1. John, yes, the "almost too frightening to contemplate" part holds true, but the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing just doesn't hold water for one very basic reason: There's absolutely no way that anyone or any group within the American government could have so perfectly planned such an event WITH ASSURANCE that it would not only go without a glitch but that they could also keep it all under wraps for years and years to come.

   I always caution people against saying things that make the antismoking movement appear as a monolithic conspiracy, not just because the concept not only immediately destroys our credibility with a large segment of the population, but because a convoluted conspiracy explanation is totally unnecessary: the diverse forces/motivations as I outlined in "Brains" and some very unfortunate but not incredible bad breaks (Glantz et al winning the California mega-million tax prize in 1988, the MSA debacle that laid the foundation for pumping mega-HUNDRED-millions of annual dollars into "Tobacco Control," the NY bar owners deciding that their best strategy was to accept being enslaved to "enforce" the ban while they fought it in court, and the early but brilliant moves to refocus the antismoking movement from the smoker to the nonsmoker and then "dragging in the children" by redefining the word "addiction," all independently worked together in pushing the movement to its current level of success and quite adequately explain how we got where we are without a Voldemort controlling everything from behind the scenes.

   Occam's Razor is usually (not always, but usually) fairly correct: the simpler the explanation, the more likely it is that it's true.  A coordinated, planned, perfectly-executed and perfectly concealed event of the size and complexity of 9/11, and the continued success of a coverup of sucha massive operation, are simply not believable.  Heck, Hilary Clinton couldn't even keep track of what she did with her CELL PHONE!

   – MJM

   Reply ↓

   • Submitted on 2015/09/10 at 3:45 pm
     John, yes, the “almost too frightening to contemplate” part holds true, but the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing just doesn’t hold water for one very basic reason: There’s absolutely no way that anyone or any group within the American government could have so perfectly planned such an event WITH ASSURANCE that it would not only go without a glitch but that they could also keep it all under wraps for years and years to come.

     I always caution people against saying things that make the antismoking movement appear as a monolithic conspiracy, not just because the concept not only immediately destroys our credibility with a large segment of the population, but because a convoluted conspiracy explanation is totally unnecessary: the diverse forces/motivations as I outlined in “Brains” and some very unfortunate but not incredible bad breaks (Glantz et al winning the California mega-million tax prize in 1988, the MSA debacle that laid the foundation for pumping mega-HUNDRED-millions of annual dollars into “Tobacco Control,” the NY bar owners deciding that their best strategy was to accept being enslaved to “enforce” the ban while they fought it in court, and the early but brilliant moves to refocus the antismoking movement from the smoker to the nonsmoker and then “dragging in the children” by redefining the word “addiction,” all independently worked together in pushing the movement to its current level of success and quite adequately explain how we got where we are without a Voldemort controlling everything from behind the scenes.

     Occam’s Razor is usually (not always, but usually) fairly correct: the simpler the explanation, the more likely it is that it’s true.  A coordinated, planned, perfectly-executed and perfectly concealed event of the size and complexity of 9/11, and the continued success of a coverup of such a massive operation, are simply not believable.  Heck, Hilary Clinton couldn’t even keep track of what she did with her CELL PHONE!
     – MJM

      

      

     Michael,

     I need to disagree with you on several levels here. Firstly, let me dismiss the anti-smoking crowd as merely an annoyance and a bunch of phobic but ambitious people career-wise. I stopped trusting them years ago but to my mind, by comparison to 9/11, the anti-smokers are simply harmless and irrelevant.

     The events in New York and elsewhere fourteen years ago held a basic simplicity. That was, hiding the truth in the open. By the time the President addressed your Nation and all of the rest of us, he had that look that said, “Ya’ll saw what I saw.” Not only was the debate over but it could never even begin. There was no trial or conviction just a pronouncement of guilt and this was done hours after the event. The biggest crime scene we ever had was cleared away without forensic examination of any kind and this was done by the authorities. Put simply, they destroyed all of the evidence. It even took seven years to embarrass the American Government into an inquiry and it resulted in NIST lying through its teeth.

     Now, America leads the world in unmanned aircraft and missiles and builds all of the Boeing craft used that day. To either fly or direct planes that size onto targets would not be beyond the military over there so method or means cannot be disputed. And when you refer to it going without a glitch I would point to the failure of the alleged hi-jackers of the fourth plane that crashed in a field. I do not imagine that the field was the intended target.

     But I do not think there was ever an issue as to whether it could be done by those in authority in the U.S.  The real issue was whether they could get away with it, hence your reference to, “Keeping it all under wraps for years and years to come.” So far it seems, they have got away with it. But these are different times and the internet and U-Tube are the jokers in the pack today. And this is not Pearl Harbour or the Bay of Tonkin,  http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin  two other false flag operations. They did get away with those in different times but when the doubts or the truth surfaced, the guilty parties were long gone and nobody seemed to too upset at the deception because the clock could not be turned back anyway.

     The media choreography during and after 9/11 was brilliant. When France expressed reservations about joining the “Coalition of the Willing,” they became cheese-eating surrender monkeys. When Tony Blair dashed to join in, Britain was a “Trusted Ally.” Then George Bush told the world, “You are either with us or against us.” All of this, it seems to me, was to rush the world into either camp, prevent any detailed discussions about 9/11 or an appropriate, (and legal), response to it, and to ensure any investigation would never take place, clearing the site of the World Trade started immediately. 

     And then Michael, what are we left with? We must believe that a Saudi with kidney disease, holed up in caves in the Tora-Bora mountains, managed to mastermind the whole thing with what, the support of Saddam Hussein and a cell phone? Eighteen guys from the Middle-East came to the States, quite publicly boasted their need to learn to fly but not take off or land and yet they had the flying precision to hit their targets perfectly. A retired US pilot after said that pulling off the stunts in New York and the Pentagon would have been difficult enough for a seasoned military fighter pilot in an F-15. And several field agents of both the FBI and the CIA have come forward saying they warned their bosses about something that would happen at the Towers in the weeks running up to it. 

     Then Jeb Bush took over the security of the Towers, suspicious works began on several floors and the month before the incidents, all bomb-sniffing dog patrols were mysteriously cancelled. No Michael! The official version is a tissue of lies and falsifications too incredible to digest for any intelligent person. This leaves fertile ground for speculation but bear in mind, the architects and engineers merely showed the proof for what didn’t happen. They cannot nor will not suggest what did happen. They merely show that the NIST computer model of the collapses is wrong on too many accounts and all agree that controlled demolition is what we saw. Such an operation on that scale could not have been jury-rigged in the minutes after the aircraft hit. It would have taken weeks of work to ensure they came down as they did. 

     But by who, why was it done and for whose benefit? They are the real questions on that tragic day.

     Reply ↓

2. I watched two of these documentaries last night, and I have to confess that the evidence certainly did seem pretty conclusive – not necessarily about what happened, but more about proving what didn’t happen, and pointing out the strikingly odd anomalies in the official story, and the officials’ suspicion-raising refusal to address any of these anomalies in a meaningful way.  What I have difficulty getting my head around is that the US Government, or even hard-headed business magnates, would willingly do this to its own people. 

   Don’t get me wrong, I dislike American politicians every bit as much as I despise UK ones and my opinion of them is that there is nothing – absolutely nothing – too low for these parasitic worms-masquerading-as-humanity to stoop to.  But I think that even politicians, evil as they are, aren’t going to do anything more than they think they have to in order to achieve their objectives of maintaining their positions of money, power and influence.  9/11 just seems so drastic, and so far in excess of what was required that “the politicians and their big business chums dun’ it, guv” somehow doesn’t ring true. 

   It’s a real sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut scenario.  Why not just fly the planes into the buildings and leave it at that?  There would have been sufficient numbers of poor office workers horrifically killed and trapped in the burning buildings to give the US the excuse it needed to go ploughing in, all guns blazing, all round the world, still on the pretext of “combating terrorism” – so the buildings’ entire collapse, with the resulting loss of thousands of extra lives just wasn’t necessary once the planes had “done their job.” And if – for financial reasons – Silverstein wanted to make his big insurance claims and demolish the buildings to avoid the costly upgrades required (and to stop losing money on their upkeep), then it would surely have been possible to come up with a case – after the event, and well after everyone apart from those poor souls on the “crash” floors, had long left the area – for demolishing what remained of the structures, on the basis that they they had been “rendered unstable and very unsafe.”  In other words, they could have achieved precisely what they did achieve, but with much less effort and at a much lower human cost. 

   So whilst I understood, and can perfectly easily believe, the reasons given in the documentaries for the attack, I was still left with the question as to why whoever organised it (and, no, I don’t think that is was a raggle-taggle bunch of extremist terrorists) chose to do it in such an unnecessarily excessive way.  That, for me, remained the biggest unanswered question of all.

   Funnily enough, I’ve just watched a very interesting TV documentary in which a group of metallurgists put forward the theory that the “several explosions” heard in the buildings after the airplane strikes could well be explained by the presence of molten aluminium – a major component of modern jet planes – which, on contact with water (of which there was plenty in evidence from the sprinkler systems which had kicked in) becomes hugely explosive.  It didn’t answer all of the questions raised in the YouTube docs (like the explosions heard before the plane impacts or the ones at the very base of the building in the very early stages), but it certainly put a good case for some of the explosions heard after it.  What was odd, however, was, firstly, that in the course of the post 9/11 investigation, not a single metallurgist was consulted at any stage about how a metal which makes up the majority of the outer structure of all modern planes might have reacted after such an impact and, secondly, that when the metallurgists asked to test some samples from the site to see if the reactions which they thought might have occurred had done so, their request was refused, even though – if their theories, once tested, proved correct – they could very well have offered the official report writers’ information which would have given them textbook-perfect answers to some of their critics.  Now that, to me, is a real mystery.  If you’re busy trying to cover something up, and someone hands you the perfect way to do it – why would you refuse?

   Reply ↓

   • 
     Jax,

     Yes!  That the US Government, or even hard-headed business magnates, would willingly do this to its own people is the almost impossible part to believe. But I think that power and influence do have a corrupting nature and my suspicion is that for the people behind it, the end justified the means.

     It was not a case of maintaining their positions of power and money but drastically increasing those positions on both counts. For example, Larry Silverstein bought the leases for the Towers for only a few million dollars a couple of years before. Then the Port Authority hit him with the news that his buildings were crawling with asbestos and this would have to be removed at his expense. That expense is estimated to have been five times what he paid for the leases. But the asbestos problem disappeared with the buildings, didn’t it? Not only that but two months before 9/11 in late June, Larry changed the terms of his insurance cover to include impact from an airplane and this is a matter of public record. It came up in court too when Larry was awarded SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS in insurance money for his troubles!

     Donald Rumsfeld did really well through his association with Haliburton. They got all of the primary rebuilding contracts in Iraq, which they subsequently subleased to European and Asian contractors. The beauty of this ruse was, that as the Americans were effectively in power there by that time, Rumsfeld was signing off on all Iraqi payments to Haliburton and then getting rewarded personally as a director of that company. The big winners were the military industrial complex, the Pentagon and the arms industries. But there is no doubt that thousands of people in the States made huge money as a result that day and America extended its power overseas both militarily and politically. 

     Then you make the interesting point, “Why not fly the planes into the buildings and leave it at that?” Well, there are several reasons. Firstly, for it to be a proper false-flag operation, many Americans had to die on American soil. They needed sacrificial lambs to get support for invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In this context consider these next three figures. 3,000 innocent people died in 9/11, the working population of the Towers was 40,000 and finally 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians died in their own country as a result. As a fourth one I would add that 1,000,000 marched in protest against the war in London alone. 

     Another point worth mentioning here is the number of eyewitness accounts of the second aircraft before it hit. Many on the ground and in adjoining buildings swore that the plane had military markings. The US Air Force has fleets of Boeing aircraft just like the ones used that day and no evidence of plane wreckage was found in the rubble big enough to absolutely identify what planes crashed. Add to that the disturbing facts that several of the hijackers appeared to be alive and well in the weeks and months after the incident and that the FBI does not include any of the hijackers names in the lists they keep of those who dies on the planes. 

     You have to add to that the fact that if thermite were used in a controlled demolition then the buildings not only had to come down but no investigation of it could ever take place in case the outrage were discovered. What they actually did was to sign a contract with the Chinese, hire in heavy lifting gear and a fleet of trucks, cordon off the whole area and work twenty-four hours a day to rush the evidence from a crime scene down to the docks, onto ships and away forever. Of the three buildings, just 240 pieces remained on American soil, as one of the films testifies. 

     The ‘excessive’ nature of the attacks is what you think is the biggest unanswered question of all. But they could have chosen a small nuclear device like a suitcase dirty bomb, couldn’t thy? Like I said, they had to have their sacrificial lambs to incite public support for revenge against somebody. But just think for a moment – we live in a television age of twenty-four hour news coverage and the optics demanded a spectacular. Then there was the need for symbolism. The Towers represented capitalist power and the Pentagon was its military power. And then you have to ask, where was that forth plane supposed to hit? Intelligent money is on the White House itself, the symbol of political power. All of the big guns were out of the White House that day so the death of a few staffers plus the drama of having to cite a “command post” somewhere secret if the White Hose was down, would have been perfect, wouldn’t it?

     Then you raise the point about aluminum explosions. The molten rivers of metal seen flowing off the buildings first and then burning for eight weeks in some cases in the rubble afterwards, were not aluminum for a couple of reasons. First, the sprinkler systems were rendered inactive due to the impact apparently. Then molten steel burns bright yellow, (as we saw), whereas molten aluminum burns a power white. Finally, the fires underground after the collapse were oxygen-starved and this would have extinguished aluminum but thermite creates its own oxygen and can thus burn in a vacuum. 

     The perpetrators, (if there be), only needed to convince a majority of the population to support a war overseas and the removal of civil liberties at home. In that sense, 9/11 was a complete success. Americans became very nationalistic and the Stars & Stripes were draped everywhere as a result. Doubters were called traitors and the main news networks were establishment led so only one side of the story was put out. When I match 9/11 with the, “Blueprint for a New Century,” they closely correlate. One accelerated the other in just the way the report’s authors wanted. 

     Like I said, it is all deeply troubling.

     Reply ↓

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>