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.

Gruntled, NIST states that the fires were caused by ordinary office materials burning, and that this is what brought down WTC7. There have been many such fires in steel framed high rise buildings over the years. What happened to WTC7 is totally unprecedented. You may not find that odd. I do.

What about the fact that the sprinkler system was not working, allowing many small fires to spread and burn for a long time?

It is not just sprinkler systems which prevent office fires from causing this kind of collapse in a steel framed building.

Of course it isn't. But it was considered a contributing factor in this collapse, as it enabled multiple fires to spread from the initial fires as a result of the nearest tower collapse. There was other contributory factors too - the report into the collapse is extremely detailed on what probably happened.

Why does an unusual (and indeed unprecedented) situation have to be assumed to be suspicious rather than simply unusual? Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't make it impossible.

claig do you actually think 'charity' is spelt'charidee? Just curious as to why you use it,if not .To disparage charities?

I think you nailed it mutton

Postchildrenpregranny, I know it is spelt charity, I use charidee to disparage it and the luvvies who gain acclaim from it and the ex-political types that often run them or hand public taxpayer money to them and Establishment phonies like Jimmy Savile who gain knighthoods out of them.

I know they are not all like that, but I believe there are too many where Establishment types benefit from them instead of the causes they proclaim to serve, where too much of the public's contribution is spent on "administration and management fees" rather than good causes.

The thing is, using terms like "charidee" and "luvvies" instantly devalues your arguments because it makes you look like you are using those terms because you can't put forward logical points. Especially given that your interpretation of "luvvies" differs from commonly accepted usage anyway.

No because charidee sums up in one word the entire pretence and sham aspect of businesses and "enterprises" that take public money and spend it profligately in unaccountable ways and who use third party businesses enriching themselves by phoning and harassing old people to make contributions to their "clients" to the point where some people even commit suicide to escape these insensitive demands that fill the coffers of these charidees and pay for the exorbitant salaries of their bosses (often ex members of the political Establishment class) and so does luvvies. I have extended luvvies to beyond its original usage but it represents the hypocrisy, pretence and sycophancy of the servant class of the elite.

Yes, Culture, sometimes something unusual just happens. Like three steel buildings collapsing at essentially free-fall speed into their own footprints on the same day, in a completely unprecedented manner, for allegedly different reasons, after only two were hit by planes. Like different types of airspace defense failing at once. And so on. That’s when you would expect it to attract huge questioning and careful investigation from the start, not blanket statements about what happened, and delayed, underfunded, reluctant investigations. And that’s not even going into the findings of said investigations (which I think were looking only to corroborate the official story by whatever shoe-horning was necessary. One quite small example: I assume you know that NIST proclaimed that they found no evidence of pyrotechnics in the case of WTC7, then when pressed admitted that this is because they didn’t actually test for them?).

At the end of the day, I think it extremely unlikely that WTC7 came down because of office fires.

A while ago, Culture, you asked for some reading material. It's hard to know where to start with this, but since your primary interest (I think??) is in the mechanics of the buildings' collapse (over, say the social and political inadequacies of the official story, which are also massive), this letter written about the NIST report is interesting:

911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/WTC7Comments.html

To pass around the details of old age pensioners who they can then all phone up to take a cut from to add to their pie is obscene and to pressurise these people under a banner of "good causes" is sickening and they should penalise the heads of these organisations (however high a luvvie or however well-connected they are) for being a party to these practices.

"Essentially free-fall speed" is lazy. However, there were periods of time for which falling velocity was indistinguishable from free fall.

Say I'm persuaded by your opinions on the WTC disaster, do you have a clear alternative explanation? Or are you content to reject the investigation findings without having a concrete alternative? And, what actions/response or similar would you be looking for to rectify this situation? Confessions? Arrests? Resignations? Impeachments? A complete change in the current political and social order?

Say I'm persuaded by your opinions on the WTC disaster, do you have a clear alternative explanation?

Good question. The short answer to it is no - not a clear or definite one. And if I did claim to know what happened, without there having been a transparent, impartial, thorough investigation without foregone conclusions, then I would hope and expect that it would be vigorously challenged.

There are plenty of ideas out there, ranging from the incomplete but plausible to the frankly ludicrous. I would be surprised if high-status people living and working in America didn't have something to do with it. The level of involvement (from careless or deliberate overlooking of information to more active planning) I am less sure about.

A response of "This is a terrible event, and while we don't know what happened yet, we're going to investigate it properly, thoroughly, impartially and openly" (as, incidentally, many affected families have tried desperately to campaign for) would seem appropriate to me. We are not good at dealing with uncertainty (and often fill the void with crazy theories and stories, a tendency exploited to the full by government-influenced media), but sometimes that is what we have.

The one thing I'm pretty sure we will agree on, Culture, is that it was a truly horrific, tragic, event with heartbreaking consequences. For it to then be manipulated as it was, as a political reason to invade and kill people across the globe, is terrible beyond words.

are you content to reject the investigation findings without having a concrete alternative?

One more thing, Culture: I am certainly not "content" about it. It is not pleasant to come to the conclusion that you think the officially accepted story is wrong, and you have no definite other account to turn to, and little access to the information needed to form one. I spent a long time resisting this conclusion by trying to agree with the official story.

More seriously, what actual evidence can you point to in favour of an alternative theory? I don't mean evidence that in your view suggests the official explanation is wrong, but evidence demonstrating that another explanation is more likely.

The group "architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" attempt to contrast and compare the official 9/11 theory of gravitational collapse of the towers with their preferred theory of controlled demolition using explosives, adopting a scientific evidence based approach, as you suggest.

If you can spare an hour to see what they have to say then this YouTube is a good summary of their arguments, plus an interesting section by various psychologists on why we all find it so hard to question the official version.

Thanks for posting, StanStreeson. That looks like it's worth a watch.

It's Donald Trump again. He's only gon and done it again.

"Donald Trump Promises to Reopen 9/11 Investigation if Elected

“First of all, the original 9/11 investigation is a total mess and has to be reopened” he told the crowd of supporters. “How do two planes take out three buildings in the same day? I never got my head around the fact that nothing is mentioned about the destruction of Building 7 in the 585 page document” he explained, talking about World Trade Center 7 which also collapsed during the September 11 attacks.

Donald Trump also took a crack at presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s brother and former president, George W. Bush, without fully mentioning his name.

“Why did the administration at the time not take legal means against Saudi Arabia? Weren’t 19 of the high-jackers from Saudi Arabia?” he asked aloud. “Americans deserve answers and I would definitely request a new investigation so that this horrible tragedy never happens again” he told the crowd under a thunder of applause."

worldnewsdailyreport.com/donald-trump-promises-to-reopen-911-investigation-if-elected/

There is also the issue of the 28 redacted pages in the report.

Senator Bob Graham has said

“For years I have been campaigning for the release of the 2002 Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee 9/11 Inquiry’s report, to no avail” explains the former Governor of Florida. “These missing pages point to the direct involvement of the government of Saudi Arabia. Why are these being kept secret? Who has to gain from these games of secrecy?” he asks. “I have read these documents myself and if the American public knew what was in these documents, there would be a revolution tomorrow in the streets of America” he acknowledged during a radio interview this week. “Americans deserve to know the truth” he concluded, visibly angered by the whole affair."

Well, I can't argue with that. Thanks for posting that, claig.

Trump is truly amazing. He says everything the luvvies don't want anyone to say, he is 100% politically incorrect, 100% for the people. Who knows what will happen if Trump becomes President? There will be panic among the elites and their luvvies.

Trump says it would have been better if Saddam and Gaddhafi were still in power, he questions whether McCain is a war hero, he questions whether Bush kept America safe, he thinks it is fine for Putin to sort out Isis in Syria and thinks Assad is better than the people that are being backed and now he says he will reopen the 911 Investigation.

It is just incredible stuff and the panic among elites and puppets must be immense.

If Trump next says that he has seen the same "crisis actor" appearing 4 times at different "crises", then it will be all over for the elite.

Well, I really don't know about the rest of what he says, Claig, but it's a relief to think that someone has acknowledged the massive public interest in a decent 9/11 enquiry. The number of Americans and Canadians who realise something is seriously afoot seems to be growing. In some sectors of the UK it's caught on now too.

What would it take to satisfy you that an investigation was genuine and comprehensive? What if another investigation doesn't produce the outcome you would expect/want?

I'd want an explanation that adequately explained the facts.
I'd want it to be conducted by independent experts in a scientific way, logically considering alternative accounts such as controlled demolition. I want intelligent professionals with alternative perspectives to be genuinely listened to and their concerns adequately addressed.
But it's probably not even possible now - the evidence is gone. They've tied it up, and quite possibly we will never know.