Τετάρτη, 15 Σεπτέμβριος 2010 20:54

9/11 - thoughts

In the past couple of years, going through the 9th and 10th anniversariesof the so called 9/11 event (maybe here in the UK we should call it 11/9) much attention has been focussed on the events of the 11 September 2001.

Two friends of mine (real friends as well as facebook ones) made posts about this incident.

P made a post about Building 7 and commented that he had not heard about this building before. There has, in fact, been a lot of focus in the investigations on this building. One particular point is that if you look at the pile of rubble from this collapse you will note it is quite substantial and yet if you look at that at the foot of Buildings 1 and 2 (the twin towers) there is almost none. Normally when buildings collapse you would expect to see a height of rubble to about 12% of the original. So, how can that be explained when building 7 was only 47 stories high and each tower was 110 stories? There should have been a pile of rubble twice as high.

R said he was covering his ears from the wailing and generated a gently heated argument about the global versus the personal and about remembrance, war and 9/11.

I said, in reply to P, that I would dig out some more links and writing on the subject as there has been a huge amount of controversy about this incident. I have put a whole batch of links below and if you care to follow them you will discover some of the evidence, argument, investigation and questions that surround it.

Building 7

For me, there does not have to be an answer to all the questions. It is enough just to ask a few questions and note that there has been no scientific or rational explanation given by government authorities. Questions like the one I raised above about piles of rubble.

  • Questions like, how could so many ‘experts’ have formed conclusive opinions less than an hour after the towers collapsed?
  • Questions like, why was this the first ever example of a steel framed building to collapse from fire? (Plenty of them have had fires.) Or, as Jim Hoffman (see below) puts it “despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.”
  • Questions like, where did all that smoke come from? And the resultant dust all over the surrounding area. (Compare it with video of building 7 (or any demolition video) and note there is nothing like the amount of smoke.)
  • Questions like, why is there disagreement about specific aspects of the NIST Report within the Structural Engineering Community in USA?


This is the "rubble" from buildings 1 and 2 -

all 110 stories of each. Note how it is hardly

as high as the ambulance.

This is the rubble from building 7 - a mere 47 stories

high. So compare the scale with the size of the people

walking around it.


I could go on but you would get bored. Just have a look at some of the links and very quickly you will realise there are so many unanswered questions to make you wonder at least a little bit about what was really going on – and still is.


In December 2001, I wrote the following letter to a magazine:

On the same day that about 3,000 people died in the Two Towers terrorist attack, in the rest of the world:

  • 24,000 people died from hunger
  • 6,020 children died from diarrhoea
  • 2,700 children died from measles
  • 1,400 women died in pregnancy or childbirth.

Who will pray for them? Who will hold memorial ceremonies for them? Who will attack the cause of their death?

And on September 12th the same number died again; And on September 13; And on ...; And on ...; And on ...

I would like to give you two quotes from people greater than I.

First from Mahatma Gandhi "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

And from one of the fathers of civil rights in America, Martin Luther King (Where Do We Go From Here?). "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it is seeking to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that."

You might care to multiply those numbers by the number of days since September 11 2001 and see how many people in this world have died and simply note that without doubt most of them could have been saved, simply and cheaply. If only we all had the will.

And I do mean WE. If we keep silent then we are as surely guilty as anyone.

Then ask how much time, energy and money has gone on the arguments about 9/11?

As I asked in my letter all those years ago, “where was the memorial service for them”?

The Links (sometimes you need to search on “9/11” or similar)

Follow at least some of these links and make up your own mind. I have given pointers to both sides of the argument. You could start by looking at any of these sites:

Also the sites of Ian Crane, Andy Thomas and David Icke are good resources. (Just search their names.)

Here is a very calm and thoughtful presentation by Spencer Morgan and a good start for beginners though it is quite long at 1 hour 50 minutes. It is actually all audio with slides so you don't have to watch, just listen. He starts with a clear summary of what he is attempting to do and discussing terms like "conspiracy" and "coincidence". Definitely worth making the time to listen as he covers many different angles with lots of background.


Jim Hoffman (quoted above), a research scientist , mathematician, software engineer, author and inventor, has a number of sites:



The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the USA government’s official source of most reports and research on it, at


and this is the final report http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/


This is a radio ‘debate’ between two opposing views (audio only of course):



The website of Dr. James H. Fetzer (one of the featured debaters from the previous programme):


And this is one where Michael Shermer writes (the other debater)



Here are a couple of interesting videos on 9 years of research:

http://www.truthforum.co.uk/news-media-using-fake-video-of-9-11-attacks (Don’t be put off by the light-hearted theatrical start to part 1 – he has some really interesting stuff to say.)



Analysis of comments made on media only minutes after the event:




Scholars for 9/11 Truth - This website says “We are a group of scholars and supporters endeavouring to address the unanswered questions of the September 11, 2001 attack through scientific research and public education.”


Look at the Project Censored link on this site also.


New Internationalist:

Their issue 340, Nov 2001 – contained one of the best quick analyses of the incident that I read. I know not if it is still available.

Their book review


Professor David Ray Griffin (author of the book): - His website is here:



There are lots of links all over the internet to other sites and to videos and books abound.


About Building 7 at the WTC on 9/11 (as posted by Pete)


To counter that,

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm - is the report of the NIST into building 7

Add comment