wide, it is not surprising that there is a 16 foot hole in the back of the C ring. But i can assure you that the hole in the front wall of the pentagon was about 90 feet wide.

                 http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html

                 The problem with the internet is that everyone has an opinion of everything, and now everyone believes they are physics professors.

                 sorry mate, there is absolutely no claim you can throw at me which i cant discredit in about 30 seconds with the help of Google.

                 you are only seeing what you want to see.
                 • Rosy …

                   9 November 2010 at 1:33 pm

                   “If this investigation shows that no evidence exists for the involvement of 19 predominantly Saudi young men under the command of an elderly Saudi man ”

                   Rewriters of 9/11 are propogandists too? Osama bin Laden was born in 1957. That doesn’t make hime elderly now, and certainly not elderly when 9/11 occurred (Of course I’m assuming it’s OBL being talked about here)
                   • freedom …

                     9 November 2010 at 2:25 pm

                     is this a good time to mention that 9 of the 19 highjackers are proven to be not only alive but completely innocent of everycharge levelled against them. Despite this they still appear on the FBI most wanted list?

                     and remember Osama Bin Laden is not officially charged with any crimes in relation to 9/11, not one!
                   • Armchair Critic …

                     9 November 2010 at 2:46 pm

                     freedom – Is that this list?
                     http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists
                     I guess it’s not, because none of the people on it are listed as the 911 hijackers. And I guess that’s because the FBI must officially believe they are dead. After all, the US government has said they were vaporised almost ten years ago. Why would they put people on a wanted list if they thought they were vaporised? It’s not like a body could be produced, much less a living person.
                     So it must be a list that us ordinary people can’t access. Right? So we just have someone’s word that the list exists.
                   • freedom …

                     9 November 2010 at 5:12 pm

                     Armchair,
                     it appears that even the FBI update their files from time to time. One person cannot be checking every fact every day and the hi-jackers were still listed there a year ago,

                     so they only had the wrong suspects up on the most wanted terrorist list for eight years not nine, my bad
                   • Armchair Critic …

                     9 November 2010 at 5:28 pm

                     Maybe google cache will have a copy from between 2001 and 2009 where FBI said they were looking for people their government thought had been vaporised. I’ve had enough 911 for the day, but if you find something please post a link – I have a hat that looks sort of appetising.
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     9 November 2010 at 6:10 pm

                     So which ones are still alive?

                     http://www.911myths.com/html/the_19_martyrs_video.htm

                     that’s a grab of an AQ video celebrating the deaths of the martyrs.

                     There was a bbc story right after the event that caused some confusion about one of the hijackers, they have since clarified this, it was a simple spelling error. There was also a book that came out of germany, which in part relied on the bbc report, and had other simple mistaken identity cases. So I’d like to see this proof you have.

                     The Saudi govt accepted that 15 of the hijackers were their citizens, and they made contact with their families. Given that up until they acknowledged this, they were denying that their citizens would have been involved, it seems likely that if any of those fifteen were not dead, then they wouldn’t have acknowledged their guilt. No?

                     http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

                     But like I said, I’d like to see this proof.
                 • freedom …

                   9 November 2010 at 1:55 pm

                   personally, I make time for truth as it affects every part of our modern world.

                   The events leading from 9/11, and before, are integral in the machinations of fascism that are overtaking Democracy world wide. I will back my reality over your illusion. There are no more telling responses than people quoting ‘In Plane Sight’ These people should be aware that its content is NOT a bible of the Truth Movement.

                   In Plane Sight is a flawed and generally clumsy video, full of innaccuracies and innuendo.

                   Loose Change,1&2 are far superior but still have some ‘judgments’ that are suppositions at best. All of the main films only deal with aspects of the whole story as the subject is so vast.

                   The best eveidence of the Official Story changing facts to suit are the volumes of data in unedited testimony that live TV broadcasts and commentary provide. especially when looking at the Pennsylvania event for example.

                   The best place to find real questions are the films and lectures by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. An unbiased and technical look at the issue from qualified professionals, including real life Physics Professors.

                   one last thing Andy et al, if there was footage of a 757-223 impacting the Pentagon it would have been released. There is no credible reason to keep it secret. The Pentagon was the most (public) CCTV surveilled buliding on the planet and the best footage they have to release, searching hundreds of confiscated tapes from the area, is five undefinable frames showing a fireball? You may recall when those five frames were first released the datestamp was showing 10-11-2001, then the next day the correct datestamp had been applied.
               • The Voice of Reason …

                 9 November 2010 at 1:30 pm

                 Lord, this is a circular argument, isn’t it? No amount of fantasising gets around the fact that those planes crashed and the people on them and in the towers died. The US Government has never needed an excuse to go to war before, so why would they feel the need to engineer this ridiculously complex conspiracy? If they felt the public needed to be outraged, why not simply blow up the US embassy in Kabul? A lot easier to do, a lot easier to cover up. Just as compelling a reason to go to war.

                 Even if it was the most succesful conspiracy in human history, perpetrated by people who previously couldn’t even burgle a hotel or shag an intern without getting caught, what difference does it make? Suppose the survivalist right is correct and it’s a Washington inside job, what difference does it make? Suppose nano whatevers where used, what difference does it make? Suppose Cheney admits that they did it, it was all a neo con con, what difference does that make?

                 None, except to strengthen the hand of the most reactionary forces in the US.

                 So, knock yourselves out. Keep wasting time on this pointless exercise and remember, even if you could be proven right, you would be helping the most conservative, insular, xenophobic section of american politics in their hatred of the state apparatus in their own country and their fear of the peoples of the rest of the world.
                 • freedom …

                   9 November 2010 at 2:11 pm

                   please do not put Truthers in the same boat as Tea Partiers.
                   i feel dirty even having to write that name.

                   Whilst it is true some Truthers WERE Tea partiers (untill the Tea Party was hijacked by the “most conservative, insular, xenophobic section of american politics’ namely Palin and Beck) that does not justify tarring the whole movement with one brush. Surely the flaw of that argument is self aware.

                   Truthers are not a political party but of course politics do play a part. Most Truthers i know are very clear that their personal politics are a seperate issue when the subject of 9/11 is discussed. It is called being objective and with 9/11 if you are incapable of objectivity then you are already lost.

                   Unless some uncomfortable answers are seen to some very big questions then the progress of the Globalists will continue unfettered. As Building 7 is the smoking gun of 9/11, then by its very influence on Geo-Politics, 9/11 is the smoking gun of the Globalist Agenda
                   • The Voice of Reason …

                     9 November 2010 at 3:08 pm

                     While I certainly would put the Tea partiers and the truthers in the same boat, if it was a long way off the coast and sinking fast, I never actually mentioned the Tea Party. As for objectivity, the truther community are easily as objective as the folk who believe in ghosts and gods. Despite a complete lack of logic or evidence, belief gets them past the tricky question of proof. As I have said previously, the truthers are linked to the political saddoes who are always trying to find evidence of a Big Government conspiracy to keep the fifty states and their citizens in line and to take away freedoms they don’t actually have anyway.

                     Still, it’s funny to think that the Tea Party was hijacked by Palin and Beck at the same time as the Tea Party was hijacking the Republican party. I’m betting Palin wasn’t the brains behind that stitch up, eh?

                     At least your final comment puts some perspective on things. It’s all part of the Globalist Agenda, as indeed am I, Elvis and the tiny fossilised body of Christ I keep on the shelf next to the Hitler diaries. We know where you live, Freedom, and we’re coming to get ya.
                 • travellerev …

                   9 November 2010 at 3:07 pm

                   TVOR,

                   How interesting,

                   Let’s scale that back OK?

                   In a neighbourhood in a city, a rich but rough neighbourhood (since we’re thinking global here that should not be much of a problem) a heinous murder is committed. Not one but several people are found burned to death when their house burned down. Several people say they saw explosions and others said they saw those explosions come from the cellar but all agree that the worst explosions came form the top and then the bullies of the neighbourhood, the bosses shall we say, tell everybody that the victims were murdered by some people of other neighbourhoods and that they should attack those neighbourhoods. No evidence is offered and the crime scene is cleaned up against the protest of fire fighters and police who think that a thorough investigation should take place. Instead the neighbourhood picks up their pitch forks and whatever arms they can find and they attack two other neighbourhoods. Not only that, the bullies say that all the other neighbourhoods must take sites and nobody wants to be on the side of the two neighbourhoods the bullies want to attack so they all join in the attacks on the two neighbourhoods.

                   Some people remark that it is lucky those neighbourhoods are rich in lets say oil and other resources and that it seems somewhat suspect that the bullies end up with all the dosh and guess what the inter-neighbouring rioting costs a lot of money which mostly seems to end up in the pockets of those same bullies too. With all this fighting going on there are a couple of people running around shouting, ‘we need peace and stop the fighting”, but on the whole they don’t have a lot of influence and then a couple of people say, “He wait a minute something is not quit right here. Where is the proof that these neighbourhoods have anything to do with the murders in the first neighbourhood,” we want a new investigation. What’s more the family of the murder victims wants just like the police, fire fighters and CSI’s and the people asking questions, a murder investigation.

                   And than the most amazing thing happens. All those people running after the bullies who believed the bullies or at least did not doubt their initial story begin to protest because all you will do is support “a group who didn’t like the bullies in the first place”, who wanted to be left alone and think that waging wars of aggression is wasteful and against the way of life as they understand it in their neighbourhood and all because these people have ideas the others don’t like such as no abortions, isolationism, good Christian family values and the world was created by god and not by evolution and fossils were placed in the earth by God to test mankind. Oh, and they feel it’s a God given right to carry guns I think. (If their ruling elite is guilty of 911 and they are the one who control the army than that sort of makes sense though, doesn’t it?)

                   Let me end this parable with a reason as to why those powerlessly running around saying don’t fight, don’t fight should perhaps for the time being join their numbers with those who think fossils are a test from God.

                   For one there is strength in numbers and both have an interest in finding out who murderer those people if only because it will help stop people in general killing each other which comes in handy when after they have found the real perpetrators they start to fight over less important things again (which of course is inevitable)
                   And the truth itself is a shining light which when unveiled has a tendency to burn away the bizarre and the damage done by the lying of bullies.

                   Cpatcha: lie. deuh?
                 • Vicky32 …

                   9 November 2010 at 7:18 pm

                   You keep banging on about how the truth movement is or is led by the survivalist right, VOR, and sounding pretty rightist yourself, in your sneers. What makes you so emotionally vested in believing that the 9/11 truth movement is full of right wing people?
                   Not in NZ and the UK it’s not, and being part of it in NZ and Europe, I can assure you that you’re wrong.
                   Deb
         • Vicky32 1.1.1.1.3

           9 November 2010 at 7:07 pm

           “Anyway, all this truther nonsense is just COINTEL propaganda designed to make the antiwar movement look bad. You need to wake up.”
           All due respect, I fear it’s you who should ‘wake up’ PB. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been in custody and under torture for years. He’s say that there were lizards running the UN if he was told to! How bizarre of you to use anything he says to back up neocon assertions…
           • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1.3.1

             9 November 2010 at 7:27 pm

             Also Yosri Fouda’s book “masterminds of terror” details his interviews with KSM and other senior AQ figures, prior to their capture.

             I’m talking about interviews from before he was captured, before. Read Yosri Fouda’s book. I’m not using KSM to back up ‘neocon assertions’, I’m using him to back up his own assertions that he gave in an interview with Yosri Fouda when he was still at liberty, before he was captured. Before the CIA got hold of him. Interviews in which he detailed the plot and took great pride in his role in orchestrating it.
     • Vicky32 1.1.2

       9 November 2010 at 7:04 pm

       That’s abusive in the extreme, Zorr. If you call her a Truther moron, you’re calling me one as well.
       Deb
       • freedom 1.1.2.1

         9 November 2010 at 7:40 pm

         PB you do make some silly statements at times, but calling truthers morons is pathetic, even for you. You are seriously calling these PHD’s, Generals, Judges, Doctors and thousands of other qualified professionals morons?

         and as for this pile of pungent words-
         “The truthers have done more than anyone to destroy the credibility of the antiwar movement.”
         -whatever you are smoking, change your fertiliser
         • Pascal's bookie 1.1.2.1.1

           9 November 2010 at 8:45 pm

           PB you do make some silly statements at times, but calling truthers morons is pathetic, even for you.

           So what if I didn’t?
           • freedom 1.1.2.1.1.1

             9 November 2010 at 9:12 pm

             Funny thing happened on the way to the Enter key,
             total and complete brain fade,
             i am genuinely sorry for that,
             I had been bugged by the comment all day. I had it in the back of my mind to reply to Zorr when vicky32 noted her reaction, it jolted my nagging annoyance yet somehow I mixed that in with the reply i was writing to you tonight. Sincerely hope i have caused no moral offense or worse, and i will be more careful in my addressing of comments.

             There has been a lot of progress in the workshop today and i think i let my annoyance at the slow grind here on-line colour my mood, resulting in my getting personal, which i do try to avoid, especially on Truther issues, getting the addressee wrong is plainly embarassing and penance is served? In short i apologise
   • The Voice of Reason 1.2

     9 November 2010 at 7:50 am

     I think you are reading too much into Chomsky’s words, Trav. From the links you give, I would say that his position is similar to mine. I believe that 9/11 was a thin excuse for invading Afghanistan, but it does not invalidate the truth of what happened on that day. The links between Osama and the 19 men who carried out the attack has never been proven conclusively, and probably never will be, given their deaths and Osama’s disappearance, but that doesn’t mean there is no link. Certainly, al Queda claimed credit and there is a link between Osama and the Taliban and I can’t blame the US for seeing both as legitimate targets in the days after the attack.

     All I’ve learned this morning is that the truther movement remains a right wing fantasy and Chomsky clearly has not joined it.

     ps, unlike Zorr, I don’t think you are a moron. Just barking up the wrong tree on this non issue.
     • travellerev 1.2.1

       9 November 2010 at 8:51 am

       TVOR,

       I don’t read anything in Chomsky’s words.
       I simply state that until now Chomsky was against the war because he saw it as another war of empire and that they used the events of 911 as an excuse to invade Afghanistan.

       In the recent interview he very clearly states that was no proof supplied for Al Qaeda involvement implying that the Government actively lied about their reasons to go to war.

       This is a shift from his previous position that the attack on Afghanistan was just a brutal war of conquest with or without proof of al Qaeda involvement and he in fact thought that Conspiracy theories and the truther movement were thoroughly impossible and detrimental to the anti war movement.

       That is a huge shift because if the Goverment lied about al Qaeda and therefore the war is actually illegal and criminal there could be grounds for an investigation as to why the Government lied to take the country to war and he opens himself up to a debate about what the consequences are if what he says is true.

       That’s all.

       Funny though how that left right paradigm keeps you stuck. I quote left and right and still for some I’m a right wing and for others a left wing nutter.

       And a about the moron bit. Sticks and stones, TVOR, sticks and stones…

       Just so long as bit by bit people educate themselves and begin to understand that the ruling elite is happy to lie and kill and destroy to greedily gorge themselves on others misery.

       Thanks for the open microphone column possibility guys.
       • The Voice of Reason 1.2.1.1

         9 November 2010 at 10:16 am

         Cheers, you are dead right that the left/right paradigm keeps me stuck. Hopefully, it keeps me stuck in reality. I have always used the ‘who benefits’ test in any muddy political event to try and work out who the players are.

         In 9/11, whether or not Osama was actively involved, it was done in his name and he took credit for it. Al Queda is a loose organisation, a sort of fundy franchise. The various factions have limited connections with each other, which is classic guerilla cell technique. Minimal points of contact mean that the capture of a single cell yields limited information to the intelligence agencies.

         The cells act autonomously, but in line with the wider plans. My guess is that the organisers of the attack would have sought approval from higher up, but without revealing any tactical detail. Higher up does not always mean Osama, either, but clearly, he was happy to take the credit.

         As to the legality of the invasion of Afghanistan, I simply don’t care. The removal of the Taliban from power is a positive by-product of the 9/11 response, whatever the legal niceties. Frankly, I’m so used to the Americans invading other countries directly or by proxy that its hardly a surprise anymore when they do. But, again, the leaglity issue is primarily fuel for the US right, particularly the ‘states’ rights’ proponents. Opposition to involvement in any foreign war is still strong in the US and is not helped by an education system designed to strengthen fear and ignorance about the outside world.

         As I’ve said before on this site, the truther movement is not something lefties should take seriously, except to oppose it where neccesary. That a few otherwise intelligent, caring people from the left are fooled into supporting such a meaningless, mindless and conservative campaign is sad, but that’s life, eh? If only the passion and the effort could go into something that makes a difference in the world, rather than the dead end of chasing UFO’s, ghosts or gigantic conspiracies that can never be proven.
   • Vicky32 1.3

     9 November 2010 at 7:01 pm

     That’s good news! (I was always disappointed with his point of view about it, so I am glad to hear that he’s changed his mind…)
     Deb
2. joe90 2

   9 November 2010 at 8:15 am

   Climate Science 1956:A Blast from the Past.

   Environmentalist Peter Sinclair’s new video points out that scientists have been aware of the danger of global warming for more than 50 years.
   • ianmac 2.1

     9 November 2010 at 10:18 am

     In 1959 I gathered information through the International Geophysical Year 1955- 1960, and gave a seminar on Global warming and the possible effect on ice caps and sea levels. It seemed that then and more so now, all that was considered at risk.
3. Pascal's bookie 3

   9 November 2010 at 8:24 am

   Long read that’s well worth the time invested in reading it. Can’t recommend it enough, and excerpts would be an injustice. Y’all just gonna haff ta read the whole damn thing.

   Bill Moyers on plutonomy, the supreme court, and a whole lot of what all else; all tied together and laid out nice and fine, in a speech given as part of the Howard Zinn (FTW: RIP: Too damn soon) lecture series at Boston U.

   Visible text
   • joe90 3.1

     9 November 2010 at 12:56 pm

     Video, lecture starts around 7 minutes in, after the intros.
4. ianmac 4

   9 November 2010 at 11:16 am

   Chris Trotter on “State’s take on common sense under challenge” and “the mask of consent”

   “Two hundred and twenty primary and intermediate school boards of trustees have announced their intention to obstruct the Government’s policy of requiring all primary and intermediate schools to implement national standards in reading, writing and numeracy.
   In what is fast becoming a classic Gramscian confrontation, the 220 boards (representing a 10th of the total) are contesting the common sense of the National Government’s policy. ”

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/4322583/States-take-on-common-sense-under-challenge
5. Draco T Bastard 5

   9 November 2010 at 12:08 pm

   Will They Be Built Here?

   Expressions of interest close this week for a project labelled ‘Design, Manufacture, Test and Delivery of 300 Container Flat Top Wagons’, advertised on the Government Electronic Tenders Service.

   But will the government look to keep jobs here?

   Clearly the government is willing to sign cheques and make changes to employment law for an American corporate to keep jobs here. This was in contrast with its unwillingness in May this year to back a local build of the electric multiple units for the Auckland rail network.

   Probably not which would put the lie to the NACTs giving Warner Bros another $33m of our money. It wasn’t about the jobs but about giving NACTs rich mates more of our money.
   • ianmac 5.1

     9 November 2010 at 12:25 pm

     Perhaps the Government wants only to keep commercial skills going but not industrial skills. Wonder if those highly skilled engineers would feel compelled to head off to Australia since they are needed there. What? There is a growing gap ‘twixt Australia and NZ?
6. higherstandard 6

   9 November 2010 at 12:47 pm

   You go away for a year and nothing changes.
   • The Voice of Reason 6.1

     9 November 2010 at 1:34 pm

     That’s very depressing, HS. Surely you’ve improved in some way in the last twelve months?
7. Draco T Bastard 7

   9 November 2010 at 1:16 pm

   Attorney General raises concerns over alcohol reform bill

   A report on the Alcohol Reform Bill, by Attorney General Chris Finalyson, says “several provisions” of the bill appear to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act and “are not justified”.

   The bill would make it possible for police to arrest someone for breaching a liquor ban, which is an “infringement offence”.

   “A power of arrest for an infringement offence raises an issue of arbitrariness on several counts,” Mr Finalyson’s report says.

   More attacks on our rights from the authoritarian NACT government.
8. William Joyce 8

   9 November 2010 at 2:37 pm

   Today, Hon David Carter said, in a ministerial statement to the house, that he had been advised by Crosby/Textor that the discovery of PSA among kiwifruit vines was not a problem created by the National-lead coalition government and that it was a consequence of “the mismanagement of the New Zealand economny under nine years of a Labour government.”
   Seeking leave of the house Mr Carter tabled a report in the form of an aged, well worn, coffee-stained, printed email from Crosby/Textor stating “Relentlessly blame everything on Labour”.
   Attached was a well worn six figure invoice for this PR advisory service.
   * Mr Carter was later heard to ask the clerk to return the document once it had been copied as he said that the National goverment would be needing it again later in question time especially by Mr English.
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     9 November 2010 at 2:43 pm

     Bad man. You made me cry.
   • ianmac 8.2

     9 November 2010 at 4:17 pm

     There you go then. Transparency is the word from National. “The Hon David Carter went on to table the contents of his Trusts outlining the 17 interests he had in Irrigation NZ, and his interest in 12 Dairy Farm Expansion Companies. Wow.
9. Draco T Bastard 9

   9 November 2010 at 4:52 pm

   National proves, once again, that we need more open government so that we can hold our ministers accountable.
10. freedom 10

    9 November 2010 at 6:23 pm

    armchair
    -to answer why i mentioned you would appreciate the refit tasks, i quote you-
    “I was working as a structural engineer at the time and I know enough about strucutral engineering, and engineering principles in general, to discuss the subject. I advise you don’t under-estimate my experience or qualifications in this field.”

    ‘There are numerous non-responses in your reply above’
    -yes you put some sentences after my questions but mostly without content for example;
    :i asked– “How did the sub-basements of WTC1&2 get destroyed by explosions BEFORE any planes hit the towers?” you replied- “A subject we could debate endlessly, without getting close to agreeing.”

    ‘Shall we ask about ‘the path of least resistance’ when looking at fifteen floors toppling over at the top of the Tower only to be dust seconds later?’
    -Numerous videos show the intact portion of the Tower, approximately fifteen stories high, above the impact hole of the plane beginning to topple over in a classic ‘path of least resistance’ which sees it arc out of alignment with the vertical edge of the Tower before absurdly beginning a rapid vertical descent as it inexplicably becomes dust.

    Imagine this part of the tower as a ground based building. This is a fifteen story building with no damage save a few fires and a bit of a hole in its in its lower floors that have damaged its vertical stability. As the area of weakness intenisifies, the building appears to begin to lean, it is falling over, with no downforce pressure upon it bar gravity and its own mass, we see the path of least resistance. We can even accurately predict where that fifteen story building will end up, and how much other realestate will be taken out in its collapse. As you are making sure you are not standing in the path of this action, controlled by physical laws we all know and live with, something amazing happens…. the fifteen story building turns to dust in front of your eyes.
    Please tell me how that happens without explosives?

    ‘Why wouldn’t the evil government henchmen fill a number of cars….’
    -two words — plausible deniability

    ‘The Titanic hit lots of little icecubes before it sunk’
    -the squibs are the result of the shape charges that were used to cut the core beams, there is ample proof in Ground Zero photos of demo-cut beams, then the Nano-thermade was used to pulverize the concrete, furniture, bodies and anything else unfortunate to be there that day. The micro-timing required is veery clear but not at all uncommon in the modern world of Demolition.
    Do not forget that almost every scrap of steel from the three sites was removed and shipped to be recycled in China before any investigation was even begun. The Steel was conveniently in thirty foot lengths to accommodate easy removal by the fleets of trucks that were on site within hours of the collapse. The company that had the contract for the removal was ‘Controlled Demolition, who also ‘cleaned up’ the Oaklahoma site and a few weeks before 9/11 demolished two giant ‘twin’ water towers outside of New York in a public display of a ‘new method’ of Demolition called Top Down Coallapse. Sadly the video of this event was ‘damaged and removed’ within days of 9/11.

    Before you say anything about ‘broken rivets’ or ‘popped joints’ In the thousands of tons of steel used in the Towers’ construction very very few were of that length. Also there are numerous photos showing the twisted cut steel lengths with intact joints.

    ‘So a different spec for each building. Why complicate the spec? Why not demolish them all the same way?’
    -Different buildings require different methods. The WTC 1&2 also required people to believe the buildings fell due to fires from the planes, so a top down demolition was essential. WTC7 could afford to be be more conventional in its demolition as it was the collapse of WTC1&2 that would be given as the catalyst for the structural failure.

    ‘were the bomb sniffing dogs trained to detect either substance?’
    obviously i do not have detailed training logs of the canines but one thing all bomb sniffing dogs know is an ignition charge, and the Towers were going to be full of them over that weekend so out go the doggies. Also there were a series of unprecedented power-downs in both towers in the weeks leading up to 9/11 including the weekend prior.

    ‘And why don’t they produce anything like the size of the explosion required to vaporize the columns?’
    – the columns were not vaporized the floors were, the steel columns and floor supports got taken away on trucks, the concrete floors got taken away in the lungs of everone who was there that day and in the months after.

    There is an endless dialogue to be had on 9/11 as well as the more immediate problems of our own country, but as said above, 9/11 is the smoking gun of a criminal conspiracy that has been incrementally changing the future of the World, any who think otherwise are dreaming of days long passed.

    have to close with good ol David E Rockefeller officially letting the NWO cat out of the bag
    “”We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. -But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.””

    keep asking questions, it is how people learn, but can i suggest you ask them of the guys holding the guns and not the person standing next to you in the bread line
    • Armchair Critic 10.1

      9 November 2010 at 10:33 pm

      Ah, now the problem of whether to give a long answer or a short one. Hmm. You’ve had the decency to write a long comment, I suppose it would be churlish to dismiss it with a glib comment now.
      to answer why i mentioned you would appreciate the refit tasks, i quote you…
      Nothing to debate there. You suggested I would understand that retrofit costs are expensive, I agreed I do understand that. I asked why the Port Authority took the actions you suggest and you made no effort to answer. So I’ll ask again – How about you explain why the conspirators for the Ports Authority decided to avoid the common technique of negotiating with the building regulatory authority about the new standards, with the aim of getting an exemption, delay in implementation or lesser standards. Why instead they chose to use new materials and unusual techniques to destroy their buildings, killing thousands and disrupting their city for years. All planned and executed in secret. They may well have made some stupid decisions in the past, but nothing this monumentally stupid.
      yes you put some sentences after my questions but mostly without content for example
      Yeah, you will recall I’m an engineer, not a novelist. And you are the one turning up here saying you have the answers. I’m saying you don’t, or that your answers are wrong. What you call “without content” is an opportunity to provide more information. If you don’t have the information just say so.
      Numerous videos show the intact portion of the Tower, approximately fifteen stories high, above the impact hole of the plane beginning to topple over…
      The sure do. Apart from “inexplicably” I agree with a whole paragraph.
      Imagine this part of the tower as a ground based building.
      Why? It wasn’t anything of the sort.
      Please tell me how that happens without explosives?
      Simple. Buildings are designed to move a little. They are not designed to move at tens of kilometres per hour for periods of tens of seconds. When buildings do move at speed for more than a fraction of a second they fall to bits. These buildings moved at sustained speeds for long enough to be destroyed.
      The debate is whether a plane with a good load of jet fuel or experimental explosives got the buildings moving. My opinion is it was the plane, because I don’t see the explosives.
      two words — plausible deniability
      So there is no simpler plan, no path of least resistance that is less complex than the scenario you believe. I’m no terrorist, but I have no doubt that with the resources of the CIA, FBI and the whole VRWC at my disposal, and a few years to plan and implement, I could come up with something simpler. And there are plenty of people out there who are smarter than me.
      the squibs are the result of the shape charges that were used to cut the core beams…
      That’s clearly an assertion, rather than a statement of fact. I’d agree that controlled explosions could cause the squibs you refer to, but plenty of other things could, too. Explosions that pulverise concrete are substantial, as are explosions that vaporise steel. I’m still to see any explosions of the magnitude required to achieve controlled demolition.
      Also, the horizontal structural members were trusses, not beams.
      …who also ‘cleaned up’ the Oaklahoma site and a few weeks before 9/11 demolished two giant ‘twin’ water towers outside of New York in a public display of a ‘new method’ of Demolition called Top Down Coallapse. Sadly the video of this event was ‘damaged and removed’ within days of 9/11.
      So they practiced on a structure that was designed for a different purpose and built a different way, publicly, but the video was removed days after 9/11 and there’s no copies anywhere? Not even with Julian Assange? It’s been a long day, I might go grab a beer while I finish this. I think I’ll have a Tui.
      Before you say anything about ‘broken rivets’ or ‘popped joints’ In the thousands of tons of steel used in the Towers’ construction very very few were of that length. Also there are numerous photos showing the twisted cut steel lengths with intact joints.
      I understand it was bolted and welded.
      The steel fell several hundred metres, it’s hardly a surprise it twisted.
      I expect the designers wanted the structural steel to fail before the joints, because the properties of the steel sections are easier to predict. So the joints would have been made to be stronger than the sections they connected.
      Different buildings require different methods. The WTC 1&2 also required people to believe the buildings fell due to fires from the planes, so a top down demolition was essential. WTC7 could afford to be be more conventional in its demolition as it was the collapse of WTC1&2 that would be given as the catalyst for the structural failure.
      Ockham’s Razor. Let’s run with the “it wasn’t AQ” hypothesis. Keeping the execution of the plan as simple as possible would be essential to its success. Using different methods complicates things unnecessarily.
      …so out go the doggies.
      With no official explanation for you to debunk? Seriously – what reason was given?
      Also there were a series of unprecedented power-downs in both towers in the weeks leading up to 9/11 including the weekend prior.
      Nothing to do with the need for upgrades you refer to? There were blackouts afterwards, the worst on 14 August 2003. Perhaps that was a jack-up by the government too.
      the columns were not vaporized the floors were…
      The columns held the building up. You are aware of that? If the columns didn’t fail the buildings would not have collapsed. But the buildings did collapse, so the columns must have failed. For the buildings to fall at “freefall velocity” the columns must fail completely and very rapidly. C’mon, that’s a truther mantra, you must know it. To fail completely and very rapidly an enormous amount of focussed energy is needed, such as through an explosion. Explosions have characteristic clouds associated with them. The bigger the explosion the bigger the cloud. Still with me? The big cloud occurs after the collapse, not beforehand.
      keep asking questions, it is how people learn, but can i suggest you ask them of the guys holding the guns..
      When I come across them I’ll ask. My daily routine and common sense has me avoiding guys holding guns.
      • Armchair Critic 10.1.1

        9 November 2010 at 10:54 pm

        And that’ll be it from me on this subject for a month. I’m self-banning from 911 discussions until early December.
        Thanks for your tolerance to the site owners/operators/moderators.
        • lprent 10.1.1.1

          10 November 2010 at 8:01 am

          That’s what open mike is for… But to tell the truth, I didn’t even really notice much acrimony – at least not to the levels tat start triggering my fire fighting instincts. Of course being on a rush for product alpha does make me less observant.
11. freedom 11

    9 November 2010 at 6:56 pm

    and to PB
    here is one of the earliest available reports on the subject from one of the most ‘official’ sources i could find.

    The Saudi admission you brought up was purely on the citizenship of the list supplied from theFBI. It was not an admission of these individuals’ guilt, or of any known connection to Terrorism.
    A few interesting facts

    And speaking of fun videos have you seen the dancing Israelis, who were seen joyously jumping and celebrating in various parts of the city during the day, both at the moments the Planes impact and the ensuing collapses. My favourite quote from the ‘caught and released’ individuals , ,comes from an Israeli talk show in November 2001. Asked why they were even in New York one of the group says “Our purpose was to document the event.”

    no free links for that one, some prey is best hunted without a guide
12. Pascal's bookie 12

    9 November 2010 at 7:17 pm

    The bbc report is the specific one I mentioned, with a link at the bottom to the editors blog which supersedes that report. that’s how news works. In breaking stories there is always, always, confusion. earliest reports are not the most reliable, they are the least. Later reports are more reliable.

    The interesting facts don’t appear to exist. Obviously the conspirators have removed that page, but starngely, people who would do 9/11 have not bothered to take out the truthers who are valiantly exposing them.

    The Saudi admission you brought up was purely on the citizenship of the list supplied from theFBI. It was not an admission of these individuals’ guilt, or of any known connection to Terrorism

    For gods sake man. this is from the link:

    (Interior Minister Prince) Nayef said it was natural that the kingdom had not noticed the 15 hijackers beforehand.

    “How can I place the name of a Saudi on a blacklist when I have nothing to justify the action? The Saudis are free to travel wherever they like,” he said. “If we had known they were going to do what they had done, we would have stopped them.

    “I believe they were taken advantage of in the name of religion and regarding certain issues pertaining to the Arab nation, especially the issue of Palestine,” said Nayef.

    emph mine

    You said you had ‘proof’ that several of the hijackers were still alive.

    In a few minutes I found an AQ video memoralising them, a Saud prince disavowing their actions while admitting their citizenship, and a bbc report explaining that an initial report of theirs was the result of confusion.

    So where is this proof?
    • freedom 12.1

      9 November 2010 at 8:02 pm

      i referred to the identities stolen to represent the hijackers, not the hijackers (whoever they were)

      ‘If we had known..’ means they did not know so what is your point?

      Seriously, if you have this much trouble with the concept of patsies then there is no way you can face the rest of the event. How difficult do you find magic shows? that poor woman getting cut in half, how does the magician get away with it?
      • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1

        9 November 2010 at 8:42 pm

        ‘If we had known..’ means they did not know so what is your point?

        The prince is saying that saudi arabia is not to blame for the actions of her citizens.

        He is saying that if they had known what these guys were going to do, they would have stopped them.

        He is saying that because the saudi government did not know what theses citizens were going to do, they could not stop them from traveling and so on and so forth.

        He is saying that yes, these are our Saudi citizens, and yes, they did this thing, but it’s nothing to do with saudi arabia, the nation is not to blame for the actions that these guys took.

        If these names are still alive, why would the saudi govt not know about it (they talked to the families) or say something, given their obvious desire to distance themselves from the event?

        But I think I’m done here, I apologise that I can’t read your mind about what you mean by proof, or when you are making some insidery truther joke disguised as an honest answer. My bad I guess.
    • freedom 12.2

      9 November 2010 at 8:15 pm

      the BBC inclusion was a joke if you know anything about BBC and 9/11 then you would know why i included it. The hijackers are probably the least interesting part of 9/11.

      http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm for interesting [words and pictures] by some dude

      as for the ‘proof’ comment you know damn well it was the empirical proof of publicly available data.

      if you are going to be such a pedant I will be watching your future posts with great interest so I can learn all i can and know how to comment without error in semantics or imagery

      The FBI have previously stated that ‘errors were made’ in the 9/11 investigation, i am sure you need proof of that also
    • travellerev 12.3

      10 November 2010 at 7:45 am

      You bring up an interesting conundrum and something that warrants investigation. You might want to read this timeline.

      According to Anthony Shaffer who was involved in a data mining operation called Able danger and who claims that Mohamed Atta was declared off limits in his investigation when informed his superiors about Mohamed Atta. Mohamed Atta was living with a CIA minder and not to be touched.
      When he informed the 911 Commission of his findings and more particular Zelikow he found to his surprise that this was not incorporated in the findings.

      He wrote a book about it which the CIA tried to delay by burning the entire first edition. Needless to say it was widely noticed and is on its way to become a best seller. Here is his facebook page.

      Anthony Shaffer is not a truther as such but an important whistle blower in his own right and he gives an intriguing peek into the secretive world of military intelligence. In the aftermath he had his clearance removed and was suspended from duty.

      This is what investigative journalist Webster Tarpley has to say about it.

      So Mohamed Atta was definitely a player in the whole affair. We just don’t know what kind of player. For more info on Atta here is another timeline

      What we do know is that the video used to present Atta as a hijacker was that it was taken both on another date and airport than the one he allegedly left from.

      Captcha: PLANE. ???
      • Pascal's bookie 12.3.1

        10 November 2010 at 9:39 am

        The problem I have with this sort of thinking is the leaps.

        The intellgence communities (note the plural) did not talk to each other much. This lead to various bunker issues, including inter agency competition and that sort of thing. It’s also worth noting that when a method may be illegal, the agency will obviously be very careful about talking about it or it’s results.

        Shaffer’s work in Military intelligence, could not be shared with the CIA. Not legal to do so. You interpret this as Atta being ‘off limits’ as if Shaffer was told that Able Danger must not target Atta, yet that is exactly what Shaffer claims Able Danger did. Identified Atta’s cell. I didn’t see in the links any eveidnce that Shaffer found a link between Atta and the CIA, which Able danger should have found. maybe I missed it, the links are not exactly user friendly.

        The CIA did go after his book, on nat sec grounds, a censored version was then released without incident.

        One way of intrepeting this is that the agencies were not communicating and not sharing intelligence, using methods of doubtful legality, and focusing almost entirely on the wrong targets (rogue states, state level actors) and so didn’t see the Atta material as a major threat (atta not being linked to Iraq, Iran, Hamas).

        The other is that they knew exactly what was going on with atta and left him alone because they were at the least comfortable with what he was doing.

        Worth bearing in mind that the CIA and DIA are tasked with identifying threats. Particularly novel threats. Politicians are tasked with deciding what to do about those threats. If the politicians are not interested in non state actors, the agencies will spend time on the things the politicians are interested in.

        So if AQ did do 9/11, what would you expect to see from the after incident reports? Arse covering, that’s what. There was a mssiave failure of the intelligence apparatus. In hindsight the data was there such that if they were looking at it the right way the plot may have been discovered. All the players in the investigation were at pains to make it someone else’s fault that it was not discovered. This is what a military industrial complex looks like. Massive amounts of money being spent and power accumulated for it’s own sake, and objectives being compromised. This money and power will be protected by coverups and failures of accountability.

        I’m happy to agree to disagree about interpretations, and am not interested in another day on this stuff. I do read truther links, I just don’t find them convincing They seem too credulous to me. It’s all hints and no analysis. No self critique is involved.
        • freedom 12.3.1.1

          10 November 2010 at 10:13 am

          one quick question, despite the mountains of evidence that show how the CIA created AQ and have used them repeatedly since the eighties for various acts of a nefarious nature, have you ever considered that ‘They’ knew AQ was planning something and let it happen, even willingly manipulated services under ‘their’ control, such as NORAD, and the War Games and numerous other incidents surrounding the issue in order to piggyback their own objective onto the AQ objective.

          Both teams were basically after the same goal, increasing terror in our society to implement stronger control through fear, the oldest and most practised form of authority

          i too am taking the rest of the day off 9/11. Truthers though passionate, are not robots,
          we get tired of it all too.
          • Pascal's bookie 12.3.1.1.1

            10 November 2010 at 10:27 am

            the mountains of evidence that show how the CIA created AQ

            See, that’s not quite true. there are mountains of evidence that the CIA was heavily invested with radical jihad groups in Af/Pak and other places. That does not mean AQ. AQ has it’s own history. This is one of the problems I have with truthers, they conflate stuff.

            They take arguable points like ‘ maybe some in the US were ignoring certain things or let things happen’ and conflate it to ‘ the US facilitated and assisted it’.

            It’s a western centric view of the world that implies and often directly states that AQ or Arabs couldn’t do this, that their motivations and capabilities are somehow always of secondary importance, the big events must always be about and by, us. That’s a narrative that explicitly serves the military industrial types and the neocons, for want of a better term.

            Genuine question, have you spent as much time finding aout about AQ and it’s history as you have about truther stuff? Or is much of what you know about AQ filtered through truther narratives?
            • freedom 12.3.1.1.1.1

              10 November 2010 at 12:36 pm

              I probably know as much as i can considering the source material i have available and not being able to speak arabic, farsi or any other language other than english. This is not a lack of will but has been linked to a learning/memory condition from a head injury when young.

              I am very aware that the “Middle East’ like many parts of the globe was historically victim to numerous crimes by the west and even as a youngster i was fascinated with the Crusades and other acts of genocide my ancestors were party to. The idea that ‘natives’ were socially backward or primitive never sat well with me. This often led to very difficult classroom dialogues, especially on this country’s history, and i did spend a lot of time in the hallway considering why the teracher refused to answer my questions.

              In short i am saying that as a caucasian male of European descent i am brutally aware of what ‘my people’ are guilty of, but with all searches into knowledge, facts show other cultures also have done some heinous things. Slavery is a great example of how thousands of years of trade get lumped into a couple of centuries as if it is a new and terrible occurrance.

              I will always stand to support evidence that that there are other sides to any story and without the continued vigilance and integrity of admitting fault when it occurs, striving towards goals no matter how insane or unpopular they appear to others, we all have a part to play in the social revolutions that must occur for Humanity to survive this technological and social adolescence.
            • Vicky32 12.3.1.1.1.2

              10 November 2010 at 3:36 pm

              PB, are you aware that Al Quaeda simply means ‘the database’? (Or the fundamentals/the basis and a whole lot of other things – but not what you and others who take the official story as a given think it means?
              I wonder why official story believers get so het up and abusive about ‘truthers’… There are many different motives ranging from laziness through gullibility to an emotional commitment to Zionism, and a hatred for Arabs/Islam based either on hardline atheism or the afore-mentioned Zionism.
              Your mainstream views serve the military-industrial types far more than my/our views do. It’s just sad.
              I have no more to say about this issue myself, I am self-banning (on this issue only) as
              others have done – because I truly hate being flamed and abused.
              Deb
              • Pascal's bookie …

                10 November 2010 at 5:32 pm

                you aware that Al Quaeda simply means ‘the database’

                Yep, I’m no expert, but I’ve read a hell of a lot about AQ, several books (no ‘ooh look scary Muslim’ stuff) I follow a number of bogs by academics in the area. Specialists in the regions history, specialists in 4g warfare. Rest assured that I know it means base, and it doesn’t have ‘u’ in it. I deleted a much longer comment about AQ’s history. (The various declarations of Jihad, the formation of the Islamic Front For Jihad against Crusaders and Jews, the moves in and out of afghanistan, the two way spilt from Saudi Arabia after the sauds accepted US support and bases)

                The reason I get so ‘het up about it’ is because of years of discussions both online and off, where I am arguing some position and get accused of “hah if you believe that you must be a truther”. This ranges from talking about torture before it became widely known, to arguing against invading Iran, and arguing that there are better ways of confronting and dealing with islamic violent extremists than invading countries.

                Argue in 03-6 that iraq had nothing to do with AQ, and didn’t have any WMD? Goes like this

                ” Just look at the facts, the evidence for AQ links and WMD (which make you support the war) don’t stack up, so there must be another reason”

                “hah you must be a truther ”

                “No I’m not, look at the evidence”

                “whatever, yes you are. piss off”

                As for abuse, it goes both ways. In the comment I am replying to you say I’m either lazy, stupid, a zionist or an anti Arab racist. Apparently those are the only reasons someone could disagree with you.

                I don’t genuinely think that trutherism is COINTELPRO, but I assure you that it serves the same purpose. When you are trying to show people that there are in actual fact demonstrable lies going on, and there are people running around taking the facts way beyond any demonstrable point, then the liars win. Every time.
                • Vicky32 …

                  10 November 2010 at 7:30 pm

                  I am sorry you took it that my comments (lazy, gullible, Zionist or racist) applied to you. You are actually much more nuanced, and I apologise! I phrased what I said extremely badly.
                  The thing is, that I believe as do others, that the 9/11 story is a lie, a big lie – just the springboard for all the other lies such as Yellowcake from Niger, WMD and missiles that ‘could’ hit Britain within 40 minutes. Not even the most paranoid American would have allowed invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, without a ‘reason’, a Pearl Harbour or similar.
                  A Gulf of Tonkin incident!
                  Because I am stuck at home, unemployed and bored to tears, I watch much more TV than is healthy – and now, 9 years later, I still hear 9/11 used an an excuse for a state of eternal war…
                  “Say, Billy Bob, them sand-niggers done killed them 3000 of our citizens, so we gotta go and kill their women and children, right?”
                  I exaggerate only a little.
                  Deb 🙁
        • travellerev 12.3.1.2

          10 November 2010 at 7:39 pm

          PB,

          I find this interesting. You just went into a whole heap of theorising and I think it leads nowhere to be honest.
          All you say could be true and we would like to to have a new and independent investigation as to how come every darned institute in the US from CIA to FBI to the Airforce, NORAD the civilian aircontrollers, FEMA and every other assorted organisation failed to comprehend and act on info and nobody and I mean nobody was fired, demoted or otherwise punished for what happened. Even after Pearl Harbour heads rolled.
          That what we would like to know. What’s more the members of the 911 commission stated that they had been lied to an were set up to fail. ($ 5o million on Clintons infidelities and $ 10 million on 911 for example)

          All we point out is that WTC7 should not have come down and that there is Nano thermite in the dust and billions of Iron spheres that have no place being there and we would like to know why and how and everything else you can think of is subject to investigation too.

          We don’t need to do more that is the job of the Police, CIT, Fire fightng specialists and whatever you can come up with. A crime has been commited and we want to know why, how and by whom. Nothing more and nothing less.

          You would not want to have to solve a case before you go to the police. Somebody bleeds or dies a building burns down under suspicious circumstances and the police investigates. Simple.

          Here is for example a link to the firefighters
          for 911 truth. They give the complete protocol that has to be followed when a fire happens.

          If it happens in a normal fire than surely it must be done in what was the biggest crime scene in the US since they wanted to wage wars in retaliation.
      • Pascal's bookie 12.3.2

        10 November 2010 at 9:46 am

        One final point, if there was US involvement in 9/11, it would have been DIA and CIA people, surely?

        Lt Col Shaffer would have either been involved or would have had all the tools at his disposal to uncover the plot. If he was being denied the tools, he would be talking about that, but his claims are that his tools were so good he discovered the plot and was ignored. The fact that he is not a truther tells us what?
        • travellerev 12.3.2.1

          10 November 2010 at 10:39 am

          I did not say that he was an anti truther.

          He did not discovered the plot, he discovered Mohamed Atta and his suspicious behaviour, this is not denied. Mohamed Atta made very sure he was noticed and A. Shaffer did that but as to why and how he does not claim to know.
          He was told by his superiors to stop investigating Atta. Why?

          He testified to this before the 911 commission but the testimony was not used in the final rapport. He, like us, wants a new and independent investigation because as he told Judge Napolitano on Fox channel, the 911 commission was lied to (as they state as well) by the military and Air force and the members of the commission all were on that commission to cover somebodies (we don’t know who) arse and he would like to know why.

          In fact Anthony Shaffer has absolutely no problem talking with the most outspoken 911 truth advocates such as Alex Jones and the like.

          For god’s sake the man invested his whole life in believing he was one of the good guys and tried to do the right thing for his country and when he tried to do the right thing he almost lost everything he worked and lived for. I can’t blame him.

          But he is puzzled by the behaviour of some people who were crucial in the 911 rapport and finds the rapport lacking. For me that’s enough and as it stands that enough for most of us “truthers”.
13. Vicky32 13

    9 November 2010 at 7:24 pm

    @ VOR who said : ” As for objectivity, the truther community are easily as objective as the folk who believe in ghosts and gods. ”
    Very juvenile sniping, I think. Mind, I had already tumbled to the fact that The Standard tends to be a tad hostile to believers…. but must you be so blatant? Especially as I don’t believe you’re particularly leftist yourself, mate!
    Deb
    • The Voice of Reason 13.1

      9 November 2010 at 8:21 pm

      Well, I do deny the existence of your god and I put my faith in humanity, Deb. But that has nothing to do with my comment. I made the comparison between two beliefs that essentially rely on proving a negative. Both require their opponents to provide ‘proof’ that the belief is wrong.

      eg. God cannot be disproved, therefore he might exist. Or, my madcap conspiracy is theoretically possible, so it has the same weight as witnessed fact.
      • ianmac 13.1.1

        9 November 2010 at 11:10 pm

        And remember that a good book described a bright shiny teapot orbiting Venus. I cannot disprove this so it must be there – with god of course.
    • travellerev 13.2

      10 November 2010 at 6:06 am

      Hi Deb,

      You should have been here two years ago. Hordes of trolls. This is positively reasonable by comparison and trust me just because they don’t partake in the discussion doesn’t mean people don’t take in the information. I know for a fact that some of the contributors are closet case official CT doubters and TVOR and AC at least engage.

      Let’s face it, most Kiwi’s in general don’t want to know and are pretty harsh on people thinking outside the box especially when it concerns the US. Being called a Conspiracy theorist can be seriously stigmatising.

      My husband can in no way even talk about anything political at his job, he’d loose it. They just don’t want to know. What is so disturbing is that before he went “underground” he did talk with some of the blokes and he knows for a fact that there are others who are equally up and running but the culture is such that none of these people wants to let on for fear of ostracization.

      Goethe had a goodie when he said: None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.

      This blog in fact in the beginning reacted the same way as if the blog on the whole could loose being taken serious because they allowed 911 discussions and only because some brave souls spoke up for freedom of speech was I not banned at the time.

      It speaks to the courage of the moderators and contributors of this blog that they have given people like us a platform with the open mike column, what’s more they really do have a firm policy about trolling and apply it rigorously whether they like the subject you bring on or not. I salute them for that.

      Don’t worry some of the facts just have a way of sticking and lets face it I don’t know about you but found the realisation that our “leaders” can be as vile as to kill a couple of thousand of us to get us to go to war and make tons of money terrifying.
      I have friends who after initial refusal to learn just basically said even if this were true (and sometimes I can see in their eyes they understand what is really happening) I don’t think I want to know because I wouldn’t want to live in a world like that. To be honest it’s when I stop trying. Who am I to destroy their will to live by opening their eyes.
      I understand, I find it hard to stare it in the face sometimes too.

      Captcha: AWARE. I swear this thing thinks
      • freedom 13.2.1

        10 November 2010 at 9:14 am

        I would like to add my appreciation to the support of free speech encouraged here on The Standard. The debate yesterday was as it should be, a sharing of difficult information for people to reflect upon, with minimal diversion or unkind words.

        9/11 is a complex subject with passionate people often poles apart in their ideology. Even more so than in most discussion on Politics. Discussions on Politics have been long practised and have well established grey areas. 9/11 is a new kid on the block and does not have that luxury. It is one of the only debates where both sides say fact is fact and confusion reigns regardless. As the barrage of information is processed an individual not in the spotlight on the boards, can more easily consider both parties’ comments and these are the moments when the chaos calms down a bit, revealing questions for the supporters, fuel for the deniers and whatever it is that sustains trolls. Take notice of those moments.

        9/11 Truth is a tough taskmaster and the social pressure to ‘not go there’ is at times overpowering. Almost as overpowering as the drive to get questions in people’s heads. I have understandably had some rough experiences in 9/11 discussions and there will no doubt be many more but that is 9/11Truth, it will not let you live in complacency. Once the switch is flipped the questions begin to pile up and as we all are aware, there are no easy answers, but there are plenty of questions

        Many people have a lot of trouble confessing their doubt of the Official Story. The more people that privately admit they have doubts, the easier it is for those individuals to go forward. Be strengthened by the knowledge that thousands and thousands and thousands of professionals have made the life changing decision to question the Official Story.

        Bereaved Families, Firemen, Police, Medics, Architects, Engineers, Doctors, Artisits, Scientists, Generals and many many others, the list goes on as high powered, well positioned people have said enough, and make the decision to find their own answers to their own questions. Add the millions of everyday folk with the same concerns and you have a fair whack of people wanting answers to some fundamental questions. 9/11 Truth is like that, a very personal & private journey taken in the company of millions of people wanting real Truth and demanding real Freedom.
        • travellerev 13.2.1.1

          10 November 2010 at 9:35 am

          Beautifully said. 🙂
      • Vicky32 13.2.2

        10 November 2010 at 3:46 pm

        Thank you Travellerev for your words! (My sister had a sudden change of heart, after years of laughing at my brother and me as ‘nutty conspiracy theorists…’ so it can happen! Ironically for VOR and his assertions, my brother was (he died) and I am, left wing, and the sister who denounced us as lunatics, was a far right campaigner, til she changed…
        (She hadn’t wanted to know, because as you say, if it was true she didn’t want to live in a world like that! But she’s basically a realist. I think it helps that we aren’t native New Zealanders, so we’re a bit less conformist than those around us)
        Deb
        • The Voice of Reason 13.2.2.1

          10 November 2010 at 4:29 pm

          Where’s the irony, Deb? I think you, Ev and Freedom probably are left wing in general terms, but misguidedly fixated on a right wing fantasy about a Big Government conspiracy in this instance. I think I did once, in exasperation, call Ev a righty, but from other comments, I know that isn’t really the case even though she doesn’t like the left/right thing anyway and probably wouldn’t like to be pigeon holed as such.

          Ultimately, I find it frustrating that 3 clearly intelligent, well meaning and articulate people can’t see the politics of the Truther fantasy, the strengthening Tea Party links and the obvious similarities to climate change deniers and are wasting so much time and effort on it, when there is so much real work to be done.

          For all that, I totally agree with the comments about the Open Mike allowing this sort of debate to flourish. It’s one of the reasons why the Standard is the best of the political blogs in NZ and even if I get frustrated in some of these exchnges, please know I try my best to play the ball not the player in these debates. I don’t bother being so subtle with real righties!

          Commiserations about your brother, too, Deb. I edited out a line in my ‘god’ comment about how much comfort my mother got from her belief in her final days and how much support her church gave her. It clearly was a blessing of a kind for her to have that faith and that support. Even if reject the concept of god, I can see that some good can come from those who do believe.
          • Vicky32 13.2.2.1.1

            10 November 2010 at 7:46 pm

            VOR, whilst you persist in seeing us as being manipulated by right wing survivalists, and being *damn patronising* about my (or our) religious beliefs, I simply can’t regard you as being a fair-minded person.
            I have yet to encounter a right wing ‘truther’…
            I have encountered faux-left atheist ‘philosophers’, such a man I knew on h2g2 (the forum Douglas Adams founded months before he died.) My brother and 2 sons and I were members there for 4 years, before offending the Dawkinsites…
            This man, EtB, claimed to be a Marxist, but his disdain for leftists was obvious – and any actual leftist who opposed him on *any* issue was abused as a right winger. In an Iraq war thread, this guy insanely called me a ‘Bush-lover’ because I had clashed with him on an atheist thread…
            He lived a comfortable middle-class life, having left his job as an educator at a posh ‘public’ school because of health problems. His wife was a JP and they were both on a panel that determined whether children ‘in care’ would be allowed access to and be returned to their parents. He proudly stated that he and his wife used their position to void adoptions by religious people, and refuse access by religious parents to their children, on the grounds that religion was abuse. (Regardless of why the children were in care – even if it was because the parents had claimed refugee status, or because they were too poor to afford decent housing).
            This ‘Marxist’ had nothing but sneering disdain for working people (they were uneducated gullible scum, religios to use his term, and yes, he told us, “many of them were Truthers because they were too stupid to understand that “Religion caused 9/11, as religion causes all wars”. Marxist my *rse!
            Deb
            • travellerev 13.2.2.1.1.1

              10 November 2010 at 8:38 pm

              LOL,

              Captcha: CREATING! I swear this thing is thinking.
14. travellerev 14

    10 November 2010 at 8:33 pm

    TVOR,

    Thank you so much for your comment. I suggest we leave it for now. We’ll be back no doubt.
    I would like to leave with some food for thought.

    If science proves the official CT impossible than a crime has been committed and this should be investigated.

    If the dust in the buildings in NY contained billions of micro spheres of molten Iron and particles of a highly energetic materials than this should be investigated.

    This should be investigated by a properly funded independent group who has access to all materials pertaining to the events.

    Whatever the outcome of this investigation and where ever it leads us is until this investigation has been done pure conjecture. This is something we can all agree on. No matter if you are left or right.

    If someone is found laying in a pool of blood the police investigates and the outcome is what it is. Simple.

    If in the process evidence of conspiracy is uncovered so be it. This is also not left or right related.

    How people look at government and how we are ruled is where subjectiveness creeps in but IMHO if the left is not suspicious of the ruling elite then who is. That was what labour and the left wing was all about.
    Labour represented the workers and National the Bosses and the wealthy.
    The same goes for the US. Democrats for the workers and the Republicans for the bosses. I don’t know anything about the teaparty expect that it was once an alternative movement want to hold the government accountable until it was hijacked and financed by the Koch brothers and the FOxnews sender with a bimbo as the trofee bitch. Glen Beck is a creep and Palin is a good candidate for the next round of the Guillotine as far as I am concerned. They co-opted the legitimate anger that is growing among the US working classes and it looks ugly. The anger of the dispossessed always does but to do away with it as the rumblings of the rable is ignoring the lessons of the past. When rebellion breaks out and it goes unchecked you’d be surprised how many of the righteous left will be killed with the rich and the smarmy.
    Do I like what I see? no. But I’ll be damned if I let that get in the way of seeing that the teapartyers have very serious and justified gripes against those they perceive as dishonest, greedy and patronising. They scare the shit out of me because I know that if they decide to take matters in their own hands it will be ugly and violent and they won’t go away until things change.

    I don’t like being associated with most people who call themselves left wing because they are not. They are well to do middle class and utterly patronising and I don’t feel at home.
    Neither do I feel at home with the rich and very much for the same reason. They are not that different any more from the left.
    I don’t think like an angry white trash American but I see how they are betrayed by their government (at least 10 million Americans will have to choose between a warm house or food on the table to give one example) and to be honest I hope I’m not in the way when they explode. Not if but when. So you see for me the old left right division no longer functions.

    The French peasants when they revolted also were not of the most intellectually gifted and their cruelty and stupidity was quite probably on a par with the teapartyers but revolt they did and it was the end of that ruling elite no matter how idealist some of them were.

    Angry is an ugly thing but it gets uglier if not taken serious and that’s what’s happening in the US.

    And while some of those people may have caught on that something ain’t right with the official story the two are very separate issues.

    Unless of course an investigation shows that indeed elements of the elite they hate were involved. In which case I wouldn’t be surprised if the Guillotine was taken out of the museum and heads were indeed rolling again.

    Deb,

    Thanks for your kind words and I too am sorry about your brother.

    Goodnight all

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 8 November 2010 at 5:03 pm
2. Challenge to Iprent of the Standard: I’ll debate a team of architects and scientists on the subject of 911. « Aotearoa: a wider perspective: posted on 9 November 2010 at 5:50 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS