Skip to content or view screen version

The post-9/11 decade of lies

Larry Chin | 08.09.2011 19:05 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Globalisation | Sheffield | World

It has been and will be the same since the day it happened. The same exhausting exercise, whether one, five years, ten or fifty years since 9/11. Another orchestrated orgy of mass propaganda-stoked ignorance and “war on terrorism” hysteria.

The propaganda myth of 9/11, imbedded inextricably into the fibers of society and culture, and into the brain cells of naïve, willfully uninformed people, is back for another sickening “commemoration”.

Who chooses to “commemorate” the lie of 9/11? Undoubtedly, the high officials and elites who planned the event, who successfully achieved everything they wanted---unending war for oil, naked fascism and militarism, and economic conquest---from this ultimate false flag operation. The atrocity of 9/11, the desperate act of an empire facing extinction, was not an “intelligence failure”, but the greatest intelligence success and criminal operation in history.

1st Sgt with Baker Company stationed in Iraq, September 2003
1st Sgt with Baker Company stationed in Iraq, September 2003






The post-9/11 decade of lies

The myth of 9/11, imbedded inextricably into the fibers of society and culture...

by Larry Chin, Global Research, 8 September 2011


It has been and will be the same since the day it happened. The same exhausting exercise, whether one, five years, ten or fifty years since 9/11. Another orchestrated orgy of mass propaganda-stoked ignorance and “war on terrorism” hysteria.

The propaganda myth of 9/11, imbedded inextricably into the fibers of society and culture, and into the brain cells of naïve, willfully uninformed people, is back for another sickening “commemoration”.

Who chooses to “commemorate” the lie of 9/11? Undoubtedly, the high officials and elites who planned the event, who successfully achieved everything they wanted---unending war for oil, naked fascism and militarism, and economic conquest---from this ultimate false flag operation. The atrocity of 9/11, the desperate act of an empire facing extinction, was not an “intelligence failure”, but the greatest intelligence success and criminal operation in history.

Underneath all of their somber play-acting, they’re celebrating. They are all laughing, from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to Barack Obama, the Osama-killer "avenger of 9/11". You should be able to hear peals of laughter from the members of the Bilderberg Group and elite think tanks, and laughs must certainly echo in the halls of CIA headquarters, the offices of the Pakistan’s CIA subsidiary, the ISI, and in the offices of multinational oil companies and Wall Street banks.

They are all dancing on the graves of 9/11. And George W. Bush does it literally, every time he dares stand on the ground of the World Trade Center that he helped bring down.

And along with the criminals, the legions of victims and witnesses who still, after ten years of unabated suffering under the lash of empire, continue to dance to the tune of the official propaganda myth, every time it is played.

How many of those who never hesitate to worship first responders have bothered to understand who and what actually those brave men and women into the flames of the Twin Towers? How many of those who have proudly sacrificed their children to the wars have truly questioned the official lies that resulted in the destruction of their families?

On this day, rather than drown in the familiar waves of conspiracy theory that is the official 9/11 myth, know that a decade of conspiracy fact has long shattered this myth, exposing the ugly reality for those who choose to know the truth. This body of conspiracy fact not only exists, but it continues to grow, despite years of intimidation, cover-up, attempted derision.

This true history and exhaustively compiled evidence can be found in Michael C. Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon and Michel Chossudovsky’s America’s ‘War on Terrorism’, to name just two landmark studies among hundreds, too many to name. Their work remains as vital today as the day they were penned.

Tragically, every single thing that whistleblowers of 9/11 have predicted has come about. This is the tragic, bitter vindication for everyone who has spoken and written the truth. The world around us speaks for itself, and it is a harrowing death scream.

Today’s world---of endless war for oil, endless false flag terror operations and atrocities, unabated political criminality, economic looting, social upheaval, fascism, and a global war/intelligence-industrial police state---is the fruit of 9/11. So too is the post-9/11 Peak Oil wreckage that is the United States, its population embracing open fascism, and with a proposed Keystone tar sands pipeline cutting through the very heart of the continent.

Consider this single conspiracy fact: energy-rich Libya is being overthrown and conquered by NATO, in attacks spearheaded by CIA, its allied intelligence branches, and Al-Qaeda.

Yes, Al-Qaeda. What happened to the “war on terrorism” fiction? Why is the arch-enemy, Al-Qaeda, working openly with NATO?

This, too, is 9/11’s bounty. It brings us to the conspiracy fact of historical record:

Islamic “terrorists”, including CIA asset and (and US ally in Kosovo) Osama bin Laden, have been in the continuous employ of western forces and the CIA since the Cold War---before, during, and since 9/11. Al-Qaeda and “Islamic terrorism” is an instrument of Anglo-American intelligence, propaganda, and geostrategy. Al-Qaeda has always been an American-made and CIA-sponsored brand.

Just as is the case with the many other false flag terror events and wars since 9/11, any careful analysis of the forces behind the destruction of Libya brings us back to the same places, pointing to the same inevitable conclusions.

The “war on terrorism” is a lie, founded on the Big Lie of 9/11.

On this day, rather than commemorating propaganda, truly commemorate the work of those who have dared tell the truth, who have never stopped telling the truth. These are the real heroes of 9/11, the ones who truly honor the memory of those who died.

These people, not the liars or the murderers and criminals in high office, remain the only dim light in this post-9/11 apocalypse that continues to unfold.

Larry Chin
- Homepage: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26453

Comments

Hide 11 hidden comments or hide all comments

very offensive article

08.09.2011 19:57

The idea that the writer would use the deaths of all those people who died on 9/11 just to make their own political agenda is offensive

This article is the only lie.

truth seeker


@truth seeker

08.09.2011 20:43

how is the writer using the memory of the dead to enforce his agenda? If this is what he believes is the truth then the memory of these people has been wronged...do people still really believe not even a part of this story is a bit suspicious? You would have to be pretty blind to ignore the obvious, why don't you go and watch some more BBC coverage?

Mr Pen


Mr Pen

08.09.2011 21:37

well I have looked into 9/11, have read the official reports, and what the conspiracy theorists have to say.I am a long term activist, and think that truthers are peddling paranoia and fear, and are wrong. So why do you have this idea that anyone who does not think that 9/11 was an inside jerb has been watching too much BBC, or just hasn't looked into it?

I don't have a Telly.

anon


@mr pen

08.09.2011 21:50

Its still surprising that after 10 years there are still truthers lurking about.
If you trawl the internet long enough, you will find anything you are looking for.
Go back to your obscure little conspiracy sites written by someone trying to sell their book on the subject.

truth seeker


suspicion

08.09.2011 22:00

> do people still really believe not even a part of this story is a bit suspicious?

Obviously the vast majority of people.
But it is not a case of belief - its facts.

Dumb founded that anyone would think otherwise when you see videos of the terrorists saying "i did it" and bin laden saying "we did it"

Everything the truthers say is lies and has been debunked. Its all just regurgitated now

anon


not true

09.09.2011 02:27

anon, what you say is patently not true. granted both sides peddle speculation - there has never been any tangible proof for the official or unofficial scenarios. but it has been proven that those suspected hijackers were cia asset while bin laden adamantly denied having anything to do with 9/11- if you think he's lying, well many don't. i live in asia and more believe him here than the western governments. and of those videos that you refer to: one has been proven to be bogus and the other is mis-translated - not evidence at all. btw - for all of you that were hooked like a fish on the official cheney-version of events, man, i can't believe that you actual bought that story about atta's passport falling out of the sky, intact. wow. you all have absolutely no credibility what so ever...as well as no common sense.

ad


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Sign of the times

09.09.2011 10:41

It is an ugly indicator of the times we live in when the expression 'truthers' is turned on its head and made to represent its opposite.

I notice also that the class and intelligence of all those 'anon' posts has consistently fallen over the years - a shilling no longer buys the same amount of disruption, deception and divertisment as it used too.

911 was the event that opened the bomb bays to hell for millions of brown skinned people whose ancestors made the foolish choice of building their civilizations over the resources of the western military industrial conglomerates ... and we are asked to feel the lions share of sympathy for less than 3000 bankers, insurance clerks and others who operated the machinery of theft and oppression from those dark buildings?

I don't.

My sympathies rest squarely with those millions of under 5's who never had a chance to live a life and who are not even counted among those other millions of dead because they were not killed by the bayonet, bullet or bomb but wasted away in the cold of a winters night.

911 was a mechanism of deceit, an instrument of warfare, a means to colonize your minds and prep it for the next round of imperial resource theft and grand chess games - played out on the lifeless bodies of the poorest by the merciless masters of the universe.

I declare that all those who refuse to recognize this and continue with their deliberate obtusification and shrilling are the enemy of humankind and legitimate targets for the ultimate revenge.

You dull spineless traitors.

Irritant


@ Irritant

09.09.2011 13:19

You put it a lot better than I did/could....

True though, the world is topsy turvy, the state wont educate, communities segregate how much more of this shit will we tolerate?


Peace


Mr Pen

Mr Pen


Goons

09.09.2011 13:29

"bin laden adamantly denied having anything to do with 9/11- if you think he's lying, well many don't"

Lol, you missed the video where he admitted it then?

Hush-a-bombs:

-Amazing invention by the U.S Military, used in on 9/11 that defy physics
1. Bombs that can blast through huge core members, yet not show up on any seismic data, nor video recordings from the day.

2: Thermite that can melt massive steel supports, yet not light up buildings like the fourth of July, and even more miraculously not super-heat the air through exothermic reaction in a relatively confined space (size of columns/amount of thermite needed - office space size), so that when the survivors in the stairwell get blown down by the wind pushed through the collapsing building, they do not get scorched, and paper flutters down.


That is why you guys are a bunch of fucking goons.


anon


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Thank you Mr Pen

09.09.2011 13:43

All power to you.

Peace and love.

Irritant


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Ah! Up pops the 'anon' shrill

09.09.2011 14:29

And right on cue ...

Seismic data ...

Before even thinking that you can argue against the information contained in this link, I demand that you show - as have the authors of the piece - your scientific credentials and peer reviewed publications (lest we imagine you to be that most foul of creatures 'the spineless shrill'):

 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html

... incidentally, this is just one of many scientifically drafted papers in support of the premise that seismic data indicates foul play and, whilst it is true to lay claim to the fact that various publications of various shades of credibility seek to indicate the reverse, the very fact that such is in doubt would be enough (in a logical, scientific climate) to show the 'reasonable doubt' that is the cornerstone of 2500 years of jurisprudence of the modern era.

Next: I hardly know what you claim as being of validity when you spew out the phrase:

"Thermite that can melt massive steel supports, yet not light up buildings like the fourth of July"

Do you require the pictorial evidence of liquid metals poring from the upper stories of the buildings that day? Perhaps it is the pictorial and eyewitness accounts of molten metals recovered from the basements ... is this what you mean by 'light up'?

I am glad that you recognize that thermite - like thermate - can be used to melt steel - perhaps you might like to indicate where modern science is wrong when it claims that kerosene fires do not reach the required temps to even weaken steel?

... and 'us guys' thank you for your puerile insults - they are always so useful in indicating that the verbose pomposity of the user of such has either a poor mind or a guilty conscience.

PS - If we 'missed' the video of Bin Ladens confession, why don't you ram it down our throats and give us the appropriate link, including the credentials of those who so helpfully translated whatever it contains?

Irritant


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Ah! Up pops the 'anon' shrill

09.09.2011 14:30

And right on cue ...

Seismic data ...

Before even thinking that you can argue against the information contained in this link, I demand that you show - as have the authors of the piece - your scientific credentials and peer reviewed publications (lest we imagine you to be that most foul of creatures 'the spineless shrill'):

 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html

... incidentally, this is just one of many scientifically drafted papers in support of the premise that seismic data indicates foul play and, whilst it is true to lay claim to the fact that various publications of various shades of credibility seek to indicate the reverse, the very fact that such is in doubt would be enough (in a logical, scientific climate) to show the 'reasonable doubt' that is the cornerstone of 2500 years of jurisprudence of the modern era.

Next: I hardly know what you claim as being of validity when you spew out the phrase:

"Thermite that can melt massive steel supports, yet not light up buildings like the fourth of July"

Do you require the pictorial evidence of liquid metals poring from the upper stories of the buildings that day? Perhaps it is the pictorial and eyewitness accounts of molten metals recovered from the basements ... is this what you mean by 'light up'?

I am glad that you recognize that thermite - like thermate - can be used to melt steel - perhaps you might like to indicate where modern science is wrong when it claims that kerosene fires do not reach the required temps to even weaken steel?

... and 'us guys' thank you for your puerile insults - they are always so useful in indicating that the verbose pomposity of the user of such has either a poor mind or a guilty conscience.

PS - If we 'missed' the video of Bin Ladens confession, why don't you ram it down our throats and give us the appropriate link, including the credentials of those who so helpfully translated whatever it contains?

Irritant


Meanwhile in the real world......

09.09.2011 16:11

I think the vast majority of people agree that the terrorists did it.
..... With the possible exception of the "brown people" as the poster above puts it - but hey what do they know? Most don't have accesss to proper education and the internet, and most of their belief is just based on heresay rather than any actual investigated facts.

There is no credible proof that it is an "inside job". If there is, where is it?

RIP all the people who died on 9/11 - we will remember you


truth seeker


@Ah! Up pops the 'anon' shrill

09.09.2011 16:23

You mean somebody left on comment that you didn't agree with.

It is interesting to note that you feel threatened by this and are compelled to discredit it using some schoolboy sarcasm. Two conclusions can be inferred:
1. You are very much on the defensive, yet have no defence other than emotive sarcasm (the lowest form of wit?)
2. You are trying to be protective of your territory by attacking other posters that you do not agree with, thereby attempting to win an argument via "loudest voice" rather than "logical reasoning".

Apologise for using big words.

another anon


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Ho ho ho!

09.09.2011 16:47

Lets make this plain:

'truth seeker' (and your use of such a moniker is a disgrace to the English language) - I don't care for your casual racism nor your dewy eyed sentiments regarding your fine feelings[sic] towards those who died.

You have not earned the right to be replied to any further.

###

'another anon' is only slightly more worthy of a reply - if only for [their] slightly more advanced use of the lexicon of fallacy (the barrel scrapping ad hominem attack) ...

Nowhere in [their] slick but brief denouncement of [me] is there any evidence or attempt at logic, instead there is a somewhat hackneyed call to arms - in this case a 'flame war'.

Not biting.

If you have anything positive to add with regard to the belief system that postulates a 'case closed' official story 'proved' scenario, then add it. Until then, expect no return on your paltry effort.

Irritant


ongoing analysis

09.09.2011 17:29

Continued observations.....
- patient has taken the next step of regression, moving from "sarcasm" to a "no platform" stance, whereby any reasoning is blocked out through a wholesale denial.
- A self-protective justification is achieved through the "you are not worthy" tone, indicating superiority complex.

Predict continued hands-over-ears-im-not-listening arguments following by further attack on credibility along the lines of "being sheep who follow the media" etc. As continued regression occurs expect a complete block out of all attempts of communication to the outside world except where information matches idealistic view of world.

another anon


Jock Steady

09.09.2011 18:41

This another anon is some piece of work.

Stop with your arrogant soviet psychiatry and make reply to the issue, or better still f### off.

Stuart M


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Ha ha ha

09.09.2011 18:51

You are a funny little man aren't you?

How we laugh.

Still, it is easier to be the clown than answer any of the gaping holes and inconsistencies in the mime you seem to be pushing.

Do you imagine you are making headway with the undecided? Do you care?

Irritant


lab rat

09.09.2011 19:27

>> This another anon is some piece of work.
Yes I am.

>> Stop with your arrogant soviet psychiatry and make reply to the issue, or better still f### off.
Stopped. Now what are you going to do?

>> You are a funny little man aren't you?
Thanks.

>> How we laugh.
Steady on - it wasn't that funny.

>> Still, it is easier to be the clown than answer any of the gaping holes and inconsistencies in the mime you seem to be pushing.
Life is full of inconsistencies. And the bigger it is, the more inconsistencies there are. Check out the moon landings. On the flip side, what we need is proof that it is an inside job instead of a big, fat zero. It is something that is severely lacking (or completely lacking actually).

>> Do you imagine you are making headway with the undecided? Do you care?
No, but I'm morally duty bound to refute your lies. Such lies are a disgrace to the victims of 9/11

another anon


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Well ...

09.09.2011 19:39

... if we are doing analysis for the moment ...

Interesting that you use the word 'lies' about [my] claims.

To those experienced in dealing with sociopaths, it suggests a mindset that is out to deceive and mislead, especially in regard of the issue at hand - which in this case is 911 and the known liars and psychopaths who used it to further their selfish agendas.

Anyway enough about you ...

Irritant


you started it

09.09.2011 19:59

>> Interesting that you use the word 'lies' about [my] claims.

Lets see who started that shall we.........

Your quote:
"911 was a mechanism of deceit, an instrument of warfare, a means to colonize your minds and prep it for the next round of imperial resource theft and grand chess games - played out on the lifeless bodies of the poorest by the merciless masters of the universe. "

"911 was a mechanism of deceit"...........
Interesting that you use the word 'deceit' about the [official] claims.

To those experienced in dealing with sociopaths, it suggests a mindset that is out to deceive and mislead, especially in regard of the issue at hand - which in this case is 911 and the known liars and psychopaths who used it to further their selfish agendas.

Anyway enough about you ...

another anon


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Grandiose

09.09.2011 20:29

The big difference being that my claims were about a system that is obvious in action, ruthless in operation and demonstrably criminal in result.

Your grandiose positioning has nothing to do with the military industrial complex, nor the people that operate it ... you are just some guy trying it out for want of better things to do with your time.

It is obvious that you seek to personalize some issue you have with those that have rejected you (those able to think independently) ... one must admit that you are actually quite good at diverting attention away from the issues and onto your self. It is only because I do not know you that I limit my claims about you to sociopathy and psychopathy, although you do exhibit the grandiose outlook of both.

Irritant


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

So sorry ...

09.09.2011 20:48

... that last sentence should have said 'sociopathy and NOT psychopathy'.

Tired, kids playing up at bedtime and zero sum fools to step over on the way to deeper understanding.

Irritant


care must be taken not to stray from the path of the truth

09.09.2011 21:57

>> The big difference being that my claims were about a system that is obvious in action, ruthless in operation and demonstrably criminal in result.

These are avid descriptions of Al-Qaeda. They are obvious in action (ie. from the evidence gathered), ruthless (from this attack and the 100s of others in the world), and obvious criminal.
Look beyond 9/11. Look also at the 1000s of terrorist attacks from various quarters of Islamic extremist terrorist. The whole idea that the CIA or whoever orchestrated all of this is clearly foolish. Repeat: There is no solid evidence that you can point to, to say this is an 'inside job'.

>> Your grandiose positioning has nothing to do with the military industrial complex, nor the people that operate it ... you are just some guy trying it out for want of better things to do with your time.
Irrelevant to the topic.

>> It is obvious that you seek to personalize some issue you have with those that have rejected you (those able to think independently) ... one must admit that you are actually quite good at diverting attention away from the issues and onto your self.
I'm diverting towards the issues, not away from them.

>> It is only because I do not know you that I limit my claims about you to sociopathy and psychopathy, although you do exhibit the grandiose outlook of both.
I am not the issue. The issue is 9/11 and preventing further attacks on us.

>> ... that last sentence should have said 'sociopathy and NOT psychopathy'.
Are you sure?

>> Tired, kids playing up at bedtime and zero sum fools to step over on the way to deeper >> understanding.
No worries, thanks for correction.

another anon


@ irritant

10.09.2011 00:29


"Seismic data ...

Before even thinking that you can argue against the information contained in this link, I demand that you show - as have the authors of the piece - your scientific credentials and peer reviewed publications (lest we imagine you to be that most foul of creatures 'the spineless shrill'):

 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html "

PMSL, right so what we have here is a group of truthers unable to get any papers published in a reputable journal, so what they do is invent their own journal exclusively run by truthers, and reviewed by truthers.

You might be interested to know that there are over 70 (properly) peer reviewed papers on the collapses of all three buildings, accepted in journals (not homemade vanity journals) outside of the NIST report that support the findings - in other words the scientific community at large also think you are nut jobs.

Nice try at passing of bunk as peer reviewed science though.

here are the (real, not bullshit) peer reviewed pieces, I expect that youre response will be " yes, but thay are all in the pay of the NWO", gotta love the cult conspiracist mind set.


Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

anon


also @ irritant

10.09.2011 00:42

I got to say, that the offensive term for activists who think that conspiracy theories are a distraction, and who are accused of being NWO operatives by truthtards is "Shill" not "Shrill".

anon


peer reviewed papers = fuck all

10.09.2011 00:52

>> Before even thinking that you can argue against the information contained in this link, I demand that you show - as have the authors of the piece - your scientific credentials and peer reviewed publications (lest we imagine you to be that most foul of creatures 'the spineless shrill'):

I totally disagree with this demand....
An argument stands on its own merit, not who says it or what credentials they have.
If Albert Einstein said an argument, and a babbling idiot said the same argument, then neither of them is more correct than the other just because Albert has lots of letters after his name.

The argument is either correct or incorrect based on reasoning, not how many peer reviewed publications the speaker has. Otherwise you would be questioning the "2 + 2 = 4" statement made by your local drunken tramp just because he hasn't got a peer reviewed paper in mathematics.

another anon


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

seismic data - peer review

10.09.2011 11:00

Still standing after 24 hours burning.
Still standing after 24 hours burning.

"How poor Andromache shrills her dolors forth" - The Bard.

So, now we get into it.

My words:

"Before even thinking that you can argue against the information contained in this link, I demand that you show - as have the authors of the piece - your scientific credentials and peer reviewed publications"

You are the first to do the later - I will forgo the former as, on reflection this is an unwarrented burden (although usually a pretty good indicator that the person knows something of which they speak).

I followed with this:

... " incidentally, this is just one of many scientifically drafted papers in support of the premise that seismic data indicates foul play and, whilst it is true to lay claim to the fact that various publications of various shades of credibility seek to indicate the reverse, the very fact that such is in doubt would be enough (in a logical, scientific climate) to show the 'reasonable doubt' that is the cornerstone of 2500 years of jurisprudence of the modern era."

This is the way scientific endeavor proceeds, NOT through concensus but through theory and counter theory.

Do you understand the point here? The fact that you can reel off a list of papers published on the various issues surrounding the events of that day is precisely the point. I could do so also. I restricted my demands to the issue of the seismic data. With, perhaps the exception of:

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48

[None] of the papers from the list you have cut and pasted from some place deal with this issue.

I doubt very much also that you have taken the time to even read one sentence from any of those papers you have egarly organized in front of us to suggest how intrepid and scholarly you are. If this was a peer reviewed interaction, you would have automatically failed for such presentation. In fact, a quick search found that this list of papers is readily available in exactly the order listed from several sites around the web. Intensive research there!

I dare say an argument stands or falls on its own merits, but the idea of peer review and other such mechanisms is to sort the wheat from the chaff - I do not wish to waste excessive amounts of time wading through every idea. I use the notion of quality to do such sorting - as does every serious researcher.

Now, you have expended a lot of effort in attacking me personally, some little effort in hanging out the list of works (you presume) that counters any argument I may or may not have made, and no effort what so ever actually countering the information in any detail.

One begins to wonder just what exactly your aim is?

I would suspect that you are the typical reactionary at best, seeking to predominate in your arguments for the sake of it and actually have little or no interest in the socio-political issues. We have already seen your fellow shill or shrill (as you wish) employ a nasty racist rhetoric to indicate their lack of concern for the millions of victims of 911's aftermath. Would you have us label you as a stooge of the kind of western imperial warmonger embodied by the neo-con project for the new american century zio-fascist? That's what it begins to look like, which brings into question your presence here.

If you have any actual data rich argument, then now is the time to argue it - otherwise, stop wasting bandwidth.

Irritant


Circle goes round again

10.09.2011 12:41

The thing is, no matter what counter argument is made, those believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy won't accept it, and they fail to recruit many new people to their cause or attract people who want to debate with them by calling those who disagree "sheep" and hurling insults.

So no progress is made.

Richard
mail e-mail: richard-brennan@hotmail.co.uk
- Homepage: http://brennybaby.blogpspot.com


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Richard

10.09.2011 13:10

You complain (as have others here) that you are labelled as "sheep" for you beliefs or lack of them. Perhaps I have missed the comment in which this has happened, but I have not labelled you as such.

The insults seem to flow both ways.

What progress do you seek?

For myself, I wish to see that there is a full and thorough investigation into the events before, during and after that day - a scientific, legal and public investigation. Until such time I am at liberty to expound my own theories and you are at liberty to counter them or ignore them.

And as for lacking in new recruits - the opposite is more accurate. More and more people begin to see and speak of doubts as to the guilty parties everyday.

Perhaps that is the real issue here, the fact that ground IS being made and that there are those who feel their collars becoming hot.

Irritant


Senior counsel to the 911 commission speaks out

10.09.2011 13:20

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

More:

 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/high-level-officials-eager-to-spill-the-beans-about-what-really-happened-on-911-but-no-one-in-washington-or-the-media-wants-to-hear.html

anon anon anon


no investigation because...

10.09.2011 22:07

>>>>>>>>>>>>> For myself, I wish to see that there is a full and thorough investigation into the events before, during and after that day - a scientific, legal and public investigation. Until such time I am at liberty to expound my own theories and you are at liberty to counter them or ignore them.


Costs a lot of mullah - bean counters will be asking who pays for it ;-)

anonny anon


punkt aus

11.09.2011 16:12

It's time to settle all this horseshit once and for all.

I have irrefutable evidence that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were demolished by Zonkorium rays from the planet Barbar. Every scientific paper from the experts is wrong because none of them, not one, includes the Zonkorium rays in their analysis. If you do not immediately accept my thesis, it is because you are a New World Order shill specially assigned by the CIA/FBI/MI-6/X-files/Mossad to publish disinformation. Nothing in the world can possibly, possibly dissuade me from this position. Note that anyone publicly disagreeing with me will be targeted by additional Zonkorium rays, which are undetectable by any known earth technology, except when they make planes appear quite realistically to fly into buildings. Thank you and have a nice day; I am now, as an anti-Zonkorium safety measure, going to remove my spleen with a spoon.

BUT DON'T CALL ME CRAZY!

settle


Hide 11 hidden comments or hide all comments