The guns of 9/11

Friday, May 06, 2005

The guns of 9/11

It may seem strange for me to say this, since I’ve recently been writing about elves and abductions and hyperdimensional portals, but when it comes to parsing the mundane magick of 9/11, I think it’s important that we not be led by our imagination. Or, perhaps more worrisomely, by someone else’s.

I’m talking about “holograms.” I’m talking about “pods.” I’m talking, too, as I’ve talked before, about the Pentagon “missile.” But I’m talking about other things, even some of which may be true.

There’s a lot of wiggle room for informed speculation concerning 9/11, but it should be done on the back end. If it doesn’t follow an argument based on tangibles, if it doesn’t bring up the rear, there’s not much likelihood of it being informed. There’s no reason why the case against Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al should be led with hypothetical scenarios, when what we know is already enough to condemn them. Enough happened that is beyond reasonable dispute; we shouldn’t let our conjecture about how it happened dominate the argument. Even if it’s well-founded.

Here’s a for instance: I suspect remote control was engaged at some point in the flights, surprising the patsy hijackers to ensure the operation reflected expectations. I think there is circumstantial evidence to support the claim (for example, the institutional deceit regarding the recovery of the flight recorders, the improbable trajectory of Flight 77, and the viability of remote technologies) as well as logic (if such a world-changing event were allowed to happen, its chance of success would not likely be left in the hands of the unskilled pilots), but still, there is no smoking gun. So it’s a position I hold in an open hand, and I’m prepared to be persuaded that I’m wrong.

Then there’s WTC 7. I suspect it was demolished. But I fear for those who consider its collapse the “key” to 9/11. Hanging the entire case upon it gives disproportionate weight to the physical evidence, and if there’s an even slightly plausible explanation for its collapse short of demolition, then the whole case pays for the weakness of this single point of conjecture.

On the April 27 Guns and Butter, Indira Singh mentioned that early on the afternoon of September 11, firefighters came by her triage center near Building 7 and informed the EMT workers they would need to evacuate. The reason given was “We’re going to have to bring it down.” Meaning Building 7. And before it fell, she describes a growing sense of panic, because “people seemed to know ahead of time” it was going to fall.

This is interesting and deserving of follow up, but I don’t see this as anything like a smoking gun for demolition, because there still exist other plausible explanations for the remark, even if I may not buy them myself. Also, it begs a number of legitimate questions: Who were the firefighters? On whose authority were they speaking? If these were conspirators, why were they speaking freely? Could people have known ahead of time it was going to fall because it appeared unstable? I think we need to ask ourselves these kind of questions, before we start flagging Singh’s remarks as a smoking gun, and are asked them by others. In other words, we ought to debunk ourselves of lazy thinking to spare ourselves getting pissed off when it’s done for us.

I’m persuaded Indira Singh has important things to say, but about things she knows, such as Ptech, and I don’t think this is one of them. To her credit, she admits as much in the interview. “I’m not an engineer,” she says. Neither am I. Which is part of the reason I hesitate to speak with authority on this issue, and why I omitted it altogether from the Coincidence Theorist’s Guide. As I’ve said, I suspect WTC 7 was demolished, but suspicion isn’t good enough here, not when we have so much more.

The guns of 9/11 are still smoking, but they have little to do with the physical evidence. They have much more to do with the movement of wealth, with the coincident war games, with the Florida flight schools, with Pakistan, with the change to the standing orders for shoot downs – that kind of material. Those are the dots that connect for me. Generally, I believe the weakest arguments are those dedicated to the physical evidence of the crime. (And it’s noteworthy that Popular Mechanics, in its recent “debunking” issue of 9/11 conspiracy theories, restricted itself to those very arguments.)

There are different orders of knowledge, even regarding things meant to be kept hidden from us. It’s a tricky business, but I think it’s important that we observe the rules for each order, and know what kind of knowledge we’re talking about. Because there are degrees of darkness in which we’re kept. UFOs and High Weirdness are pitch black compared to the twilight world of 9/11. And to the degree we have light, even a little at twilight, then we needn’t imagine that we do.


Anonymous Anonymous said…
Does Larry Silverstein himself, on television, saying that he decided to “pull the building”,(demolish it), count for anything in this scenario? Just wondering how you felt about it. Connut

4:12 PM
Anonymous Al Qapone said…
Silverstein did not say that he decided to “pull the building”; he said that he and the NY Fire Dept. “decided the best thing would be to pull it.” Important: “it” need not necessarily refer to the building; it could just as easily refer to the firefighting operation. And, apparently, the phrase “to pull it” dates back to pre-radio days, when firefighters would signal a retreat by pulling on the hose from the back.

None of which implies that WTC 7 wasn’t deliberately demolished; it just doesn’t prove that it was (nor even that Silverstein said that it was.)

In short, I think that’s a good example of the kind of thing Jeff was warning against.

4:40 PM
Blogger Jeff said…
I mention Silverstein’s remarks in this post. Here’s his quote:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

And sure, it does count for something. It does contribute to my suspicion about the collapse. But I also have to admit his remarks could have another legitimate interpretation. I could see a case made that he’s talking about the team, especially in the context of the loss of life, and since there’s already been a terrible loss, the smartest thing to do it pull it – the team – out of the building. The point of his remark, in this interpretation, is about the team members escaping with their lives.

I understand that “pull” means “demolish” to demolition professionals. But that’s not what Silverstein is, so he may have used it in a more ordinary sense.

Also, I think it’s fair to ask why he would give the game away in a television interview.

The point of the post is that there is much we know with certainty about 9/11, and we should lead with that. That’s not to say we should ignore the rest, such as WTC 7, but that for me it’s still a question mark instead of an exclamation point.

Just trying to apply some rigour to my intuition.

4:46 PM
Blogger Truth Seeker said…
I understand that “pull” means “demolish” to demolition professionals. But that’s not what Silverstein is, so he may have used it in a more ordinary sense.

If he used the phrase to mean a pull out of firefighters, why would he say pull? He’s not a firefighter either, so why would he use their jargon? There was only fires on two floors of WTC7, why would that cause so much loss of life? Never had fires caused a pancake collapse at free fall speed before. Also, planes have never been able to bring down high-rise buildings before or after 9-11.

There are smoking guns, but not the type that the American people will be willing to accept the thought of its government leaders attacking its citizens. 9/11 just emphasizes the real problem in our country, the illusions and ignorance of the populace.

Of course I’m preaching to the choir here, but true nonetheless.

5:14 PM
Anonymous GDN said…
I would agree with Jeff that there is plenty of evidence for proving the complicity/participation of our government in the 9/11 attacks. I don’t understand the particular significance of what happened to WTC 7 to make it a focal point of attempts to prove it.

I was at Ground Zero as a volunteer, providing crisis counseling to the rescue workers. I was there a total of 9 days over a three week period, beginning less than a week after the attacks. I was there when other buildings were brought down because of the concern they were going to collapse anyway. I was there one night when there was a panic that one building, a very tall hotel that was immediately facing the area of destruction, was believed to be on the verge of collapse. They were using laser beams to detect even the slightest shift in buildings. Frequently, there was talk of bringing buildings down, that weren’t brought down. It is plausible to me that there was talk of bringing WTC 7 down, and some may have thought they were going to, and then it collapsed before they were able to. There was certainly a wild rumor mill at GZ, some rumors I heard have since been proven true, at least according to some sources. For example, the presence of radiation at the site.

But without resorting to speculation, there is plenty of evidence to support the claim of our government’s foreknowledge and complicity – at the very least.

5:21 PM
Anonymous GDN said…
Another thought – there was a lot of division in communication between the various agencies on site. All the agencies involved had a history of competitiveness which, in my opinion, led to a lot of divisiveness and territorial fighting. The NYC police and firefighters did not trust each other or want to work together. FEMA and the NYC Office of Emergency Management were fighting over control of the site, leading to different security measures used from day to day, depending on who was “in charge”. They did not share information between agencies, so depending on who you talked to, you would get different information regarding health hazards and procedures. It is possible that different versions of the story of WTC 7 are floating around – with the different people each believing their version to be true, based on their information. And it could be that one agency had decided to bring the tower down, while another did not. Who knows which actually happened. And whether or not the tower was brought down has little to do with larger issues of NORAD’s behavior during the attacks and the ignoring and suppressing of specific warnings given to our government prior to the attacks.

5:36 PM
Blogger bin’dare said…
Generally, I believe the weakest arguments are those dedicated to the physical evidence of the crime.

As you say Jeff, you are not an engineer. Nevertheless, if you haven’t done it before, i strongly recommend that you try to get your mind around the physical evidence, it is immensely compelling — i can give you the links if you do not already know them.

5:41 PM
Anonymous gwbushmalecheerleader said…
Well Jeff,

As the one that posted I believe WTC 7 is a great STARTING POINT, as it is the ONLY ONE with a CONFESSION, I think you should stick to finding satan in UFOs.

To state that Silverstein didn’t mean the building: “And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” truly makes me wonder about this site, disinformation, and all.

This statement:
“Silverstein did not say that he decided to “pull the building”; he said that he and the NY Fire Dept. “decided the best thing would be to pull it.” Important: “it” need not necessarily refer to the building; it could just as easily refer to the firefighting operation.” is utter bullshit. Bull. Shit.

And: “And, apparently, the phrase “to pull it” dates back to pre-radio days, when firefighters would signal a retreat by pulling on the hose from the back.”

Apparently, we have a disinformation agent posting here: the term “Pull” is used by the Controlled Demoplition industry “dating” NOW!

WTF else could that mean?

Video of the charges blowing out support prior to the collapse mean nothing (who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?)?

Physics suspended that day?

Steel friggin’ buildings do not COLLAPSE by FIRE.

Do. Not.

Ok, let’s do this: From now on, ALL controlled demos will be accomplished by pouring only $25,000 worth of JP-8 into the basement of the hirise, we simply set the fire off, and watch the building collapse PERFECTLY into it’s own footprint, JUST LIKE THEY USED TO DO “scientifically” with CHARGES!!!

Sure gonna save a lot of time and money to demo buildings now, no need for “science” to be involved, right? Right? RIGHT????

See how friggin’ STOOOOOPID it is that way, Jeff?

Wow, let’s chase some obscure connections that mom and pop in Missouri will get glazed eyes listening to. I believe you may not WANT it solved, with statements like that.

So Jeff, how’s those zionists spies in the US pentagon doing?

No obscure 9/11 connections there for you to chase, eh?

Sadly dissapointing you wish to ignore scientific basis to pursue obscure, obtuse hard to prosecute theories of conspiracy.

The friggin’ building fell, “pulled”, admitted to on Public television.

Let’s ignore THAT. Great idea.

Sure, what Indira and Sibel have are invaluable testimony in court. Firast, we have to demostrate reasonable doubt as to the official story, to get average Americans to divert their attention from Jackson’s trial.

And IGNORING SOUND SCIENCE seems an approach the holyrollers worshipping Bush favor, not intelligent investigators.

6:34 PM
Anonymous albion said…
IMO what WTC7 is the “key” to – in people’s minds if not in actuality – is to the idea of a much wider conspiracy. Personally, I am not yet persuaded that at least 1 of each team of hijackers was indeed a qualified pilot, acting with a plan to hijack and demolish his plane, much as it appears. An alternate explanation for the divergence between the pilots’ apparent lack of experience and the tremendous skill required to complete the operation, could be as simple as identity theft – i.e. we have no idea who was really on those planes. And I am well past the idea that you cannot “hire” somebody to do a “suicide” attack, I think there are any number of ways of making people do that sort of thing.

Now, the idea of remote-control technolody taking over the planes remains firmly in the realm of the hypothetical – intriguing certainly, but hypothetical. What I think WTC7 represents is the most compelling evidence for the possibility that there was substantial, widespread foreknowledge of the EXACT (as opposed to general) means and method of the attacks, as well a conscious decision to assist them, profit from them and conceal co-conspirators. It opens up a whole other order of possible conspiracies and high-level criminality. What this idea has going for it is logic, in the idea that in such a massive operation, nothing would be left to chance, and the perpetrators would make extreme efforts cover their tracks. But what this idea has going against it is also logic – in that such a vast conspiracy could not possibly have been undertaken without many more leaks than we’re actually seeing. At the moment, my intuition still leans toward a (relatively) limited conspiracy, which may or may not include WTC7.

For the most part I think that all the current “unified” theories of 9/11 are woefully inadequate, simply because of the lack of information. But in my opinion, so far the best reading of the circumstantial (i.e. non-physical) evidence is Dave Emory’s “Engineer Intends to Wreck the Train” hypothesis. I think that he’s probably got enough right enough to warrant further investigation along the lines he lays out. By contrast I think most “NWO” conspiracies are just recycled anti-communist and anti-semitic propaganda garbage. I don’t know why so many people still believe all that John Birch Society bullshit, after all these years. We should be looking to the far-right as SUSPECTS, not sources of information!

6:49 PM
Anonymous Al Qapone said…
gwbushmalewhateveritwas writes: “Right? RIGHT???? See how friggin’ STOOOOOPID it is that way, Jeff?” (etc.)

Well, thanks for that carefully-reasoned perspective. If we want to convince the mainstream of our seriousness, I think posts of that calibre represent the way forward.

GDN writes: “It is possible that different versions of the story of WTC 7 are floating around – with the different people each believing their version to be true, based on their information. And it could be that one agency had decided to bring the tower down, while another did not. Who knows which actually happened.”

The more general point is the lack of accountability in purportedly democratic societies. Confusion and rivalry undoubtedly account for some of the uncertainties still surrounding the whole issue; but (to cut a long story short): where there’s a will, there’s a way. Much more could be found out if there was any will to do so. One of the biggest give-aways in the scandalous 9-11 cover-up is the almost ostentatious lack of curiosity about what actually happened. And not only has there been no independent investigation; there is, apparently, no effective way of demanding one – despite the fact that half of all New Yorkers suspect their own government of complicity. But then, those people simply don’t matter, except when their grief and fear happen to be marketable.

Jeff, thanks for the verbatim Silverstein quotation. Just goes to show the dangers of quoting from memory… In any case, it doesn’t alter the point that he’s admitted nuthin’ yet. But again, the media’s lack of *curiosity* about his statement speaks volumes in itself.

7:07 PM
Anonymous Agent137 said…
You guys are getting warmer. Try playing the tapes backwards…

7:26 PM
Blogger Jeff said…
“As the one that posted I believe WTC 7 is a great STARTING POINT, as it is the ONLY ONE with a CONFESSION -“

Well, good luck with that. Seriously. Because if all of this doesn’t lead to seeing justice done, then we’re just wanking. But I don’t know that there’s a court anywhere, and at anytime, that would accept Silverstein’s remarks as a confession. And caps don’t make it so.

I said in the post, and I said so repeatedly, that I suspect demolition. But the physical evidence is not the most persuasive to me. I find the same with the JFK assassination. Too many researchers spent too long in Dealey Plaza, calculating lines of fire and blood spatter patterns. The greatest proof of conspiracy is not found there; it’s found in what came before Dealey Plaza, and what followed. And guess what? The conspirators got away with it.

“Wow, let’s chase some obscure connections that mom and pop in Missouri will get glazed eyes listening to.”

Should we infotainingly dumb it down? I thought we wanted justice done. 9/11 “Truth” is already dumbed down enough. For instance, people who should know better are still talking about “Atta’s passport” surviving. First of all, it wasn’t Atta’s. And second, I can tell true stories of tornadoes picking up babies and setting them down gently in tree branches. What does it prove, and where does it leave us? Your “mom and pop in Missouri” may say “Hey yeah, how about Atta’s passport?” but how does that serve justice, if it’s a lie?

“I believe you may not WANT it solved, with statements like that.”

Naturally, I must a disinfo agent, because we disagree.

7:42 PM
Anonymous GDN said…
For what it’s worth – at GZ I don’t remember ever hearing the phrase “pull the building” when hearing about buildings that were targeted for demolition. It was always “dropped” – We’re going to drop the building this afternoon; The building was dropped yesterday; etc.

I did hear the word “pull” frequently in reference to moving people out of areas. The firemen were pulled off the pile to allow bulldozers to work, search teams were pulled from buildings deemed unsafe, etc.

I have another question for those who believe the WTC towers were brought down by our government using explosives, rather than by the effects of the planes being flown into them. Why did they need to bring the towers down? And how did they know how to do it? Without exception, everyone I spoke to there, firemen, FEMA people, and others, all said these buildings were not collapsable. And no one believed it was the intended outcome. What I heard repeatedly, was that the towers coming down was beyond anyone’s expectation. And that the towers were designed to have floors pancake, if there was a fire, but that it would have been contained – maybe 10 floors would collapse on top of each other, with the rest of the building remaining intact because of exterior supports that would keep the towers up, even if a few floors were compromised. Could it be that the plan was to have the planes fly into the buildings, killing thousands from the impact and fire – and that would have been enough to start beating the war drums? And any evidence that needed to be concealed would have been eradicated by fire. Why go the riskier route and try to arrange for explosives to bring the buildings down? And why run the risk that they might fail – leaving even more damaging evidence to be discovered? What purpose did that serve that the attacks themselves would not have accomplished? By having to wait a reasonable amount of time before using explosives to bring the buildings down, they knew there would be less people killed because there would be time for them to get out of the buildings, so it wasn’t to increase the death toll and outrage people. Even 300 dead would have been enough to justify retaliation with the right rhetoric. Why create an even bigger disaster and economic liability with the towers falling? Maybe the disaster was worse than intended, by all parties involved?

7:51 PM
Blogger Jeff said…
GDN, I believe the psy-op of 9/11 is the collapse. If the towers had been left standing, even if thousands had still died, it would not have been the trauma event that created a blank slate where America had been. If the towers remained, Americans could say “Those bastards gave it their best shot, but we’re still standing!”

That’s my belief, but I haven’t much more than that to support it, so I don’t argue it.

8:02 PM
Anonymous sw said…
I’m curious about the Secret Service Special Officer who died in the collapse of WTC 7. He was on loan from Washington. They never found his body.

They got everyone out but him?

His name was Craig Miller.

I wonder what he knew?

9:51 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said…
i think jeff’s original post was excellent, and his replies to comments are right on.

the silverstein interpretation is new to me, and i would rate the chances in the high 90s that he meant that they pulled the firefighters and, look, the building then collapsed, so it was the right thing to do, we saved a bunch of lives. that’s clearly what silverstein meant. why would he let the cat out of the bag? i’ve seen the footage, and he wasn’t divulging the plot.

i agree that the collapses of the two big towers were the big show for the american people. wtc7 was probably done to get rid of the control center and to destroy some other things, certain records and documents and so on. at 5pm, it was a non-event for the public.

the big-tower collapses were the thing; they tried to keep the deaths at a low level. the planes came in one before the other, the first one hit very high, the second still pretty high, the first at 8:46am, on an election day, and a day when many people were taking their kids to the first day of school.

imagine that the planes had come in simultaneously at 11am, a lot lower than they did, and that the buildings had fallen over sideways. everyone above the impacts would have died, and many more below, with the crowds evacuating slowly. the sideways falls would have killed many more. in all, they could have killed 20 times as many people as they did, but that wasn’t necessary.

while we’re at it, let me add a couple of comments arising from jeff’s naming of cheney and rumsfeld as the main perps. i think it’s likely that cheney was the mastermind. for me it raises questions about how the key bush 2 people got into position.

the floodgates were opened when cheney was chosen to vet vp candidates. i have always imagined that bush senior (41) approved of or even recommended cheney for that role, for some reason thinking that cheney wouldn’t want the vp job, or perhaps that by having the role of vetting the candidates, he couldn’t then take the job himself. it would be unseemly. (right!) maybe 41 thought that he was innoculating his son’s administration from cheney as vice president. but all that interaction between dubya and cheney left dubya thinking “man, this guy knows everything! he’s a wizard!” and cheney was gently pointing out the shortcomings of people like chuck hagel and the rest.

so cheney became the vp. i think he might really have intended to stay out of the new administration, but he couldn’t refuse this offer, because of course the vp succeeds the prez if anything unfortunate and unexpected happens to him.

so cheney became the svengali, and 41 was eclipsed. 41 doesn’t like rumsfeld, but cheney sure does. cheney brought rumsfeld in, perhaps over 41’s reservations. maybe dubya saw the appointments process as a way to get back at his dad somehow. anyway, cheney already had the master plan in mind, and in talking to rumsfeld, cheney spelled it out. if you’re on board, don, i’ll try to get you the DoD job. rumsfeld was on board. so in this light i see cheney as the driving force.

and getting back to the succession thing, and with apologies for getting off-topic, i’ve been thinking how little surprised i would be if dubya were assassinated in early 2007, after the midpoint of the term, at which time cheney would be eligible for two full terms. assuming that any of this constitutional window-dressing still matters by then, of course.

and that raises another question: if dubya goes down, then jeb’s career will be deeply threatened. by 2016, his dad probably won’t be around to help any more, and the cheney gang will have made arrangements to keep jeb out in the cold. so, will the master assassin, bush 41, pre-empt cheney? will cheney die before the mid-point of this term?

10:16 PM
Blogger Spooked said…

While your assessments are perfectly valid, I find it incredibly funny that you are so conservative about 9/11 yet you entertain the most wild speculation about UFOs and magick and god knows what else here. Which is fine– it’s your blog.

The problem of course with 9/11 is that we have a lot of tantalizing evidence and no way to really investigate anything, and so all we can do is speculate. The motives for 9/11 are speculation too. Everything we have is circumstantial really. Sure there are official lies about 9/11, lots of them. But we have no proof, and we will not get proof until enough people rise up to call the government on its bullshit. And that’s going to happen, oh, any day now, I’m sure. Right after the media exposes the fraudulent election of 2004, the media exposes Bush’s lies about Iraq and he gets impeached, the media exposes government involvement in the Oklahoma City Bombing and the TWA flight 800 crash, and so forth.

9/11 truth sounds great. I would love to see it. But I am not clear what is going to happen to either make someone in the government confess to this crime or to make someone take a lot of personal risk by starting a new official investigation. And even if we do get another investigation, all we will get is a limited hangout to be sure.

So, the fact is, we might as well just have fun speculating. Maybe eventually we’ll find a theory that explains everything about 9/11.

11:10 PM
Blogger Spooked said…
I might as well put in a plug here for Webster Tarpley’s “Synthetic Terror 9/11: Made in USA”, which I think is the most highly developed explanation for 9/11 and if nothing else is a good read.

The most interesting point Tarpley makes is in describing 9/11 as a miitary coup of sorts. Overall his analysis of 9/11 is masterful– particularly from a political perspective.

11:38 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said…
When gwbushmalecheerleader wrote, Steel friggin’ buildings do not COLLAPSE by FIRE. Do. Not., I cringed and decided to speak up.

I am an architect, and I can speak with as much authority and assurance as gwbushetc.etc.etc. did when I tell you that steel buildings are absolutely vulnurable to collapse due to fire, which is why fire codes mandate that all structural steel is coated or covered or protected in some way by non-flammable material. And even then, steel structures still collapse all the time. Why the fire protection if it doesn’t stop a steel building from collapsing? To buy time for the occupants to escape. There are 1-hour ratings, 90-minute ratings, on up to 4-hour ratings on building and structural assemblies. These assemblies don’t prevent failure. They simply buy time.

It it entirely reasonable and plausible to me, an educated and licensed architect, that each of the World Trade Center buildings collapsed so quickly as the trauma of such a collision [or collapse of neighboring buildings] would have thoroughly compromised the structural fireproofing enough to create numerous weak points within the envelope of the buildings to ensure failure and initially contain collapse INWARDLY and then DOWNWARDLY.

I am a fan of this website, and believe in the plausibilities and possibilities of many conspiracy theories. But the collapse of any and all of the WTC buildings did not surprise me one bit. When I saw the buildings were on fire, and heard what had caused the conflagrations, I knew they were coming down and could only pray that others were equally aware of the inevitability.

12:33 AM
Anonymous wolf pauli said…
Could the anonymous architect cite an example of a steel structure collapsing on its own footprint, virtually at the rate of freefall, without controlled demolition? Not a rhetorical question, just a request for info. Thanks.

BTW, for those who missed David Ray Griffin’s talk on CSPAN, it will be re-broadcast Sat. May 7th at 2:30 pm eastern on CSPAN-2.

1:52 AM
Anonymous James said…
Jeff: How many of your correspondents have actually examined the scientific evidence about the collapse of the three main WTC buildings? “Spooked” has recommended Webster tarpley’s book and I entirely agree with his view. I would add David Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor; Mike Ruppert’s “Crossing the Rubicon”; Daniel Hopsicker’s Welcome to Terrorland and Jim Hoffman’s web site as invaluable starting points. There is overwhelming evidence that all three buildings were brought down by controled demolitions. Semantic hairsplitting about what Silverstein did or did not mean by his widely quoted remarks is really a diversion. The laws of physics, mathematics and logic tell us a great deal more than the US government would prefer that we knew.

3:04 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said…
The planes impacting were the focal point for a series of events, before, during, and after the impacts. Any one of these focal events has left a mass of complex physical evidence too diverse and confused for any one of us to fully comprehend, let alone put in order. The events that preceded and followed these focal events spiral off into fractal complexity. The events are set in a political/economic context that is largely obscure (at least to most of the people affected by it).
Complexity is the most potent weapon of the conspiracy, and once started, feeds upon itself, forming a tangled web of “fact” and “argument” that obscures rather than clarifies.

Where do the elves and UFOs come in?

Unless understood as a magical act, 9/11 will remain forever obscure. The “trauma” and “collapse” of the physical structure of the towers – referred to above – was not the aim of the conspirators. The focal events are the hypnotist’s swirling eye. The physical act invoked a deeper effect on the magical life of America. As above, so below, and the other way around. The calendar date mirrors, and amplifies, the two single digits, in a potent magical formula.
Reduce the will and spirit of the people to smoking rubble, and rebuild according to plan.
Everything went according to plan.
God bless America, for she sleeps, and wolves circle the dying campfire.

5:01 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said…
My complements to the last anonymous poster for an excellent post!

And let me add that while disinformation surely exists, there is a tendency among 9/11 researchers and sceptics of accusing one another of being disinfo agents, which can sometimes border on the paranoid. It’s easy enough to become paranoid dealing with this material as it is – I think it is wise to think twice before levelling such accusations against fellow truth-seekers.

6:34 AM
Anonymous Michael said…
Well I’m not an expert but I’ve seen documentaries about preparing buildings for a controlled demolition. The process of preparing a building with explosives in a way that it falls into its own footprint seems to be something you can’t do in one afternoon. It takes a lot of planning, and placing the explosives into the right spots usually takes weeks.

So in the aftermath of the 2 towers having just collapsed no one would have been able to prepare the building for a controlled demolition. And because of that I think it’s completely irrelevant to discuss the meaning of “And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” It’s just like someone would decide now to drill a hole to the earth’s core. Fine – but it just can’t be done in one afternoon. And try to find qualified engineers for such a project if chaos and mayhem is all around.

Of course, what looks like a controlled demolition has a high probability to be just that. Conclusion?

7:32 AM
Blogger Jeff said…
“While your assessments are perfectly valid, I find it incredibly funny that you are so conservative about 9/11 yet you entertain the most wild speculation about UFOs and magick and god knows what else here.”

I know, it struck me as funny too, which is why I began the post with “It may seem strange for me to say this…”

But the thing is, we need to use the best cognitive tools available for understanding each kind of event, whether it be a black op or black magick. There’s no need to evaluate 9/11 in the same way we might an alien abduction.

I don’t think I’m so conservative about 9/11. I don’t believe it was simply allowed to happen; it was made to happen. And I said in the original post I suspect both remote control and demolition were employed. I just want to be cautious about what I say I know to be a fact, and that it is our non-speculative facts that should lead the case against the perpetrators.

I hope I exercise the same caution about all my other speculations.

Thanks for putting in a plug for Tarpley. I really appreciate his analysis.

7:39 AM
Blogger Jeff said…
“Unless understood as a magical act, 9/11 will remain forever obscure. The “trauma” and “collapse” of the physical structure of the towers – referred to above – was not the aim of the conspirators. The focal events are the hypnotist’s swirling eye. The physical act invoked a deeper effect on the magical life of America. As above, so below, and the other way around. The calendar date mirrors, and amplifies, the two single digits, in a potent magical formula.”

Thanks for the comment. It reminded me of something I wrote in one of my earliest posts:

“Since the mutation of America into the National Security State, it has been bedeviled by dark magi with deep bags of tricks: masters of sleight of hand, misdirection and persuasion, who dazzle their citizen-audience and leave them gasping, Now how’d they do that? And while the tricked try to figure out the mechanics of deep black illusions, for years the magi have been getting away with murder. And they will continue to do so, until enough people take their eyes off the tricks, and look at the tricksters.

“At a certain point, when a critical mass of evidence was reached – and it may have been as early as Ruby silencing Oswald – Americans should have known enough, to say Enough, already. And they should have brought the United States to a standstill until they saw something like justice done.

“Americans will only wake from their nightmare of watching their finest liberal leaders, witnesses to high crimes and sundry victims getting lonegunman’d, suicide’d and accident’d, treason unpunished and mass murder rewarded, if they learn that “We’ll never know what really happened” is irrelevant. Because these are not puzzles; these are crimes. And crimes are never, in the end, How done its. They are Who done its. And here’s the singular unknown known: we know enough, and have for years, to know who.”

8:39 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said…
Anonymous One,Dr.Camerin must have been laughing out loud where ever he is resting.To have the whole world watching his “loop tech” for the next 24 hrs,now that was were I found the clincher.Think what ever you want about that day,but these guys are some of the best magicians around,later.

9:54 AM
Anonymous Irony said…
I want to respond to something from way up-thread, and I’m sorry I’m too hungover to insert all the links right now.

Someone said, “Why did the towers have to come down?” In other words, why total destruction/razing rather than an attack which left a very visible reminder? It’s true that much of it might be to contain the flow of evidence, i.e., to perpetuate a cover-up. The fact that all the scrap steel from GZ was sold very cheaply to a friend of Giuliani’s, who turned around and sold it to the Chinese — before it could be stress-tested by engineers and other scientists — is, I think very telling. It reminds me of the way they demolished the OKC building before it could be fully examined by professionals to determine whether McVeigh’s bomb had been capable of causing all of the destruction of that building (there’s a relevant story on this in DeCamp’s “Franklin Cover-Up” book, as DeCamp was lawyer for some of the OKC bombing victims). A preliminary examination of the OKC building was said to cast doubt on the ability of McVeigh’s bomb to cause all the destruction that resulted.

Anyway, another explanation for why the towers had to come down could be, as Jeff says, to cover up what came immediately before, and to tie up some loose ends. All the short-selling in the markets, the enormous debts Cantor-Fitzgerald had coming due THAT VERY DAY, the fact that the WTC owner had recently taken out an enormous NEW insurance policy. (Coincidentally, the insurer for much of GZ, Allianz (an enormous German-based company with which I’ve worked in the past) is investigating insurance fraud in the claim at the behest of their shareholders. You can read about it at here. Also, one structural engineer has intimated that corrosion in the WTC structure that was unanticipated (and similar to what was occurring with the Statue of Liberty, necessitating the enormous cost of renovation there) was going to make the towers perilously unstable in the coming decade. Much of the office space in the towers was empty. The site was a money sink.

To me it’s nearly as convenient as Giuliani starting an anthrax clean-up company a few months before actual anthrax starts coming in the mail.

Anyway, my point was, bringing the towers down didn’t just give the Bush administration a giant chunk of fear capital to spend politically, it gave a lot of people a lot of money they wouldn’t have had if the towers hadn’t fully collapsed. Also, the conspirators (if there were conspirators; hey, I’m trying to be open-minded) wouldn’t have had nearly the control over the evidence if there had been more survivors (like the engineer in a sub-basement whose testimony from that day lends credence to demolition charges going off at the base of the steel supporting columns; if you haven’t read Mike Pecoraro’s testimony, it’s amazing). (You can read it here: my tag wasn’t being accepted.)

Thank you for the post, Jeff. Healthy skepticism, as you say, has to come from the rear; concentrate on what we know, and eventually we’ll have the truth.

10:24 AM
Blogger Jeff said…
Another example of what mistakes to avoid from the investigation of JFK’s murder.

A number of researchers said “the driver did it” based on what they saw in the Zapruder film. And by God, there are frames that look as though Bill Greer turns and points a gun just before the fatal shot. But he didn’t. The gun is a trick of the shadows. Yet there are still sincere people who say “the driver did it,” because they think they saw it with their own eyes.

Well, I don’t trust my own lyin’ eyes so much, and much less other people’s. Some people see squibs in the puffs of smoke before the WTC collapse. I see puffs of smoke that could be squibs, or could be the result of floors pancaking before the fall of the exterior walls.

Now, in favour of demolition, more than my own eyes I trust the judgement of Kevin Ryan of Underwriters’ Laboratory, who I mentioned here, who lost his job for questioning the “steel softening” theory of the WTC collapse. As he said, “This story just does not add up.”

10:25 AM
Anonymous Irony said…
Exactly. What’s more telling: what we think we can see from examining the Zapruder film, or the fact that Time-Life did everything in its power to prevent the film from being subpoenaed by Jim Garrison? The fact that it allowed Garrison to establish a timeline for the murders that cast serious doubt on the official story?

Sometimes it’s not what’s on film that’s important; it’s the lengths to which certain parties are willing to go to prevent others from seeing the film that’s telling.

10:38 AM
Blogger PeopleNotSheeple said…
Jeff wrote:

I could see a case made that he’s talking about the team, especially in the context of the loss of life, and since there’s already been a terrible loss, the smartest thing to do it pull it – the team – out of the building.

That’s what I tried to tell Alex Jones, who has been pushing the Silverstein quote as the “smoking gun.” I think Alex is for real, but less than discerning and tending to overreach and overstate. If we mistakenly latch on to these non-smoking guns, we’re only shooting ourselves in the foot.

But I wouldn’t say physical evidence doesn’t matter. THe suspicious building collapses do matter and should be carefully studied — it’s a tremendous “pyschic break” to realize that steel-frame skyscrapers do not simply collapse from fire. THis realization could set in motion the wheels of skepticism for many.

Also, “physical evidence” includes missing black boxes abd “terrorist” passports that just happen to float down out of the same building where, we’re told, white-hot jet fuel fires melted reinforced steel! These anomalies too need to be milked for all they’re worth. No single one of them proves the govt. did it or allowed it, but put ’em all together (with the financial transactions, the stand-downs, the drills and all the rest) and they only strenghthen the case.

11:23 AM
Blogger jmk said…
It’s good that Jeff analyses the words of Silverstein that are said to reveal his culpability. It is certainly a shaky proposition to take some remarks out of context and make them support a serious accusation.

Nevertheless, I think Jeff’s analysis of what Silverstein said is off base. First of all, why would the fire commander consult with Silverstein about “pulling” his men if they were in danger? I expect that Silverstein’s opinion on this matter would be irrelevant, and the fire chief would act with complete autonomy. On the other hand, since the property was Silverstein’s, the fire chief would have to consult with him to discuss any such options as demolishing the building. Therefore I believe that Jeff’s interpretation of Silverstein’s words is incorrect.

12:07 PM
Blogger Spooked said…
good point, jmk.

and Irony thanks for posting why the towers had to come down– I was just going to give those reasons: covering up financial transactions and Silversteins insurance fraud.

Pakistanis had been predicting the towers would come down, and in fact, everybody knew they were a target after the 1993 bombing, which was of course rigged by the FBI.

The key thing for me is– if you were a terrorist intent on bringing down the WTC towers, would you do it by ramming airplanes into them? Is that the sure-fire way to do it? I strongly suspect the airplane crashes were a diversion from the real demolition.

As for how the towers were brought down, “Christophera” at DU has an interesting theory. He thinks when the towers were built, the inner columns were coated with C-4 explosive. He saw a documentary that showed the towers being built and at one point they had extremely tight security for some special application on the columns. The idea is that at the time, the towers were built a intrinsic means of bringing them down, yet the C-4 is very stable and is safe unless activated. It’s an interesting idea.

Check it out:

12:33 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said…
What’s interesting about the “special coating” theory is that it could have been incorporated entirely “innocently” – the towers would have to come down some day, and building in the means of their destruction is a nice feature, but one that would necessarily have to be kept secret. The intervention of a government team to coat the steel with C4 is entirely consistent with this. It’s easy to imagine that this secret was found out by the conspirators; perhaps it’s the main reason the twin towers were chosen; they were easy to bring down. However, just igniting the C4 would NOT have had the requisite emotional impact or sense of “show”. It would have looked like what it was; controlled detonation and demolition.

1:39 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said…
I decided the best way to attack this subject was to do some brainstorming, so here it goes. Someone had brought up the issue of why use aircraft to bring down the buildings (or at least as a diversionary tactict *the planes being the cause rather than carefully placed charges?*) I would cite that the use of aircraft helped with the plausability of an Islamic terrorist event (assuming a conspiracy). We all know how Islamic terrorist love to hi-jack planes. The imagery is also a key in this. The attacks/hi-jackings are prelude to the “patriot act” rammed through congress to help control populous (and their withering dissent). Not to mention the two current wars and the third and endless “War on Terrorism”. Isn’t there evidence of W adminstration officials working on the patriot act before 9/11? I had a thought that the WTC’s were the diversion. We all are forgetting about the attack at the Pentagon and the downing of Flight 93. I keep thinking of Garrison’s meeting with Fletcher Prouty. From the book or the movie, it’s a great scene. The dizzying connections…”It’s a parlor game! The how and the why are just scenery. Who proffitted? Who had the power to cover this up?

2:14 PM
Anonymous Starman said…
Some excellant points made here re: caution on placing too much emphasis on tenuous or unprovable physical evidence of the incredible, scarcely-imaginable-extent of crime perpetrated on 911 (and serving as pretext for numerous crimes that followed, as well as covering-up past crimes) — it’s a true fractally-expanding viper’s nest of confusion and complexity with overtones of black-magick working as per anonymous’s most excellant observations, which certainly provokes ME to consider the occult significance of what 911 is, as being a kind of psychic-nexus for implications re: political, economic, social, and military consequences of global reach.

WTC Engineer Pecoraro’s testimony of inexplicable sub-basement damage and destruction is VERY revealing of something so-far unexplained.
I’d read it before, but thanks for the reminder.
Mike Pecoraro, WTC Bldg. Engineer, testimony:
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air.
. . .
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said.

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993.
. . .
“When I walked out into the lobby, it was incredible,” he recalled. “The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls. 20-foot section of marble, 20 by 10 foot sections of marble, gone from the walls”. The west windows were all gone. They were missing. These are tremendous windows. They were just gone. Broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone. Every sprinkler head was going off. I am thinking to myself, how are these sprinkler heads going off? It takes a lot of heat to set off a sprinkler head. It never dawned on me that there was a giant fireball that came through the air of the lobby. I never knew that until later on. The jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby.”
Is 911 all part of NWO agenda as per neocon plans, or is the neocon plan itself just a sub-plot to provide opportunity and means for a true Socialist One World Government as per United Nations (with Rockefeller/Rothschild/Fed Reserve Banking Dynasties et al. the TRUE behind-the-scenes Masters, perhaps using an ET/Spiritual Crisis via World War Armeggedon Second-Coming of the Ascended Masters [re: Commander Hotann of the Earth Project Transition and author/teacher of the Phoenix Project Journals — which wierdly-enough has a connection to alleged 400,000 metric tons gold reserves Gaia/CSEML-administered trust fund in the Phillipines contested by the VK Durham Trust, also involving ref. to Gov. Jeb Bush and ‘associates’ as ‘Super Fund’ beneficiary, and linked to fraudulent US Securities Debt Instruments — shades of the recent under-reported 3 trillion-dollar counterfeit scam?]

Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to decieve … Or something like that. I’m still trying to parse what the Peruvian Bearer Certificate and Bonus 3392-181 and the Durham Trust, linked to Esmerelda Marcos and the alleged ‘lost’ Yamashito Gold treasure and the Phoenix Project mean, and if they link to the 3-trillion-dollar scam — perhaps just the tip of a far-larger scam? Recall, Michael Meiring had, or was reputed to have, counterfeit bank notes and certificates in his possession in his inconveniently-bombed-by-‘accident’ hotel-room?

Sorry to get sidetracked; (easy to happen!)
What Jeff said: “I see puffs of smoke that could be squibs, or could be the result of floors pancaking before the fall of the exterior walls.”

That really struck at an anomoly that has long bothered me. While there’s a great-deal of evidence of deliberate demolition, ie., the report of molten-metal pools at the sub-basement foot of the main core columns which are technically inexplicable according to the oxygen-starved jet-fuel, bldg. material and office-fixture -fed fires ‘theory’ of why WTC 1&2 collapsed, this ‘seemed’ to be contradicted by the video record that the buildings falling occurred top-down — and didn’t show any ground-level motion which would be expected if demo-charges [or a neutron-trigger ‘bomb’] had been used to cut column supports at or below-ground-level. On the news-videos I’ve seen, the exterior shell stationary and bldg. below the actively-falling point-of-collapse are (appear) stable until the falling-debris of stories-above destroy them. What I never thought of before was that the exterior shell was actually largely self-supporting as a ‘skin;, since the central core was the main weight-bearing skeleton of the structures. The immediate effect of having the central-core columns cut in sections near its base would be to start a process of collapse in which the entire interior-floors would be undercut while the exterior ‘shell’ would remain standing for several seconds, essentially ‘hiding’ what was happening inside — so we’d see the pressure-induced outblowing of air and debris from window-openings as the floors sheared from their joist-supports.

Another thing re: the convenience of having the WTC buildings totally demolished, and the economic-planning which saved Silverstein from total loss (even providing for loss-of-future profits) while perhaps covering reported frauds such as the Cantor-Fitgerald debts, and reports of millions-of-dollars of electronic-fund-transfers (remember the initial reports of computer harddrive data-reconstruction from computers retreived from the WTC debris — tantalyzing tidbits, and then, POOF! Story gone folks, nothing here, move along. Try to find anything new.): As Irony said, The WTC was a ‘dead sink’, with excess capacity, not well-suited to the new economic climate of consolidation, globalization and electronic network-communication: ie, fiber-optics. It was an albatros.

This reminded me of something I recently read by John Perkins, in reflecting on the WTC disaster. (I thought of his quote and did a google-search for the helluvit, and amazingly FOUND a complete excerpt at the John Mack Institute site: (read the whole short piece there, which I’ve excerpted just to highlight Perkin’s thoughts about the 911 disaster causing a great rebuilding and investment in NYC, and the reflection that caused him to write his insider’s critique at the system of debt-indenture that made the third-world subject to ruinous peonage terms for the benefit of the Banking elites and major corporations):
John Perkins’ Confessions of An Economic Hitman
. . .
Excerpt from the Prologue: Ground Zero, New York, 2001
I glanced up from the paper. The New York Stock Exchange. I thought about the billions of dollars that would be spent on re-building New York, the fortunes to be made in the wake of this disaster. I thought about the city around me. I did not have the statistics in my pocket, but recalled that the city was populated by about 8 million people. Every year, the equivalent of nearly four New Yorks died excruciating deaths. Each one of those deaths could be prevented — for the mere cost of 6 weeks’ worth of spending by the US military on its defense budget! This fact, along with the tragedies of September 11, begged us to reconsider the nature of defense.
. . .

He rose slowly to his feet and hobbled down the steps. I wanted him to stay yet felt powerless to do anything. Of course he had been right. I was a soldier. It had started long ago, in 1967 when I was recruited by the nation’s largest intelligence agency, and I had since assumed many disguises. Although I had written five books, published in a dozen languages, and been accepted as a sort of guru by the New Age groupies, I had never written the one book that might have healed the pain in by soul, the one book that might help expose the small circle of ruthless despots who pull the strings of the 6 billion puppet humans on our planet. I had been their soldier and whore. And had lived a secret life for a third of a century, the life of a spy. No, worse than a spy, a conspirator, an economic terrorist. I had been an Economic Hit Man.

I managed to get to my feet and start after him. But at the bottom of the steps, I was stopped by a sign. It included a picture of the building where I had been seated. At the top, it notified the passerby that the sign had been erected by Heritage Trails of New York. It said:

“The Mausoleum of Halicarnassus piled on top of the bell-tower of St. Mark’s in Venice, at the corner of Wall and Broad — that’s the design concept behind 14 Wall Street. In its day the world’s tallest building, the 539-foot high skyscraper originally housed the headquarters of Bankers Trust, one of the country’s wealthiest financial institutions.”

I stood there in awe and looked up at this building. Shortly after the turn of the last century 14 Wall Street had played the role the World Trade Center would later assume; it had been the very symbol of power and economic domination. It had also housed Bankers Trust, the firm I had employed to finance my energy company.

I continued walking. I scanned the heads of the crowds, but could find no sign of him. At the next building, there was an immense statue shrouded in blue plastic. Engraved into the building’s stone face was the fact that this was Federal Hall, 26 Wall Street, where on April 30, 1789 George Washington had taken the oath of office as first president of the United States.

I continued around the block to Pine Street. There I came face-to-face with the world headquarters of Chase, the bank David Rockefeller built. I knew that the foundations for this skyscraper were laid in oil, drugs, and murder. I had been one of Rockefeller’s goons. I knew too that the WTC was a project started by David in 1960 and that it had been considered an albatross, a financial misfit unsuited to modern fiber optic and Internet technologies and burdened with an inefficient and costly elevator system. The owners had made no bones about their desire to get rid of those two towers that once had been nicknamed “David” and “Nelson.”

Their wish had been granted, as usual.

And in that moment I was struck by the knowing that I had to obey that old Afghan man. I had to write that book.

Confessions of An Economic Hitman
by John Perkins

I’m rewatching Griffin’s talk at the U of Wisconsin right now — Trying to keep my thoughts from wandering too far, reflecting as Griffin mentions a total avoidance by mainstream media of any review of his book (while it’s on the Amazon Best Seller List!) —

Appreciate the hardheaded courage and insights from this blog and board, Jeff and all.
Stay strong in the light!

3:37 PM
Anonymous wolf pauli said…
According to an anonymous poster, “Unless understood as a magical act, 9/11 will remain forever obscure.” I find the suggestion quite opaque, and no substitute for the mundane, painstaking efforts of analysis by which Griffin, Ruppert, et al. — as well as physicists and engineers with no childishly patriotic persuasions to distract their minds — have managed to clarify the matter. (For what it’s worth, I’d add that I have no beef with patriotism per se. Let’s remember Mark Twain’s admirable sentiment that patriotism means supporting your country always, and your government when it deserves it.)

The same poster said: “The physical act invoked a deeper effect on the magical life of America.” Though unfamiliar with the prepositional construction “invoked…on”, I’m prepared to believe that, appropriately reparsed, there may be some truth to that. But it goes only to effects, not causes, and please don’t tell us the two are so irretrievably blended in the “fractal complexity” (sic) as to be beyond disentanglement. We are, after all, talking about the commission of a CRIME, in fact numerous interrelated crimes, and the obstacles to bringing the perpetrators to justice, given their lofty places in the establishment, are already formidable enough, and their offenses sufficiently titanic, without adding to the list of charges the commission of Acts of Magic.

And to the the anonymous architect: I repeat my request for a historical example of a steel structure known to have collapsed on its own footprint, virtually at the rate of free fall, without controlled demolition.

4:19 PM
Anonymous lloydyboy said…
I have my own suspicions about various parties’ possible engineering of events in the past few years — or, at least, foreknowledge and malign neglect. But they remain suspicions or hunches (not yet gelled into theories).
As you say, there is plenty of information in the public realm (e.g.s: the PNAC, what the Bushies did subsequent to 9/11, how they manipulated and falsified ‘intelligence’ to make their case for war vs. Iraq, the gross criminality of the occupation of Iraq, the profiteering of connected parties, etc.) to indict the Bushies.
I’m afraid that a lot of sincere and serious folks are only making themselves and the “9/11 truth movement” look foolish by accepting supposition and conjecture as gospel truth. As intriguing (and entertaining — think David Icke) as some of the theories are, I remain a skeptic.
By the way, I love your writing. Keep it up.

4:50 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said…
Interesting discussion, and thanks for the links people have put up.

With regard to remote control of the ‘hijacked’ airplanes, this appears more fantastic than it is, if one knows the history of Operation Northwood(s?).

Back in **1962**, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proved the concept was viable THEN (at least, in their professional judgment), UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDING IN WRITING it be done, amply showing the elements of means, motive and opportunity. For a POLITICAL reason of stampeding public opinion with psychological ops, to go to war when otherwise the public didn’t suport war, they offered to the president the tactic of manufactured ‘hijacking’ events. As they explained, they’d take a largish military ‘heavy’ plane, suitably repainted to resemble the allegedly ‘hijacked’ plane it was to replicate, put the ‘real’ plane and the ‘drone’ (unmanned, remote controlled) plane into close radar proximity, duck the real plane under the radar, and then crash or blow up the drone.

Note, that the extended tours of the supposed 767s that day took them past multiple military airstrips, and the turning off of the transponders would allow another airplane, whose radar signature had been merged with the real plane by proximity in the air, to take its place without evidence to disprove its new identity.

This obviously does not prove the same thing happened that day, but it surely provides a context and predicate by which its plausibility/possibility is substantially bolstered, from sci-fi level speculation to a viable explanatory hypothesis. In particular, it shows the national security state and the JCS and the PTB had the means and the opportunity if they had a motive, and the motive is not hard to find.

In fact, the motive and the evidence for it are the strongest arguments, in my view, for the pre-planning of this disaster. For, as is relatively well known, National Security Advisor C. Rice had a fully planned course of action against the Taliban government, including the military invasion planning, written up and awaiting Bush’s arrival back in Washington on 9/10/2001, the very day before this heinous crime. We had been busy for most of the prior year or before setting up basing and overflight permissions with the ‘stan’ countries bordering Afghanistan, getting our troops on the ground, bulldozing out the mile-long airstrips required for our heavy transport, prepositioning what we needed for war, etc. We were able to go from an alleged standing start to invading inside of a month’s time, which would have been quite impossible, except that we’d been doing the groundwork for months if not more than a year (implicating the Clinton administration). And, according to reports in government-connected papers in India and Japan, US representatives had briefed the regional powers in early summer about our plans to have a joint military operation to take out the Taliban, with military operations due to begin by mid-October later that year. Oh, and what else happened on 9/10? Operation Bright Star, and some other operations, put the largest US/British joint fleet ever to go to sea, after a lengthy sailing time, in the international waters closest to Afghanistan, and some 45,000 troops into near theater, in Oman.

Yet there had been no drumbeat of propaganda sufficient to gain the American peoples’ assent to invade a country around the world from us. It seems clear that those planners anticipated a causus bellum being delivered to them, deus ex machina style, for which the WTC attacks served admirably, and in a most timely fashion, per the previously disclosed timeline.

As for the towers collapse, that could have been the result of a separate agenda from the main plot. Years before, an engineering survey had been performed to analyze retrofitting and/or demolishing the towers. Because asbestos was used throughout the building, the environmental laws would have made either undertaking prohibitively expensive. Beyond the monetary factors, the WTC was used for the offices of the FBI, the CIA, the Treasury’s FinCen crime investigations, etc.

Larry Silverstein was well positioned to handle arrangements, well before the 7 weeks prior takeover of the master 99-year lease, since he a) already had the WTC 7 building under his control and b) had the mall operation in the basement levels of the WTC under his management as well.

It has long been rumored that upon its original construction, the towers were rigged with demolition devices, in case of a disaster, to prevent widespread destruction of its neighboring community. And of course, the blueprints of the building were kept hostage from the investigators, unless the Port Authority would be guaranteed to be held harmless, not sued, by what was found in them. I don’t know that they were ever supplied to investigators.

5:29 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said…
wolf pauli is “unfamiliar with the prepositional construction “invoked…on”” but
he’s “prepared to believe that, appropriately reparsed, there may be some truth to that.” If the meaning is clear, what’s the problem? If it’s not, which preposition would make it clearer?

He (sics) my “fractal complexity”, and doesn’t feel it necessary to “add to the list of charges the commission of Acts of Magic” – which is putting a spin on my post that wasn’t there when I lobbed it up in the air.

9/11 – smoke and mirrors while the temple is looted and new laws are cut into old stone. Where there’s a plan, there’s an architect.

Parse away, wolfster. We’re here to learn.

4:45 AM
Anonymous wolf pauli said…
Anonymous – Thanks for the reply. You ask: “If the meaning is clear, what’s the problem?” It’s not clear, to me at least, hence my claim that there MAY be some truth to it, not that there IS. At any rate I don’t mean to make heavy weather of the syntax. If you’re talking about sleight of hand, the two-bit conjurer’s art (OK, four-bit — I’ll allow some adjustment for inflation), then I’m with you. If you’re talking about ‘magic’ in some extramundane sense, then I’m not.

“9/11 – smoke and mirrors while the temple is looted and new laws are cut into old stone. Where there’s a plan, there’s an architect.”


“We’re here to learn.”

Agreed again.

BTW, it just occurred to me (horrors!) that ‘wolf pauli’ might be taken as a play on ‘Paul Wolfowitz’. I actually had in mind my infinitely more commendable fellow tribesman, Wolfgang Pauli.

2:47 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said…
Every sentence is a spell. There is no literal truth. Metaphor is all there is.
I picked up on the parsing because that’s what we’re doing with 9/11 – parsing the smoke and mirrors, occupying ourselves with combing out the fractal fringe. Our fine-toothed comb cannot be fine enough, our Occam’s razor cannot be sharp enough. And you could not have chosen a better word than “extra-mundane” – that’s what magic is; not of this world.

“Two fingers pointing on you” – Sky Saxon’s own prepositional (sic)ness, and as fine a summation of 9/11 as any.

3:27 AM
Anonymous wolf pauli said…
“There is no literal truth” — the literal truth of which would entail its own falsity, and the falsity of which thus speaks for itself.

You might want to take note of the Pauli effect ( and bar me from your alchemical lab.

5:04 PM
Anonymous Charles Shaw said…

Although your “Coincidence Theorist’s Guide” is one of the most brilliant things on 9/11 I have as yet read, I am absolutely flummoxed by the obtuseness and spinelessness of “The Guns of 9/11”.

Are you trying to sabotage our movement? Or have you just completely lost your moxie?

If you are not part of the solution, you are merely another part of the problem. If that is in fact the case, do us all a favor and get the hell out of the way.

Charles Shaw

Former Board of Directors
9/11 Truth

Newtopia Magazine

“You are going to learn that many of the truths we cling to are only true from a certain point of view.”

6:08 PM
Blogger Jeff said…
I’ve posted a follow-up here.

3:12 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said…
see follow-up posted here

(if permalink doesn’t work, look for comment by “who fears, suppresses evidence?”)

3:32 PM
Blogger kalisekj said…
Nice Blog!!! It looks like you’ve spent a fair amount of time setting it up and keeping the content fresh. I’ll be sure to come back.

I have a online dating blog. It pretty much covers online dating louisville related stuff.

Thanks again and keep up the good work.

9:18 PM
Blogger Drunk Girl said…
Hi, what a great page! Really enjoyed it, keep up the great work!
chip gadget programmer sim spy

2:36 PM
Blogger sexedman said…
Hey, I was searching blogs, and came onto yours, and I like it. I kinda landed here on accident while searching for something esle, but nice blog.. I got you bookmarked.

If you got time , go visit my site, it´s about weight loss center. It pretty much covers weight loss center and other similar topics available.

8:00 PM
Blogger Joe Muka said…
Just found your blog. Great job on it. My site about online free weightloss program and other free diet info may have a blog soon.
thanks for the ideas

11:49 PM
Blogger Natwho said… offers the lowest rate financing on auto loan What ever your financial situation, auto loan can help. We even have a special loan program that can put money in your pocket within 1 hour of applying. Apply online today and see just how quickly we can get you approved regardless of your past credit. Rates start as low as 4%, apply today.

2:51 AM
Blogger Marketing man said…
You have a nice blog here! I will be sure to book mark you.
I have a automatic in lead lead lead lead mlm opt real responder responsive time site. It pretty much covers automatic in lead lead lead lead mlm opt real responder responsive time related stuff. Check it out if you get time 🙂

4:03 AM
Blogger harvir said…
Hi i am totally blown away with the blogs people have created its so much fun to read alot of good info and you have also one of the best blogs !! Have some time check my link to !!Home business opportunities

9:59 AM
Blogger kalisekj said…
This is a excellent blog. Keep it going.

This may be of interest to you I have a free online dating service. It pretty much covers dating stuff.

I’ll be sure to come back.

1:34 PM
Blogger Joe Muka said…
Looking at blogs and found yours…I like yours! My site about best weight loss program still does not have a blog. Thanks for some ideas

1:36 PM
Blogger jon said…
We are trying to find good internet movie database to take the kids this weekend. Good internet movie database reviews are hard to find

I just stumbled onto your blog while looking. Seems to happen to me a lot since I am a knowledge mooch LOL


7:58 PM
Blogger NewhampshireMan12 said…
Very nice blog, hard to come by these days,

Look at this site I saw while surfing Dating Ideas site


3:29 AM
Blogger lokokid said…
Hi i am totally blown away with the blogs people have created its so much fun to read alot of good info and you have also one of the best blogs !! Have some time check my link to !!Make money working from home

7:28 AM
Blogger Frank said…
Keep up the good work! I look forward to reading more information on your blog

Are you interested in internet business make money online? If so, I have a internet business make money online site.

Feel free to drop by and tell me what you think.

7:00 PM
Blogger Online Incomes said…
Hey I just love your blog. I also have a christian dating
blog/site. I mostly deals with christian dating
Please come and check it out if you get the time!

11:54 PM
Blogger Get-A-Free-House said…
How would you like to own a custom-built house at a 42% to 100% discount? Find out how today by visiting

12:45 AM
Blogger Bud Wiser said…
This is a wonderful site about green tea weight loss, of course I have a similar page green tea weight loss

3:49 AM
Blogger lawyer finder said…
wanna hook up later Chris? meet me on that online dating website site .. here >> online dating website

5:05 AM
Blogger Marian said…
Hi, thanks so much for every little bit of information you have provided here. I constantly look up all information concerning starting an internet business I’m amazed by how much I can earn online 🙂 Thanks again. starting an internet business

12:51 PM
Blogger Crazy Dan said…
remote control codes

5:50 PM
Anonymous ProBuilder said…
Hi. Thanks for the insights.

Steve @

6:58 PM
Blogger batcave911 said…
reporting this part,
i thought it was very well said…

The guns of 9/11 are still smoking, but they have little to do with the physical evidence. They have much more to do with the movement of wealth, with the coincident war games, with the Florida flight schools, with Pakistan, with the change to the standing orders for shoot downs – that kind of material. Those are the dots that connect for me. Generally, I believe the weakest arguments are those dedicated to the physical evidence of the crime. (And it’s noteworthy that Popular Mechanics, in its recent “debunking” issue of 9/11 conspiracy theories, restricted itself to those very arguments.)

so true !
follow the big companies, OIL, Cheney, military contractors, Iraq contractors etc…

Ive been posting a lot of stuff by Alex Constantine
great reading if people took the time to really READ instead of just looking at a photo of the pentagon.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s