The 911 issue is not one this blog has got into in depth although it’s been mentioned. From what many people saw, there were anomalies and one was how swiftly the debate descended into slanging and name-calling by one side.
Why was it, to mention an earlier debate, that of JFK, that one side were labelled conspiracy nutters by the other, when you only needed to look at Zapruder to see the shot front and right of the car [from JFK’s perspective]? Why, when it was reported by many witnesses that there were anomalies with Diana, did the usual deniers label anyone who mentioned these? Why were those who questioned the Hutton inquiry initially labelled rightwing nuts but now it’s fashionable to question it?
Will it become fashionable to question 7/7 and that bastard Blair?
So to 911. As just mentioned, having not really got into it before, your [not so] humble blogger needs to come up to speed on the issue and here’s something I neither saw nor understood the importance of before:
These pilots establish that, at best, the government figures on airspeed and given the ability level of the 911 pilots, plus what happens to the airframe at those speeds, are inaccurate and at worst, those government figures must have some purpose.
That alone raises red flags before my eyes, before we touch the secondary explosions issue. Now, one thing I really do not like is all the sombre, clashing music and razzmatazz which goes along with these videos, which make you build dramatic tension before getting to the nitty-gritty, which could actually be put into about 30 seconds of video time.
I also have strong objections to signs appearing, plastered over the screen, saying, “Ultimate con,” or using terminology like, “Total proof that …” If it weren’t that I wanted to see the actual footage of testimony given, I’d have clicked out on seeing this extraneous guff.
Having said all that, try to ignore the white noise and dramatic music [difficult] which intrudes in the following and just try to look at and hear the testimony alone, then make your own mind up:
Thank you, Harry, for those.
Now why would the government deny the secondary explosions? It would seem to fit the story quite nicely. Plane impact unleashes fireball which hits the ground floor, building built over electricity sub-station, ordinary fires now become supernovas, building collapses. Secondary explosions are carefully set off to minimize damage to surrounding buildings – well done, police and firefighters.
Or alternatively, the hijackers were part of a terrorist plan which also saw them have bombs in vans inside the WTC. If they can hijack planes in modern day America, with relative ease, despite the security services, then they can drive vans into WTC carparks as well.
I mean, the subsequent events after the collisions could easily have been dovetailed into the story. Yet they chose the denial route and sent out shills to do snowjobs on the questioners:
And so another piece of counterknowledge is eroded by facts. Of course, the ghastly “9/11 Truthers” will challenge the report’s findings and pronounce themselves unconvinced. But the more honest of them will be saying to themselves: “Damn. Back to the drawing board.”
Fine, fine but how about explaining away the impossible flight stats and the secondary explosions first. Because I saw/heard those in the vid. All I’m getting from your side is name-calling, without seeing those anomalies explained.
And on another site:
As always, the truth movement ignores the fact that THEY are the ones that need to supply the answers.
Yes, well I’m not a member of any movement except the Albion Alliance and the Witanagemot and I look at the answers given in the two vids above – that the air numbers don’t add up and that there were secondary explosions and I’d like to see them explained away please, particularly as this was followed up with the Patriot Act, vast security measures and broad powers given over to FEMA.
The thing doesn’t seem to add up, pardon me for mentioning it. For example, what’s the reaction to this?
[Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. “My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room,” said Cacchioli. “I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out. … It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don’t agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible.” [Arctic Beacon]
Why then, does he then turn around and do this?
On September 12, 2001, Louie was heading to the WTC site to dig for survivors when he was approached by a reporter from People magazine. The reporter was interested in what Louie had experienced the day before.
In an effort to describe what he saw and heard, Louie mentioned that there were loud noises inside the North Tower that “sounded like bombs going off”. There was some confusion over what Louie had tried to explain and he was misquoted as having said: “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth-floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.
Conspiracy theorists then used that quote as proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Since then, Louie has repeatedly tried to set the record straight that he was misquoted.
Louie even went so far as to cooperate with the with the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine and interviewed for the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts” by The Editors of Popular Mechanics (Hearst, 2006).
Was it that Americans detest anyone who jabbers on about conspiracies, is that it? Are these people seen as loons and even though he himself complained that they were trying to twist his words at the commission, he then complained that the conspiracy theorists were also trying to twist his words?
And why would it all, as I opened this post with, descend into a situation where nothing can be conceded by either side to the other? Why can’t there be an open inquiry, with all points of view being freely put? Do you see what I’m saying here?
OK, so Louis said, in his testimony, that “there were loud noises inside the North Tower that sounded like bombs going off”.
Fine, so what’s his beef about his testimony? He heard explosions – how does he explain them away?
Who does he think made those explosions – the terrorists? Leaving the Truth movement out of it, what does Louis himself think? It seems he doesn’t want to look at any of the implications of his own testimony but just to commemorate the day, which he continues to do to this day.
Again fair enough but his testimony, if it’s to be believed, would need to be explored, would it not? What is preventing this exploration over there?
Check these and see what you think.