You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity

It’s been 5 days since the 10th anniversary of the events of the 11th of September 2001, and almost an entire month since I last wrote anything on this ghastly blog, so I suppose I should break my silence in the most batshit way possible. Well, maybe not the most batshit – the most batshit would probably be announcing that I am joining the Scientologist movement and that, like, paedophiles are, like, SO awesome. Thankfully, I’m not going to do that.

I’m saving it for next month.

No, today I’m merely going to reveal what most folk close to me already know; I don’t believe the offical story of 9/11, and I believe the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash. In short, I am a 9/11 Truther.

Phew. That’s me ostracised from pretty much every social group I hitherto inhabited. In one fell swoop too. Not bad.

I’ve been of the opinion that there is something just kinda off  about the majority consensus on 9/11 for about 5 years now. I had been aware of the conspiracy theories and whatnot before, but they were mostly fucknuts retarded – No Plane Theory? Illuminati? Mossad? Wtf? – or incredibly poorly-researched to the point of being laughable.

No Plane Theory. Because some conspiracies just aren't loopy enough.

Loose Change brought the strands together in a calm and hysteria-free manner, and even though there were some claims and conclusions in it that I doubted/disagreed with, there was one point it made that has not been convincingly rebutted since, and that is the collapse of WTC7. Building 7 is pretty much the foundation of my attitude of doubt towards the agreed-upon conspiracy theory – 19 guys with box-cutters, masterminded by a guy in a cave in Afghanistan etc – and surely provides the greatest difficulty for those trying to adhere to the narrative provided by the 9/11 Commission et al.

A mate posted a link on Facebook to this video, it is pretty brilliant;

Even so, I am well aware that voicing even the slightest disbelief of the official story does happen to align me with some of the craziest bastards on the planet while, at the same time, divides me from the people with whom I see eye-to-eye on what I (and indeed they) would consider to be the more substantive issues of our time; capitalism, imperialism, socialism, marxism, revolution, the environment, solidarity, etc.

Ah well. I suppose all I can do is await the wrath and pointed fingers of derision. So be it.

The collapse of WTC 7. Even Martin Sheen thinks it's weird.

Solidarity brothers & sisters… 

P.S. I’d recommend that everyone watch Loose Change: An American Coup. Even if you don’t agree with it, or don’t see any merit in questioning what happened, it’s still an excellent film.

Advertisements

About Seba Roux

Gooner, Socialist, Historian, Slacker. That's pretty much all you need to know.
This entry was posted in Gibberish, Politics, Protest and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity

  1. Rob S says:

    Seb,

    I have spent a long time reading about the various theories and agree this is the only thing that (WTC 7) that really seems unexplainable.

    First off, I will admit I know nothing about structural engineering or any of that stuff – I do know however that the guy who designed the two towers said there was more than enough weight to topple them in the fashion which transpired.

    So with the absence of a plane what explains WTC7? Well we do know that the fires in that building were raging out of control, yet we also here (through various anecdotal sources in my case) that no building has ever collapsed due to fire before.

    I propose two theories:

    1) The building was long since evacuated and to control the controllable fire orders were given to topple the building wiht charges but no admission of this is forthcoming because then some “people” will say ” well, if you demo’d that one then you must have…..”etc

    2) The fires/jet fuel splashes from the two towers hit the WTC7 in smaller proportions and therefore simply took longer to bring the tower town (as a building of much smaller width, perhaps not beyond possibility than the fires could eat away at structures on both sides/middle).

    • sebthered says:

      Good thoughtful response.

      I must say that out of your two suggestions I find 1) the more plausible, but then like you I have no background or knowledge regarding structural engineering so it’s not like I can confidently rule out either possibility. It is true that the only 3 steel-framed buildings thus far in history to collapse were the 3 that day; while the Twin Towers’ collapse can be explained via the unique and unprecedented combination of the force of impact and the sheer volume of jet fuel, all that can be provided officially to explain Building 7’s collapse are fires and structural damage on the south face. The same circumstances that affected the other WTC buildings, which did not collapse.

      It is, at the very least, a puzzler.

      • Rob S says:

        It is. I have to admit that none of the theories for the two towers hold up imo. Even ignoring that, I still can’t get over initial hurdle of believing a Government would do such a thing to its own people or that it could be kept a secret.

        Spent hours on Sunday looking various things up and wishing I hadn’t (combination of idiotic theories wasting my time and absolutely heartbreaking, hopeless phone calls from those above the impact zone of the towers pleading with 911 operators to get them out).

        We agree that the way WTC7 falls seems strange to our uneducated eyes. Haven’t checked any of the expert defences of this yet.

  2. Stephen Tuohy says:

    Whoa! I Didn’t realise you had those kind of views about 9/11. Just a couple of things. Not argueing but just saying. Firstly regarding Loose Change – it’s a crock. There’s a hell of a lot of things which it doesn’t take into account and it’s shodding amateur hack job. I don’t say that with mallice, it’s just that it’s exactly what it is. Case in point, their portrayal of flight 93 and the plane that went into the Pentagon. If my memory holds, Loose change claims both of those crash sites showed no sign of any plane debris or bodies. Eye witness accounts (mortician for flight 93 and forensics from the FBI for the Pentagon) say ‘yes there were bodies, we were picking up pieces of them’. Response from the director of loose change is somehting along the lines of ‘well they can say that but I don’t think it’s true’. So yeah, I don’t think Loose Change cuts the mustard in the research department. On a more abbrasive note, if I wanted a documentary which relies heavily on technical details and restructuring a monumentous sequence of events, I wouldn’t go looking for it from an obnoxious sneering american teenager. I might want Chomsky to explain a few things though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc&feature=related

    As for WT7 I recommend having a gander at this http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm. It was on fire for around 7 hours and a major support column was compramised. It’s a pretty sound explanation I reckon – not that I’m an expert. People have said though (people who have a better grasp of engineering than me) that the building shoudn’t have collapsed in free fall from that kind of damage. I think unless there’s an expert in 47 story buildings collapsing that most of that is speculative.

    I do agree with you though. The subsequent investigation was a whitewash but more so because of details it fails to highlight as significant, mostly details to do with the highjackers. It reflects even more poorly when you consider that oh so very little has been learnt from 9/11, except that we are all crystal clear that the US operates on a ‘you throw a pebble at us and we’ll come over to your house and squash you with a boulder and take all your nice things for ourselves’. Anyways, we can have a good punch up about it when I’m back in Dublin next week.

    • sebthered says:

      Certainly I wouldn’t have a problem with what you said in your first paragraph. Loose Change has gone through about 4 editions to this point (original, 2nd edition, Final Cut, American Coup) and in each of the previous drafts claims were made and assertions bandied around that were subsequently disproved and thus discarded. As I’ve said, there are a wide variety of comparisons drawn and conclusions made, even in the most recent version, that I wouldn’t find compelling or particularly likely. Being critical of the official explanations only to be uncritical of conspiracy theories would be plain mental!

      Don’t find the second paragraph convincing though. (However, as I pointed out in a previous comment, I’m not exactly an expert). All I’ll say is that their are various examples of steel framed structures, bigger and smaller than WTC7, that experienced bigger fires for a longer duration and never collapsed. The sheer speed of the eventual collapse itself is also an issue – such a rapid, almost-symmetrical fall simply looks wrong (as inadequate a sentence as that is). You would expect a gradual, asymmetrical collapse. Still, as you say, most of that is speculative.

      The fact that so little has been learned from 9/11 is undoubtedly the most substantive issue.

  3. Wasn’t there an actual NYPD investigation into the behaviour of the debt-ridden owner of WTC 7? Like he offered suitcases of case to firefighters NOT to go near it? Pretty sure WIRED ran something on that. So yeah, it wasn’t a terrorist act – but nor was it the US Government trying to increase fear etc. It was one skeezy landlord trying to win out on his insurance.

    • sebthered says:

      There’s an awful lot of speculation to that end (and, for that matter, to a lot of other ends) but it is just that – speculation. Silverstein was making a loss on his absolutely massive lease of the site, but he wouldn’t be the first landlord in history to be in that position. I’m pretty sure he did ‘advise’ firefighters to evacuate the building rather than fight the fires within it, but a) that may have been after the twin towers had fallen, in which case probably a fair enough suggestion! and b) I don’t know whether the FDNY commander on the scene was taking the blindest bit of notice of his advice at this point.

      A lot of rumours do fly around about what happened on the day, everything should be treated with a fair amount of scepticism.

  4. Rob S says:

    Quite enjoying this reasonable debate with no one making silly claims that Donald Rumsfeld was remote controlling planes full of TNT into buildings.

    Being on fire for 7 hours is obviously important and completely understandable that no one went near it once the twin towers collapsed. Was there really enough heat or enough jet fuel splashed on on WTC7 for such a hot fire as to melt metal though? Then again, watching another documentary last weak which said the heat does not (naturally when I think about it) have to reach the point of melting before it becomes weak enough to give way.

    Perhaps the point is not that a building (3 steel-framed one) never felll purely due to fire before but that no building had ever been allowed to burn for 7 straight hours before without intervention?

    • “… that no building had ever been allowed to burn for 7 straight hours before without intervention?….”

      Did you actually research that or did you just imagine it was true?

      Case in point: the Windsor Tower fire which was an inferno and burned for about 24 hours with almost white hot flames reaching hundreds of feet up into the sky but which remained standing, bar a few slumped floors.

      The minor collapses that did occur are exactly as one would expect from a massive fire in a steel framed building: slow, progressive, asymmetrical and only occurring in isolated pockets – not the whole building coming down with an instant onset, at free fall, and vertically down into its own footprint as WTC7 did.

      By contrast, all of the fires (for all three WTC buildings) were small, oxygen-starved affairs (thick black smoke, little flames).

      In the North Tower there is the famous picture of the woman standing in the plane impact zone. Note the absence of soot on jeans or burn injuries or even (as far as we can tell) any singed hair. Note also the absence of any kind of raging inferno behind her.

      The fires in both towers moved up to the floors above (as fires tends to do). Heat also rises. This would have meant the majority of the heat (which was not particularly significant anyway) would have quickly migrated to above where the plane debris was embedded.

      Next we have the fact that Brian Clark of Eurobrokers managed to escape (with another surviver) from his office which was the 84th floor of the south tower which was ABOVE the plane impact zone. They made it down through the stairwells situated in the cores, which he said was TOTALLY INTACT despite the plane having impacted several minutes before. This proves that at least some of the core remained virtually untouched and that there was no raging inferno in the south tower either (in the locations described).

      You can hear Brian’s testimony at the beginning of this documentary.

      Then we have the recordings of the fire fighters in the south tower in the minutes leading up to the destruction of the building. No major fires to report there either.

      Also we know a large quantity of the jet fuel exploded outside the buildings on impact, particularly with the south tower (second plane) which was hit off centre allowing the fireball to burst out of the building with relative ease.

      Next we have the nature of the buildings’ destruction itself.

      In this short video (below) of the south tower we can clearly see the following observations:

      1. multiple explosions ejecting pulverized concrete and steel girders at high speed and from multiple floors simultaneously.
      2. This is occurring while the top section of the tower is still toppling over to one side many floors higher up. In the video it can be seen toppling at the start and disappearing into the dark smoke/ dust.
      3. Note also the uniform leading edge of these explosive ejections (on both visible sides).
      4. The wave of explosive ejections is traveling down both faces of the buildings but the ejections themselves are coming out sideways.
      5. This downward wave of destruction is traveling ahead of any collapsing debris indicating this wave of destruction is traveling down both visible sides faster than free fall. In fact relative to the actual collapse which is still happening approx 20 floors higher up this wave of explosive ejections is racing down the buildings at a phenomenal speed!
      6. Note the visible corner of the building which remains intact over many floors (presumably still intact behind much of the dust as well)
      7. Note the contrast in dust colour. The explosive ejections are a uniform light colour while at the initial onset zone (above) there appears to be a mixture of light and dark concrete dust and smoke.
      8. Be aware of the scale of the twin towers. They were HUGE. The explosive ejections appear at one stage to be occurring on perhaps 20 floors simultaneously (I’m sure an exact figure could be calculated from all of the footage). Let’s be conservative and say 10-15 floors. This is still the equivalent of watching a 10 – 15 story building being blown apart virtually instantaneously in all directions.

      These observations alone should be enough to convince anyone of the presence of a controlled demolition of some kind. We may never know what exact method was used – perhaps it used classified ‘black’ technology. Most military technology starts out as classified (RADAR being one of the most well known examples).

      I challenge anyone to argue against the evidence and offer any other explanation other than some kind of CD for the observation made.

      • Sorry, I forgot to add that the guy who made the original video you posted (outlining the ridiculousness of the official story) also added sources to it so you can validate all of the information in that video for yourself.

        You can find the source links here

        He also recently made a list of 35 Reasons to Question 9/11

        The guy is called James Corbett and he does a weekly podcast and makes amazing youtube videos – all in his spare time. And he blows the mainstream media out the water too 🙂

        (ps I’m not affiliated to him in any way, I just think he’s a great source of news/ info)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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