9/11. Not interested in a debate here, but can we just have a quick show of hands?

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

I'm just interested in how many people around here are also highly skeptical of what we have been told about 9/11.

I'm really not after a debate (it would be long, involved, probably pointless and personally I have done this elsewhere), but I just wanted to see who is around.

It has very strong ongoing relevance for current world events.

Many thanks.

Sorry, whatsthat, some of my post got cut. The quote should have said "ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels".

Sorry, I'll try again...

What do you think happened to WTC7 that hasn't been officially explained or admitted to? Who do you think was behind this, and what did they have to gain? Or, was there some huge mismanagement or mistake made by the rescue & response services that has been covered up?

The details are incredibly involved. Dealing with a structure going through multiple changes is a very complex task. But that doesn't mean that the basic explanation is difficult to understand. It was brought down by progressive collapse initiated by expansion in the fire causing the unseating of a girder and the buckling of a column.

This is not a 'belief'. I am well aware that certain fringe groups do not agree. A tiny minority of engineers may even be with these fringe groups. In my mind it is similar to how a certain proportion of doctors seem to think homeopathy works. Just because they have medical training doesn't stop them believing utter rubbish.

Culture, I don't really know who was behind it, and whether it was mismanaged and covered up or whether there is more to it than that. I don't think I have access to enough information to know that. As I'm sure you know, there are plenty of theories about it, and circumstantial evidence based on the financial trail or who benefited internationally/politically, but I don't know enough to advance a strong opinion. On the other hand, I do feel that I have enough information to decide that, at the moment at least, I do not consider the official narrative accurate.

Sorry to wade in on your discussion but Corbyns you might find this interesting. And it's in the Daily Mail so as Claig says, it must be true.

"Opinion", then, whatsthat (although I think for many people - on both sides - it is more like "belief"). I think this is very different from the homeopathy example, actually.

Very many things can sound simple but tend not to happen.

What is the benefit of bringing down an empty building, and why that building and not others on the site? Why invent a mysterious plot with unidentified originators with unidentified outcomes for unidentified reasons?!!

Culture, if you want to go down that route, there was plenty of stuff going on in WTC7 which some people might want to destroy. You can look this up. But as I said I don't think I know enough about motives to suggest anything really.

Qwerty, you're right - it's in the DM, so the argument's over. Phew.

Yes, my opinion is that the NIST report is the best theory for what happened to WTC7 based on the evidence available. The exact details of what happened will undoubtedly be different due to the complexities involved. But those who disagree have offered nothing other than conjecture with no technical back up. They are sniping from the sidelines, attempting to pick holes, but not giving a reasonable alternative. This is not two sides to a debate with equally valid opinions.

So we still have a mysterious plot with unidentified originators with unidentified outcomes for unidentified reasons. Why is that more credible than what has been released in the media and via offical channels to date?

I don't really know why I am arguing about this.

I've been getting into all this because I get irked about the degree to which respectful, open discussion between intelligent individuals seems impossible on these forums when it comes to 9/11. But I suppose it doesn't matter really. I should practice what I preach and allow our differing conclusions to coexist. And stop wasting time and go and make the dinner.

'And it's in the Daily Mail so as Claig says, it must be true'

A brief analysis of that Daily Mail article indicates that it has been written by someone called "Daily Mail Reporter" rather than a journalist prepared to put their name to it.

Is "Daily Mail Reporter" a luvvie on the loose who found their way into the greatest newsroom on the planet? We can't say for sure, but this looks like it may be one of the rare instances where the Daily Mail may have fallen short of its usual high standards.

Why is that more credible than what has been released in the media and via offical channels to date?

As I think someone mentioned upthread, I think it's perfectly valid to say one explanation doesn't fit the data, without knowing what the real explanation is. Especially when we have such limited access to the important information.

I don't think that the discussion has been disrespectful. And I still haven't seen a single convincing argument or bit of evidence to support the "alternative" views about WTC7 or the whole 9/11 thing, or the shameful suggestion that those poor victims of the Boston bomb were so-called "crisis actors".

I was in Washington DC on Sept 11 2001. I've listened to more than a few people ranting on about the theory that a plane did not hit the pentagon. They are all fucking stupid. I have never seen so many emergency services people in one place as I did that day. I saw the smoke, u saw the huge emergency response, I saw military people and media everywhere. Do you think they would all lie about what they dealt with that day? And what about the families of the people on the plane who died there? Are they supposed to not exist?
I think the media did not release many of the images of that day for security reasons. It seems fairly sensible to not give potential terrorists too much information about the pentagon.
And as for the bonkers theories that the whole thing was an inside job - the American government may be many things but they would have to be truly evil madmen to contemplate such a thing. Many people would have had to be involved, and I think it's just unimaginable to think that could be possible.

...I don't know enough to advance a strong opinion. On the other hand, I do feel that I have enough information to decide that, at the moment at least, I do not consider the official narrative accurate.

But, Corbyn, this statement, and a couple after it, seem to mean that you honestly believe that your uninformed opinion holds as much weight as the informed opinions of many engineers.

You also seem to infer that your uninformed opinion is more worthy than that of many engineers across many specialities.

We don't really have limited information on how the towers collapsed. What we have is a plethora of moving images, eye witness accounts, engineer/scientific reports/publications and alternative takes on what happened.

The problem is that the alternative takes are written in an overly simplified manner, Joe Bloggs can understand them. What he cannot understand is the minutiae of the official reports across the many scientific specialities. Yet many of the plethora of scientific reports say, often quite clearly in Abstract, is that there is no reason to disbelieve what was seen and reported.

The first problem for Joe Bloggs begins with the horror of what happened. Surely it wasn't as simple as deranged humans acting in an unthinkable manner?

Then Joe has to get his head around the fact that many of the experts disagree with each other. That the disagreements are about minutiae and don't (in genuine circles) disagree in the main. The apparent contradictions and impenetrable maunderings only make it worse.

Then there are the loud debunkers, the monster shouters, the alternative theorists with greater and lesser grips on reality. They sound good, easy to follow, often with impressive apparent credentials, lots of airplay. A bewildered Joe would be forgiven for breathing a sigh of relief, here is someone who knows what happened and is explaining it well.

Lastly Joe is assaulted by conspiracy theorists, some of whom sound really convincing. If Joe is already inclined to believe in the elite and luvvies then this too will sound feasible.

The wider problem is that the vast majority of us are Joes. We don't have the specialist knowledge, the detailed information or the time, inclination or aptitude to gain it.

Unless you have a piece of information hitherto unknown, and you say you don't and wouldn't understand it if you did, you are simply monster shouting! Pointlessly!

sorry but what are luvvies? You do realise that the powers that be do want an end to 'political correctness' and would be only too willing if the masses went on a binge of nationalist (aka ethnic) excesses?

'sorry but what are luvvies?'

They are the politically correct servants of the elite. They are always on TV spouting what is expected of them. Most often they are Oxbridge and push the usual nonsense. Bascially they are the out of touch metropolitan elites who haven't got a clue but say what they think is wished for by the elite.

'You do realise that the powers that be do want an end to 'political correctness''

Absolutely not, because political correctness is used by the elite as an Overton window that restricts what is allowed to be thought. It is similar to what the French call "la pensee unique", the only allowed thinking, the Orwellian newspeak where dissent is heretical. That is why the elite are so confounded and annoyed by Donald Trump who breaks every rule in their playbook, crosses every single one of their "pensee unique" red lines and has as a result won the approval of the majority of conservative American voters. They are at a loss of how to deal with him, he is not politically correct, their Overton window has no means of constraining him.

' and would be only too willing if the masses went on a binge of nationalist (aka ethnic) excesses?'

They would not. They don't like Hungary's Viktor Orban because he has broken their rules and defied their red lines by building a wall to not take the refugees who are heading to Germany (in a similar way as Donald Trump wants to build a wall). Orban has called the politically correct elite's bluff and they are fuming about what he has done because they fear it could spread and lead to the end of their Overton window of control and break national sovereignty and impose a European Union governed by the elite and only the elite with a "pensee unique" with no dissent.

If Orban gets away with defying the elite, what might he do next? Could he defy them over their "climate catastrophe" game, just as Donald Trump has done? And if he did, then would it spread and end their plan for the billions of people on the planet?

They want "la pensee unique" in a united sobereignless superstate where they dictate what will be. But they are facing a huge challenge in the land of the free, the United States, with a billionaire who breaks all their rules, The Donald.

The game is not over yet and the people can still win however many luvvies are thrown onto the TV screens to try to stop them.

Oh, you had to ask...

They are desperate and time is running out for them as the tide of the people turns against them and as "citizen journalists" on youtube call them out. They are thinking of desperate measures to save their Overton window.

"Judges plan to outlaw climate change 'denial’

A semi-secret, international conference of top judges proposed to make illegal any opinion that contradicted climate change"

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11924776/Judges-plan-to-outlaw-climate-change-denial.html

How on earth are they going to stop the possible future President of the United States, The Donald, from denying their climate change game when teh majority of the American people will be cheering him on?

It will be like Orwell's Big Brother where the luvvies in the Inner Party and the metropolitan elite do as they are told and have "la pensee unique" but it woin't wash with the people, with the proles and the "citizen journalists" on youtube. They will be posting videos titled "elite busted" "hoax exposed" as the luvvies lie on mainstream TV,

The game is not over yet, The Donald is still in the Presidential race and the people are cheering him on.

"The fact that it could be seriously proposed in the highest courtroom in the land that the law should now be used to suppress any further debate on what has become one of the most contentious issues in the history of science (greeted with applause from the distinguished legal audience) speaks volumes about the curious psychological state to which the great global warming scare has reduced so many of the prominent figures who today exercise power and influence over the life of our Western societies."

The elite and the "citizen journalists" have one thing in common. They both laugh at the luvvies and lackeys who follow "la pensee unique" just like Big Brother's Inner Party did in Orwell's 1984.

"French weatherman taken off air after questioning climate change

France 2 channel’s Philippe Verdier told not to return to work for foreseeable future after writing book which throws doubt on findings of leading scientists"

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/philippe-verdier-french-weatherman-question-climate-change

These are the last gasps of the elite's ancien regime. Time is running out for them, "citizen journalists" are on the case and they are becoming desperate. Donald Trump is not in hoc to them, no Baronetcy or Establishment honour can sway him, and they can't rely on him to be a luvvie and a lackey.

'Trump's message — and political incorrectness — is clearly resonating with GOP primary voters'

www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/17/449415843/pathetic-trump-bush-spar-over-9-11-remarks-maybe-neither-will-be-the-nominee

What on earth can the elite do to stop Trump? Their Overton window of political correctness is useless against him. He refuses to play by the luvvies' rules and the voters seem to lap it up. The luvvies are at a loss of how to counter it; think tanks, teenage whizzkids, spinners, PR people, pollsters, pundits and the mainstream media don't know what to do about Trump.

''You do realise that the powers that be do want an end to 'political correctness''

Well they've got it with Trump and they are panicking, and luvvies are being fired left right and centre by the elite as they fail to dent his popularity one iota.

"Ari Fleischer, George W. Bush's White House press secretary, told CNN that Mr Trump sounded like a "truther" - the term used for conspiracy theorists who believe the US government was behind 9/11.

"When Donald Trump implies that since 9/11 took place on Bush's watch he is partially responsible for it, he's starting to sound like a truther. "And after all, does Donald Trump also think since Pearl Harbor happened on FDR's watch that FDR is responsible?"

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/11937609/Donald-Trump-suggests-George-W.-Bush-bears-some-blame-for-911.html

Ari, don't even go there on Pearl Harbour, Alex Jones of infowars.com has got hours of shows on that subject.

yes highly sceptical especially about who did it and who I the government knew.

Can you tell us who did it and who in the govt knew katarzyna?