The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Announcements
Open Thread #9

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A New Open Thread.

 
• Tags: OpenThread 
Hide 1612 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Ron Unz says:

    Here’s a duplicate of my comment at the end of the previous Open Thread:

    And “professional rescue-workers”? What kind of training would they have in discriminating between the sound of explosions and other similar sounds? Why would they ever have had any such training at all? Is there any evidence that they did?

    NIST claims that the connections between various structural members snapped.

    That probably would have sounded, at least to some people, like “small explosions. ” A loud, sharp noise is a loud sharp noise.

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/open-thread-8/#comment-6450842

    I dunno. If more than 150 experienced, professional fire-fighters and rescue-workers say that they heard a series of explosions inside the WTC just before it collapsed, I tend to take their statements very seriously.

    It also seems *extremely* suspicious that all their eyewitness testimony was left out of the official NIST report and was only later discovered through FOIA filings.

    Leading demolitions experts who were shown a film of the collapse of Building 7 without being told what it was said it was obviously a controlled-demolition using explosives, and an absolutely first-rate job.

    Reputable academics who who examined the remains said they found obvious traces of nano-thermite, a military grade explosive.

    Roughly 200 Mossad agents were quickly rounded up by the FBI, most of them in the New York City area, with five of them caught filming the burning WTC towers and celebrating their very successful operation, though all of them eventually released back to Israel under enormous political pressure.

    In 2006, a high-ranking former CIA official publicly declared that the official 9/11 story was a total pack of lies and fully endorsed the 9/11 Truth movement, while a top German official responsible for intelligence matters said much the same thing. A former president of Italy said that “everyone” knew that Mossad and the CIA had actually been responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

    All we have on the other side is an official NIST report that deliberately excluded all of the massive eyewitness testimony and other contrary evidence.

    I’ve discussed all of this many times in my various articles, most recently the one from last year:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/remembering-the-9-11-truth-movement/

  2. Chebyshev says:
    @Ron Unz

    It also seems *extremely* suspicious that all their eyewitness testimony was left out of the official NIST report and was only later discovered through FOIA filings.

    The NIST is part of the Department of Commerce. Commerce is one of the Departments in the heavily Jewish Biden administration that’s in white Gentile hands. I’d love to know what the current head of NIST and the Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo, think about all this. Is Gina Raimondo related to Justin Raimondo, author of The Terror Enigma?

    • Replies: @bjondo
  3. Hi TV,

    I checked both of Mark Gaffney’s recent articles. I both articles your comments are ~10% of the totals, so I don’t see where the deletions occurred:

    [MORE]

    (1) On Demolition a page search shows that you appear 213 times and PhysicistDave appears 194 times (out of a total of 1834 comments), so is that still kosher?
    https://www.unz.com/article/the-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center

    (2) But on Plowshares Truth Vigilante appears 51 times while PhysicistDave only appears 6 times (out of a total of 582 comments). If Dave’s comments were deleted did those deletions remove your responses as well?
    https://www.unz.com/article/did-the-plowshares-program-set-the-stage-for-nuclear-terrorism-on-september-11

    I would like to modify your name to Truth Aletheia or TA, since Aletheia means Truth in Greek and TAs are the people in college who do the real teaching while the professors sit back and take all the credit. And on this site you are an instructor par-excellence!

    (This is also a dig at Dave, who told us about the travails of his daughter Alethea at UCLA:
    https://dailybruin.com/2019/08/25/ucla-potentially-unfairly-pursues-misconduct-allegations-against-hill-resident)

    Note this amazing definition of Aletheia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aletheia
    Aletheia is variously translated as “unconcealedness”, “disclosure”, “revealing”, or “unclosedness”. The literal meaning of the word ἀ–λήθεια is “the state of not being hidden; the state of being evident.” It also means factuality or reality.[2] It is the antonym of lethe, which literally means “oblivion”, “forgetfulness”, or “concealment”[3] according to Pindar’s First Olympian Ode.[4]

    In Greek mythology, aletheia was personified as a Greek goddess, Aletheia. In some accounts she was a daughter of Zeus, while Aesop’s Fables[5] state she was crafted by Prometheus. In interpretatio graeca she was equated with Veritas, the Roman goddess of truth.[6]

    To Ron,

    Your comment #1136 on Open Thread 8 is MUCH appreciated!
    https://www.unz.com/announcement/open-thread-8/#comment-6451620

    Respectfully, MK

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  4. Wild Man says:

    [MORE]

    Here is more on that white rubbery shit being pulled from arteries and veins of cadavers, by embalmers, … a new never seen before phenomenon among the embalmers, …. since the advent of covid, and especially since the advent of covid vaxxing, … that Peter McCullough recently insinuated may be of similar pathological metabolic origins (the clotting in the living is similar in some ways to this white rubbery shit being pulled out of cadavers arteries and veins by embalmers, for years now, but not prior to that), ….:

    Fuck’in hell. This Professor Resia Pretorius, has been on this since 2020? And everything she says here, lines up precisely with what I and others claimed here, at UR, early on, ….during the summer of 2021, …. about the probable avenue(s) of severe covid pathogenesis and covid vaxx pathogenesis (spike-induced vascular trauma, primarily), …. just by way of purviewng some of the research prior published about sars-cov-1 metabolic pathways of pathogenesis, … and then the emerging research around sar-cov-2 metabolic pathways of pathogenesis, …. and interpreted these findings correctly, …. despite idiots like commenter ‘That Would Be Telling’, claiming biologics expertise but then blowing smoke at us, over our correct assessments (that spike is indeed pathogenic, all on its own).

    Wow is all I can say (in one important way, Ron Unz and UR contributing to the advent of the Hard-Clown-World, obviously upon the populaces of the west now, ….. Unz, historically, coming out in favor of the idiots here, more-or-less, on this covid-pathogenesis phenomenon topic, …. claiming ignorance on the topic, thus tacitly giving the floor to expert-domain-liars like ‘That Would be Telling’, as it was happening). And Ron is among the sharpest. I think what perhaps we need to begin to wrap our heads around is that, – yes indeed the advent of Hard-Clown-World is now upon us. If one begins to leave room in one’s mind for precisely this possibility, ….. the facts then, begin to shine through in a way that confirms Hard-Clown-Worldism. I think almost everybody though, doesn’t yet want to admit it.

    This UR is a great place, …. allowing a space to sort this out, … maybe it takes somebody like Unz that had already prior decided that not all conspiracy theorists are nuts, to allow this action for the UR, despite his misgivings.

    Please note that the more religious types make this mental equation: Hard-Clown-Worldism = satanic possession. Humanity is now at the stage, … we have no choice, … we need to deal with the mental illness that has always been simmering in the background, among our super successful species. We can no longer afford to behave like 2-year olds (that is the gestalt of Hard-Clown-Worldism, …… the 2-year-old demeanor). The 2-year old demeanor, and the tech-super-success that people like PhyscistDave lay claim to, ….. are incompatible.

    It is interesting that Professor Resia Pretorius believes that the covid vaxxes ‘saved millions of lives’. That’s just crazy to claim that. Because if that were true (that it saved millions of lives, on balance) then that would mean that the substantial excess all-cause mortality experienced in many many jurisdictions, over 2020 – 2022 and into 2023, would have been much worse, without the vaxx. There is no credible pathway to that claim. Mortality rose in conjunction with the roll-out of the vaxx, despite the associated falling clade-IFR.

    ‘We been spiked’ is gonna become the new cultural catchphrase for ‘we been played for fools’, one would hope (we gotta fight Hard-Clown-Worldism with its gestalt of 2-year-old demeanor).

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  5. bjondo says:
    @Chebyshev

    Don’t know about Gina, Justin was Yid.

    5ds

    • Replies: @geokat62
  6. geokat62 says:
    @bjondo

    Justin was Yid.

    Do you have a source?

    • Replies: @bjondo
  7. meamjojo says:

    Here’s a comprehensive history lesson for all here:

    Timeline: Key Events In The Israel-Arab And Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    Conversations on social media, news media coverage, events on college campuses, and general public discourse related to the Israel-Hamas war demonstrate a dire need for accurate information about Israel, Zionism, and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As the war continues to evolve, staying well-informed about the historical context and ongoing developments is crucial for fostering more understanding and informed opinions.

    The timeline below aims to address frequently asked questions about Israel’s history and to help dispel misinformation about the events leading up to this point.

    Here is a timeline summarizing key events in both Israel’s history within the broader context of the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    https://www.ajc.org/IsraelConflictTimeline

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
    • Troll: Colin Wright
  8. bjondo says:
    @geokat62

    Just memory from years commenting at anti war before getting banned.
    No success finding backup so will have to retract.
    Raimondo not someone Yid would claim.
    Lot I could no longer find.

    Will go with false memory for now.

    5ds

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  9. @Michael Korn

    Thanks for that deep dive MK.
    I was aware of participating in two 9/11 threads authored by Mark Gaffney last year, and just assumed that the first two I located in the archives were the two in question.
    But in fact there were three (3) such threads authored by Mark Gaffney. The one titled ‘Demolition-of-the-world-trade-center’ is the biggie (the one with over 1800 comments).
    And this is the one I was thinking of when I ran across the other two Mark Gaffney threads, which seemed to be missing lots of comments from Dovid Miller.

    Anyway, if you’re reading this Ron Unz, my apologies to you for implying that you may have purged some commentary from the archives.

    • Replies: @MIchael Korn
  10. @Ron Unz

    Ron, what happened to Open Thread # 8?

    Now, I get it that when a particular thread becomes too wordy that you close it down, usually ending with a comment from you to that effect.
    But even once closed, these threads are still available to access in the archives. (I had some material in my comments posted in Open Thread # 8 in the way of links to articles/videos etc, that I may want to retrieve for future reference).

    I tried entering ‘Open Thread # 8’ in the Search Bar located at top right, but could not retrieve it.

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  11. Wild Man says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Click on the ‘Announcement’ tile at the top of page.

    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
  12. I come across all sorts of information/content from various sources, some of which I can’t verify, but quite a bit certainly seems true, like the Protocols. I made note of the following blurb, whence I don’t recall-

    According to lon Mihai Pacepa, the chief intelligence officer in communist Romania, what happened in Russia and how Putin took over resembles plans reportedly discussed by Stasi officers. The plan specified to the West about re-branding East Germany as a democratic capitalist country, but which would be in practice taken over by Stasi officers. It was registered as Top Secret Document 0008-6/86 of 17 March 1986. According to Pacepa, other communist intelligence services had similar plans. On 12 March 1990, Der Spiegel reported that the Stasi was indeed attempting to implement
    0008-6/86.

    Then, this morning I read an article @ American Thinker (I know, it’s pro-Israel, but they post good information nonetheless) referencing Yuri Bezmenov, and this is an interesting 6 minute excerpt from his interview in the 80’s, essentially confirming the above blurb, as it pertains to America/Great Britain, for what it’s worth.

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  13. Wild Man says:
    @Wild Man

    Latest from John Campbell:

    [MORE]

    Is this the beginning of the end on the covid phenomenon false narrative? Just in time to throw a chaotic strange attractor (please don’t attempt to beat me up Dave, … I am using that phrase as a metaphor) into the 2024 election of the very important American hegemonic component of this faux-west globalism that is plaguing us, just when Trump’s odds seem to be otherwise rising and rising?

    I don’t think anyone has a hope in hell predicting what is going to happen in the lead-up to this election (because we live in Hard-Clown-World now, so any old weird and creepy 2-year-old behaviorial stuff can emanate geopolitically from the western parties in the faux-west globalist camp, … at any time, pretty much). But I would be very surprised if it just goes uneventful. If it just goes uneventful, from here on in, with Trump as shoo-in then, …. I am going to be even more suspicious of the guy than I already am. This is very confusing. Trump was actually good in 2016 -2020 for keeping this whole faux-west globalism thing going for another good 10 years anyways, … making the smart moves to delay the inevitable (inevitable unless America truly changes her ways, … but I think it turns out Trump’s version of that, … this MAGA, was fake in that one respect, … just cosmetic in that respect …. because instead it seems Trump was angling to keep this hegemonic brute standing on its feet for another good 10 years). At least that is the way it looks vs. the 2020-2024 Biden presidency -right? Biden is destroying the near-term prospects of an ongoing successful faux-west globalism, as we speak, on several fronts (yet he seems to be the faux-west globalist’s boy). So weird (and confusing).

    What the hell is really going on, as to those with dibs on the 2024 election of the American hegemonic brute component of this faux-west globalism? You got me. I still don’t really know. But I do know, whatever the hidden stakes/motives: Hard-Clown-Worldism it is.

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  14. Wild Man says:
    @Tiptoethrutulips

    Bezmenov’s spiel of yore makes alot of sense if you edit him, and replace the word ‘thugs’ for his use of the word ‘Marxists’ (I bet Bezmenov knew that, as well, but chose not to say it that way). Truth be told it doesn’t matter the initial political stripes, when it is a cover for thugs. When the thugs then prevail by way of manifold possible avenues of subversive corruption, which all look different (but in spirit really aren’t, ….. just different flavors of the same thing), … we get what Bezmenov outlines at the very end of the clip (the tables are mercilessly turned on the dupes that were manipulated by way of telling them what they wanted to hear, but otherwise salting that narrative with subversive undertones that slowly will come home to roost, … various such subliminal strands all of a sudden going public overt-mode all over the place).

    To me, is sorta feels like we might be at the stage where ‘various such subliminal strands all of a sudden going public overt-mode all over the place’, is close at hand. Freaky (the feeling), is all I can say.

    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  15. @Ron Unz

    Engineers like Kevin Ryan, Tony Szamboti, Leroy Hulsey, etc. have meticulously exposed the NIST reports as frauds. Most of the technical issues involved can be understood by a layperson willing to spend some time at it.

    Between the 2002 FEMA report, the 2005 NIST report on the Towers, and the 2008 NIST report on WTC-7, there was a long-running debate between the very few experts willing to defend the official story blaming plane crashes and fires, and the ever-growing number challenging them. By far the most prominent scientist defending the official version was Frank Greening, whose predisposition to want to accept the official story led him to propose arguments that struck me and others as grasping at straws. But the gross inadequacies of NIST’s 2005 report on the Towers, and especially its laughable 2008 WTC-7 report, finally convinced a deeply disappointed Greening that the “truthers” were probably right all along: https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_frank-greening-bbc-mischaracterized-me-i-do-not-believe-the/

  16. On 9-11, that fact that our government won’t do something should tell you all you need to know about who actually controls our freemasonic Republic. Corbett Report’s “Five Dancing Israelis” was the beginning of my understanding something is very wrong with the standard story, with our country, with the hidden agenda, with our bought and paid for politicians, and why our government seems to be working against the people. It also explains why we have untold amounts of money to fight Israel’s wars and to fight in Ukraine which in reality is just an Israeli proxy war they call (Kissinger) “The Greater Israel Project”. The Yids want to return home, and they are trying to clear the land of all the goyim. Prove me wrong, you cannot. Corbett Report’s video link is here in case you have never seen it.

    https://corbettreport.com/911suspects/

  17. Doug Plumb says: • Website

    I saw what 9-11 was when I saw the buildings, – the first one collapsed directly down through its own footprint. I was having breakfast in a bar at around 9:30 AM, I said that it had to be an inside job because of how the buildings collapsed and the fact of the OKC bombings, Kennedy assassination, Holohoax, missing 2.1 Trillion dollars, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…etc. Twenty-five people laughed at me. I thought – “OK, this is a psychological problem” and I have followed that tract of thinking since it happened.

    The book “Political Ponerology” is a very good and important book. I’ve read it a few times. I’d like to hear what Ron Unz, one of my favorite intellects, thinks of it. I’m studying Kant to get a solid understanding of the basics of human cognition and have been reading everything I can find on propaganda and bullshit.

    I’ve been a conspiracy theorist since the age of 11 when my school principal talked with me in his office about questioning the holocaust. He agreed with me in that it was hoax but also said my life could be somewhere between difficult to impossible if I continued to question it. I was just an ordinary kid, no genius or anything, never did homework and was always happy with a C grade.

    • Replies: @Dr. Rock
  18. @Truth Vigilante

    As a brief followup: are you now retracting your charge that many of your comments, as well as Dave’s, had been removed from the Gaffney plowshares article?

    To recap my page searches:

    [MORE]

    (1) On Demolition a page search shows that you appear 213 times and PhysicistDave appears 194 times (out of a total of 1834 comments), so is that still kosher?
    https://www.unz.com/article/the-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center

    (2) But on Plowshares Truth Vigilante appears 51 times while PhysicistDave only appears 6 times (out of a total of 582 comments). If Dave’s comments were deleted did those deletions remove your responses as well?
    https://www.unz.com/article/did-the-plowshares-program-set-the-stage-for-nuclear-terrorism-on-september-11

    In the Demolition article you and Dave both posted about the same number of comments, each ~10% of the total posted. But in the Plowshares article, while you came in again at ~10% of the total, Dave did a nosedive to only 10% of your total. So it looks like either his comments were removed, as you originally asserted, or you have scared him away. Which do you think? I think Dave has a lot of good qualities, especially when he isn’t posting here. I hope he keeps it up.

    You know how Dennis Prager and Trump and others have promoted their own universities? What if Ron started Unz University? And we his commentariat could qualify for degrees? What do you think?

    Here’s a possible course syllabus for UU:

    1. Holocaust Denial is White German Christian Revival
    2. 9/11 was an Israeli false flag, but not using micro-nukes.
    3. Vladimir Putin is a hero but also possibly a ZOG asset
    4. Affirmative Action is Positive Dereliction
    5. Black crime is horrible unless we can keep it in the ghetto.
    6. Jews are not to be trusted unless they moderate anti-Semitic ranting sites.
    7. All religion is evil, except for those followed by Michael Hoffman E Michael Jones and Kevin Barrett.
    8. Why Ron Unz deserves a Nobel Prize in Journalism and Historical Revisionism.

    All joking aside, I think an online Unz University might be a fantastic idea. I leave it to others to flesh out the details.

  19. Wild Man says:

    This is response to PhysicistDave’s comment #1127 of Open Thread #8:

    [MORE]

    On this passage of your comment:

    “And then, in the sixteenth century, science came along. And we stopped even trying to get “a definition of ‘real’.” We just said, in effect, “Ah — to hell with all that!”

    No we didn’t:

    https://closertotruth.com/topic-guide/

    On this your passage:

    “And, instead, we just started looking at things — at the planets, at beetles, at rocks and stones, at the Sun, at rose bushes, etc. — and tried to figure out what those things were made of and how they worked.

    Things over words.”

    Yes, … we (and you) proffer conjectures (like I already said in prior comment in this exchange thread) around that (made up of a novel manipulations of concepts, … concepts as per language-representations) and test those. Look, …. cut the crap, … it is not ‘things over words’ that you do as physicist, ….. it is ‘maths over words’. And you seem to suck at interpreting maths in terms of words (or maybe instead it is just that you might be a lazy bastard, around that). And you do not possess dibs on your supposed interface with the primacy of ‘things’, .. despite your constant claims otherwise (though your methods, … which are our scientific methods, do bring abundant results, of course, it’s true). You do not possess those dibs, like you seem to think (at least you weirdly constantly claim that you possess said dibs as a rhetorical devise, at least, … and if is just that, it is dumb in that vein [as a rhetorical devise] so please drop it already,if it is just dumbly, that), …. because you, categorically, are still at arms length away from the ‘things’ you hope to analyze, vis-a-vis the arms-length condition of the more wordy methods. The maths methods emerged from the word methods (and not the other way around), … people can’t really impart maths meaning to each other without being able to talk to each other first, … and your maths methods are of course burdened by that provenance, …. burdened in a way that you seem to think you possess the hubristic claims, to refuse. Sorry brother, … you and your fellow physics are in this together with the rest of us, and it is very weird you seem to claim otherwise.

    “As Wittgenstein said in the final sentence of the Tractatus, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

    You want us to bullshit.

    We are just not into bullshitting. Too bad.”

    OK, …. you had earlier claimed that yours is the ‘common sense’ approach. Show me the money Dave. Where is the common sense to your approach, if all you say to someone like me is – ‘you didn’t study the maths and so you don’t understand’? Show me the’ common sense’ money. Show me the ‘common sense’ money Dave, already. You do understand that, with respect to definitions of ‘the real’, there is, in the least, phenomenon, instead of a lack of phenomenon – right? Well start there, then. Tell me what more you know, beyond that, … and who knows, … maybe you even have insights as to why we must accept the first precept that I just mentioned, in the paragraph here, … and if so, … tell me about your insights around that as well.

    I think you probably cannot do what I ask (from the physicist perspective, that is). I think probably you cannot do what I ask because modern physics is in the business of revealing ‘closer to truth’ statements to us, by way of the scientific/maths method, as evidenced by the subsequent engineering successes and such, … and that’s it. Modern physics is doing nothing more than just that, but does tend to lay pretensions to ‘reality revelations’, and you should know better, …. your physics is so far from complete or universal, in any way shape or form. We (the people trying to appreciate the physics community) salute you, but as well, do ask that you get off the hubristic high horse, please.

    On this your passage:

    “The natural numbers (1,2,3…) are limitless; yet, with my little limited brain, I am able to grasp many interesting things about the natural numbers.”

    Mmmm. I think therefore I am. Conceptions of limitlessness are apparent. Yet it is true that we are limited in extremely constraining ways (5 – 9 items of short-term memory, for instance). What’s the resolution of these 3 observations taken together, Dave? Perhaps that: ‘the real is limitless, and despite our limited nature, we are informed by the infinite as a necessary condition, nevertheless, because by physics, everything is connected to everything else, perhaps tenuously, but this principle is irrefutable – no? Yet your physics doesn’t want to claim that.

    On this your passage:

    “Guess my limited mind can grasp lots of stuff about unlimited things, eh?”

    Yeah, … I recall being well satisfied by Euclid’s proof of infinite gaps between primes among the natural numbers.

    On this your passage:

    “Maybe not your mind, though.”

    Hahahaha. What to say to that? Fuck you brother, I guess. Why do you want to elicit such responses of annoyance to your vapid disrespect, though, … jeez this brings me back to square one with you, many months ago, … you sure you aren’t just doing an arrogance-jerk-off at our expense here in this thread?, … jeez, if it is that, yuk, stop it already.

    On this your passage:

    WM: If a natural scientist is to always give consideration to the viewpoint that reality is limitless, then he must conclude that, if true, he will never ever be able to make his thoughts conform to such a reality, …. and therefore, said natural scientist (you in this case) must commence the operation of conjecture-spinning and testing (a method of now having ‘reality conform to thoughts’, as you say), …. which is precisely the method that the natural scientists have used so successfully with respect to ‘reality-uncovering’.

    PD: “Nope. As I just showed, my little mind can indeed grasp limitless things. Pretty cool, eh?”

    Wut? I say you do ‘conjecture-spinning and testing (a method of now having ‘reality conform to thoughts’, as you say),’, …. because you in fact do, as all good scientists do, ….. and you attempt to blow smoke but yet again? Fuck, stop it, … this is going beyond mere low-brow rhetorical devise now, … you are straight up lying now, I think (because you have insinuated several times that you do not register that scientists, including yourself, indeed do conjecture-spinning and testing). Stop obfuscating.

    On this your passage:

    PD: “I do not in fact think “that it’s impossible to know how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.” I don’t know for sure, but I do not think it is necessarily impossible to know.”

    WM: Could you clarify please. Do you mean that in terms of the consideration that reality may indeed by limitless? (Or are you here just pointing to the potential for a ‘limited reality’ to render these questions as answerable?). If it is the former, … for the life of me, ….. I cannot see how it would be ever possible to know the true nature of limitless reality, from the limited human perspective

    PD: “Oh, you can’t see that, because you are completely uneducated (yes, I know you spent years in school — but you were not educated!) and really not very bright!”

    That’s not a fucking answer. Answer. Are you severely constrained by the limitations of your cognitive apparatus (think 5 – 9 items of short term memory, for instance) so as to severely limit the search capacity necessary, to even begin a project that is de-facto unlimited in its scope? … (which is my sense of our condition), …. or not, …. and if not, why would you think that?

    On this your passage:

    WM: The type of dualism we are discussing (which is outside of the dualisms of your physics examples) is illogical because you must impose a way for the two such fundamental categories (mind or consciousness/the physical) to interact, …. which means these would not be two separate fundamental categories. Monism it must be.

    PD:”Nope. I do not have to “impose a way for the two such fundamental categories (mind or consciousness/the physical) to interact…”. The world is what it is: I do not need to impose anything.”

    Well, if you entertain dualism, which is illogical, then you do have to make that imposition, if you want to remain within the bailiwick of logic (aka ‘common sense’ as you say). Dave … are you arguing against a universal system whereby everything is necessarily connected to everything else, even if rather tenuously? … (which would be a ridiculous argument), because otherwise how would you make such bizarre claim that indeed there can exist two fundamental categories? If you believe that consciousness may be a fundamental universal category absolutely separate in every way, from physicality, and you do not impose a way for the two such fundamental categories (mind or consciousness/the physical) to interact, (which imposition would be tantamount to monism instead of dualism, then) then what of the correlations we find that abound, between said categories? Why are there these correlations, then?

    On this your passage:

    “Look: I know that countless philosophers have made the claim you are making here: this is one of oh-so-many reasons that we scientists tend to believe that the vast majority of philosophers are very, very dimwitted indeed.”

    I have no idea what that means, … to the point I must consider it is you that must be the dim-witted one, I suppose. Dualism is illogical. You have no counter-argument.

    On this your passage:

    “Sunlight and a plant are obviously very, very different things: You can hold a plant or part of a plant in your hand; you cannot hold a sunbeam in your hand. You can chew on part of a plant; you cannot chew on a sunbeam. You can weigh a plant on a scale; you cannot do that with a sunbeam.

    And on and on and on.

    Nonetheless, plants and sunbeams do interact, you know: that is what happens in photosynthesis. And we understand in great detail how that works.

    Why should matter and consciousness be any different?

    Yes, yes, I know: you find that to be illogical.

    Well, the word “logic” actually means something: first-order predicate logic, classical Aristotelian syllogistic logic, modal logic, etc.

    Exactly which basic principle of logic would be violated by consciousness interacting with matter?

    Yeah, yeah, I know: it just plain seems illogical to you!

    Does it ever occur to you that, just maybe, you are not the measure of all things?”

    Well, … ‘Why should matter and consciousness be any different?’, … is for the reason, that you claim that dualism is perhaps true, so there would then be no mode of interaction available, in that eventuality, for consciousness and matter to affect each other, so as to eventuate the apparent correlations between said categories, that we indeed do observe. The logics you mention are interrelated, …. it is the alethic (“necessarily”) mode-of-truth component of said logics, that is key.

    On this your passage:

    “You want an example of how consciousness could logically interact with matter?

    Okay, let C be the (probably multi-component) quantum field for consciousness. Let M be (some no doubt composite) quantum field representing matter.

    Add an interaction term to the Lagrangian, g*C*M, where g is the coupling constant between consciousness and matter.

    See? Easy-peasy!

    But you have no idea what I am talking about because you are uneducated.

    So, you will just have to take my word for the fact that this could be how matter and consciousness interact, now won’t you?

    Unless and until you choose to get an education.

    Is this how consciousness and matter actually interact?

    I have no idea — it might be.

    But it does show that it is logically possible.

    You want to show that it is illogical — by all means tell us all what principle of logic it violates.

    And, no, the fact that your severely limited mind cannot grasp it does not count!

    Things over words.”

    Wut? Where in your example have you shown that C & M, necessarily, fundamentally, cannot interact?

    In earlier comment #1,079 of our exchange in Open Thread #8, I has offered this potential criticism of your stance:

    I am wondering if perhaps, you might be a marco-dualist as informed by micro-monism (somebody the sees the reality of ‘consciousness’, … supposes it may even be a reality-feature that supersedes physicality, at the human-agent level in the least, … yet will not deign to then examine their earlier mirco-monism stance, in light of said marco-dualist claim?). Is that what you are doing? (probably not because that would be quite dumb in the logically-internally-inconsistent way, and you are not dumb). Please clarify.

    In this exchange, you have now clarified. My potential criticism offered is now crystalized. You are quite dumb.

  20. @MIchael Korn

    This is a response to the scurrilous attack by PhysicistDave at the end of Open Thread 8. Perhaps Ron could shoot him an email inviting him to move his bloviating obfuscations over to here.

    [MORE]

    First, regarding Unz University, since Ron has gone on record that Harvard could be completely profitable without charging tuition, perhaps he could invoke that policy here. Of course, it’s completely fair to make us pay for our diplomas:

    BA = Bachelor of Anti-Semitism
    MA = Master of Anti-Semitism
    PhD = Doctor of Philosophical Anti-Semitism
    JD = Doctor of Jew-hatred
    MD = Doctor of Mendacious Jewspeak
    etc.

    Here is my proposed logo for Unz University. Feel free to download and modify at will:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jVmUxGCSIg9Cd-pdREKghTrYwj72Bkdp/view

    I would be happy to enroll at UU but only on condition that his strict censorship regime against me is revoked.

    Now for my response to Zio-Dave, who fulminated against me here:
    https://www.unz.com/announcement/open-thread-8/#comment-6452730

    And, most importantly, Mike has repeatedly vented his intense hatred towards his Uncle Burt.

    I don’t recall venting hatred towards him. There are many things about him I admire. He was on Nixon’s SALT talk delegation to reduce nukes. He always was concerned about these WOMD. The last time I saw him, in 2018, he told me he was sent to Iran by President Obama as part of a delegation to assess Iran’s nuke program. He told me the Israelis are grossly exaggerating Iran’s nuclear intentions. I thought it was very brave of him to even think that, let alone to admit it!

    The only thing I might hate him for is that he chose you as his grad student and pumped you up with insufferable arrogance that you inflict on the rest of us. The other thing about him I question is after his retirement he became an hysterical proponent of anthropogenic global warming, that TruVi and others claim is a complete scam. He wrote a book proposing mass construction of commercial nuclear power plants to shift away from fossil fuels and to save the planet. My objection to this is that it might attenuate warming and rising sea levels (assuming it’s not a scam) but at the cost of drowning us in unmanageable nuclear waste. I wrote a very negative Amazon review about his book, for which he hated me, not the reverse! You read this and tell me if it evinces “hate” for my uncle:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R4JBIFD7OTQ4O/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0521747813

    Another negative review:
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1WWSEUUFN888J/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0521747813

    About SLAC, I never said SLAC did nuclear weapons research. I said it is under the authority of the US Department of Energy, which oversees all US nuclear weapons programs. Maybe you need to take a class in remedial reading. There might be hope for you if you can get accepted at Unz University.

    • Replies: @Chebyshev
  21. Well, … ‘Why should matter and consciousness be any different?’

    Because matter takes many forms, as does consciousness, it seems. ? So, it isn’t really different, and the variety of interactions is endless.

    A rose bush is alive; it bends towards the sun; who put those thorns on the stem to protect the blooms? Did the rose conjure the thorns?

    Today, in 2024, there are humans who build dwellings with manure and grass, and there are humans who build dwellings, and have for centuries, like Windsor Palace, Schloss Berg, Linderhof Palace, The White House….I would say the builders have opposing levels of consciousness, and just like the interaction between rose bush/sun beam, check out the new digs of Jay-Z, a manure builder, and the results of his interactions with the Palace builders. (Ok, maybe it’s not “just like,” but close enough for my purpose, which is to mess with you).

    Of all the commenters on TUR, you are the only one who 1. Made me pause and ask – How do I answer?, and 2. After reading a thousand + words, I also ask – What?

    Warm chocolate pudding and cold whip cream, Wild Man…please. They interact quite well, especially if one drops a little whip cream on his/her lap. (How’s that for an underpinning?)

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  22. Chebyshev says:
    @MIchael Korn

    Of course, it’s completely fair to make us pay for our diplomas:

    BA = Bachelor of Anti-Semitism
    MA = Master of Anti-Semitism
    PhD = Doctor of Philosophical Anti-Semitism
    JD = Doctor of Jew-hatred
    MD = Doctor of Mendacious Jewspeak
    etc.

    If you have the BA, you’re armed and dangerous. By the way, does the retirement of BA holder Victoria Nuland mean neoconservatives in Washington are waning?

    To get the MD, you have to recognize that Jewish virologist Jonas Salk’s vaccine did nothing to reduce cases of polio or severe cases of that disease. Polio was eradicated by the elimination of DDT and other harmful pesticides. Salk merely did some experiments in his lab and posed for pictures.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-vaccines-and-the-mystery-of-polio/

    • Replies: @Anon
  23. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chebyshev

    Did Nuland retire? Maybe she’s checked into a fat farm to get some much needed R&R?

    The reason I criticized my uncle in my Amazon review is after I met Steven Jones speaking at a 9/11 Truth Conference at CU Boulder back in 2007, he told me he was a graduate student of my Uncle Burt at SLAC. Immediately i dashed off an email to my Uncle to ask if he was aware of Jones’ 9/11 Truth advocacy and what he thought of it. He replied in very tepid cautious terms and never responded to an email from me after that. That’s why I resorted to addressing him in the Amazon review:
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R4JBIFD7OTQ4O/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0521747813

    Two grad students from SLAC:
    Steven Jones a hero to bubus Americanus
    Davey Miller a shameless apologist for ZOG (who issued his paychecks out of DOE).

  24. @Wild Man

    Something Freaky is afoot, for certain.

    Everyone who knows, knows who the Leninists/Bolshevists/Stalinists were/are, and I suppose Stalin was the Lenin/Bronstein Frankenstein creation, sans the tender heart. Spectre, Ignatiev, Boas, BiBi, et al – they all say what it is they want.

    See #21.

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  25. Wild Man says:
    @Tiptoethrutulips

    [MORE]

    How’s that for an underpinning?

    Oh my, .. a most lovely one all round, in my books. The visual you create, modeled with the sensitivity of feminine turns-of-phrasing, … this feminine phrasing that all men love/respect/appreciate. Very nice.

    I will endeavor to get back to you and geokat62 (and the other ethnic nationalists here), …. a few years ago I had worked out a recursive re-ordering of Johnathan Haidt’s listing of differences in the moral sense of what is deemed left-wing vs. right wing (which again here, … left/right discussions tend to become bogus exercises in political/economic spectrology, unless one carefully parses the spectral-model [it’s not linear, it is bi-directionally recursive], … and I did also work out such reordering of said spectrology, for myself, as a separate exercise, some years ago as well).

    Ethnic nationalists like yourself, is what is deemed more right-wing, in the bogus but normative (as taught in high schools, let’s say) spectrology exercise, … and though it seems Johnathan Haidt may have been trying to address the bogus left/right political/economic spectrum, and find the moral-sense differences between those two elements, … really instead, what he was doing, was finding differences in the moral sense between people that are more ethnic nationalists (which he called ‘right-wing’ which is inaccurate) vs. those less ethnic nationalist. Please note that taking on the identity of an ethnic nationalist is not associated with particular positions on the bogus (but normalized though, as taught in high schools) left/right political/economic spectrum. Ethnic nationalism can occur anywhere within this spectrum. But the bogus but normalized left/right political/economic spectrum, has been offered in this bogus fashion, in order, primarily, to unfairly besmirch you ethnic nationalists (literally Hitler, hahahaha! … who apparently is on the extreme right of this bogus spectrology as taught in our high schools, even though the Nazis were politically/economically left of center …. away from too much individual liberty and towards more state control). And I don’t like that (unfairness). I don’t agree with ethnic nationalists, yet I find ethnic nationalists, in the main, to be just so much more sound of mind/spirit vs. the people that tend to populate the left side of this bogus but normalized left/right political/economic spectrum (who, as crazy as this sounds, I discovered, after a long while, actually tend to be people that are rabid cryptic racists pretending to be the holier-than-thou-opposite, … probably even to themselves).

    OK, …. I offered here, just a bit of background, on the bogus but normalized left/right political/economic spectrum, and also a theory about people dubbed ‘leftist’ within this bogus spectrology, tending to by rabid cryptic racists (they feel they are much better than others but don’t want to say so). I won’t belabor those two points here (but I can go into much greater detail on these two points, if you like). I just offered that as set up for Johnathan Haidt’s actual excellent work (as long as we understand Haidt was actually measuring people’s admitted conscious sense of ethnic nationalism, instead of their positioning on a bogus left/right spectral-analysis). You should note that Johnathan Haidt’s sense of the moral differences between those with greater or lesser degree of this ‘admitted conscious sense of ethnic nationalism’ puts people like yourself and geokat62 (ethnic nationalists), as in possession of the more morally nuanced and sophisticated ordering of moral judgments. Quite something – huh? So where does that leave somebody like me, then? Well, … I think I solved that (years ago now). I had worked out a recursive re-ordering of Johnathan Haidt’s listing of differences in the moral sense of what is deemed left-wing vs. right wing (which is actually instead just measuring the degree of people’s admitted conscious sense of ethnic nationalism), ….re-imagining the so-called left’s inferior (but very passionate) moral ordering, through the ethnic nationalist’s lens …. rendering a higher-order polar-reconciliation moral-list, … which happens to align, with the moral sense I do indeed hold.

    I will endeavor to dig that up (I am going to have to look through old emails, not really fun) … but will share, once I do that. I think this is an important exercise because people tend to internally start doubting the character of those they disagree with, on moral matters, and I think it does not necessarily have to be this way.

    But otherwise, … you and geokat62 and other ethnic nationalists have made many good points about the pace of assimilation of others not familiar with the root western culture. Yes, ….. I think that is true. Maybe where I am in Alberta (experiencing very high immigration from all over the world), … it is one of the few places where that is happening at that rate that isn’t all going south, fast, and so, we may lose westernism, just from that silly action (purposely killing the golden goose?). Very well could be. Yet I like these new people. I think it must because I really do like all humans (can’t help it … humans are wonderful). But the pace of change, of course, absolutely, is a real issue, and must be addressed, because the leadership doesn’t do westernism now (it’s faux-westernism, now), … so, I agree, you can see where this is all leading, … towards tragedy (the collapse of true-west). The newcomers, are mainly just trying to get by and do the best they can, for the most part though (I don’t think they should be personally faulted).

  26. @MIchael Korn

    …. are you now retracting your charge that many of your comments, as well as Dave’s, had been removed from the Gaffney plowshares article?

    I recall having multiple vigorous exchanges with Fizzy-cyst Dovid in at least one Mark Gaffney thread, which I assumed to be the two threads with the lower comment count.
    But, after you brought to my attention the Mark Gaffney article with 1800+ comments, after reviewing it, this clearly had the bulk of those exchanges I had with Dovid Miller that I could not initially locate.

    So yes, in view of that I’ll have to retract any accusations I had made before, because I can’t definitively state that any comments of mine/Dovid Miller/or anyone else have been scrubbed.

    BTW, I love your suggestions made in comment # 20 (BA = Bachelor of Anti-Semitism, MA = Master of Anti-Semitism, PhD = Doctor of Philosophical Anti-Semitism etc).
    I have to give it to you MK, you are one creative (and pragmatic) fellow.
    I am very pleased to have made your acquaintance and am embarrassed over some of my early exchanges with you.
    I completely misjudged you when we first crossed paths, and used some less than flattering terms in some of those exchanges made a few years ago.

    Not so in the case of Fizzy-cyst Dovid. I was very cordial with him for quite a while in my first interactions with him. But, as he posted one falsehood after another, which built up into a mountain of mendacity, it became abundantly evident that he comes to UR with malice aforethought.
    It is clear to me that he has been put up to this by his handlers/financial benefactors.
    He is a wicked little man indeed.

    Fizzy-cyst Dovid, seeing as you smeared AE911Truth beacons of integrity like Tony Szamboti and others, why don’t you respond to Dr Kevin Barrett’s remarks (scroll up to comment # 15 in this thread)??
    Hmmm … just as I thought. You are too much of COWARD to take on Kevin Barrett.
    He will chew you up and spit you out in short order.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Ron Unz
  27. Wild Man says:
    @Tiptoethrutulips

    Yeah, … the ‘thugs’ in our case, .,…. for us in the west, it is this faux-west globalist cabal that are the ‘thugs’, which is probably about 25% Jewish. That influence-weighting may well have been true, thug-action-wise, in Russia as well (appears it was probably something like that). It’s the outsized (10x – 100x ethnic over-weighting in globalist circles that affect us in the west) subversive Jewish influence that is the big issue (same as occurred in the early Soviet innings, apparently).

  28. Biden and the Democrats are fast finding themselves between a rock and a hard place.

    ‘…Last week, over 101,000 Michigan residents cast “uncommitted” ballots in the Democratic primary, for around 13 percent of the vote. This week, on Super Tuesday, Minnesota saw nearly 19 percent of its primary votes go to the “uncommitted” category — an even higher ratio of voters, despite the last-minute nature of the state’s protest…’

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  29. ‘Jewish Students Spat On, Insulted During Debate on Boycotting Israel at Tufts University’

    Jewish students in general, or just Jewish students who supported Israel?

  30. Ron Unz says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Fizzy-cyst Dovid, seeing as you smeared AE911Truth beacons of integrity like Tony Szamboti and others, why don’t you respond to Dr Kevin Barrett’s remarks (scroll up to comment # 15 in this thread)??

    It’s sometimes striking that conspiracy-activists such as yourself possess almost no logical thinking.

    Looking at the bottom of the previous Open Thread, I noticed that someone denounced Ron Paul regarding 9/11 and since you’re a fanatic Ron Paul supporter you defended him:

    If your theory instead is that Ron Paul will not say it is the Jews [that orchestrated the 9/11 False Flag] because he is a coward afraid to speak the truth, then I would disagree with that.
    Ron Paul is a very brave man.

    I agree, Dr Ron Paul is a gutsy bloke. But he’s also not a fool…

    ‘I’m an old guy and don’t have that many years remaining. So I’m going to come out and tell the world that Mossad orchestrated the 9/11 False Flag. So if there’s a risk they’ll kill me, I’ll take that chance’…

    No doubt after that, many of Ron Paul’s advisors and family members said coming out on 9/11 won’t achieve much if they kill you. They no doubt said to Dr Paul that he was worth more alive than dead.

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/open-thread-8/?showcomments#comment-6453054

    Personally, I’m extremely skeptical that anyone would kill Ron Paul if he loudly declared that 9/11 was a conspiracy or even if Mossad was responsible. There are lots of Truthers around, and none of them have been assassinated.

    However, the MSM would ferociously ridicule and insult him, he might lose his Youtube channel, and he’d be blacklisted everywhere, so his political effectiveness would certainly be destroyed.

    Therefore, the reason he avoids 9/11 (just like Julian Assange and so many others) is not to keep alive but to “maintain his political viability.” In fact, it’s possible that he’s always deliberately avoided looking into 9/11 because he’s fearful about what he might discover.

    But whether I’m right or you’re right, we both agree that talking about 9/11 would be a fatal line to cross for someone like Ron Paul.

    But consider the vaxxing issue…

    During the Covid epidemic, Ron Paul endlessly ranted about vaxxing dangers, the evils of Big PhRMA, that the Covid epidemic was mostly a hoax, and all the other ridiculous Covid conspiracy nonsense.

    So apparently neither he or anyone else in his circle had the slightest concerns that they’d suffer any serious retaliation for their endless public statements on Covid/vaxxing.

    Doesn’t that prove that 9/11 Truth is many, many times “touchier” and more dangerous than Covid/vaxxing?

    And even among the 9/11 Truthers, I’d say that at least 95% of them totally avoid noticing the obvious, overwhelming evidence that Mossad was behind the 9/11 attacks.

    In fact, I think across the entire Internet there’s only a relatively small handful of writers promoting the obvious 9/11 Mossad story, with a good fraction of them acting like total lunatics, perhaps doing so deliberately in order discredit the idea.

    But have you ever considered that if thousands and thousands of pundits all across the Internet—including Ron Paul!—were able to freely spend years ranting about vaxxing maybe that’s because nobody powerful cared about that issue? Or rather, the powerful groups who run our society regarding all those anti-vaxxers as a bunch of ridiculous crackpots, happy that they were wasting their time and energy on such total nonsense rather than any of the potentially more “dangerous” issues, perhaps including 9/11.

    You anti-vaxxers have got to be the most gullible idiots in the world.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Wild Man
    , @Rurik
  31. bjondo says:

    No comment:

    5ds

  32. meamjojo says:

    Since Jesus was Jewish, does that mean that his dad was also Jewish and therefore, the only real religion would be Judaism?

  33. @Ron Unz

    ‘It’s sometimes striking that conspiracy-activists such as yourself possess almost no logical thinking…’

    The lack would facilitate the development of their theories.

  34. @meamjojo

    ‘…Since Jesus was Jewish, does that mean that his dad was also Jewish and therefore, the only real religion would be Judaism?’

    You must gave been absent the day they covered that at the yeshiva.

  35. In the wake of the ‘uncommitted’ votes in the Michigan and Minnesota Democratic primaries, I wonder if the Democratic Party has considered revising the ballots to render that choice impossible in the remaining contests?

    Washington State in particular could prove embarrassing for good ol’ Joe.

  36. @meamjojo

    Wow, you are right!

    All should convert and go to Israel, especially Western Asians and Blacks.

    Man, all those Mexicans, why aren’t they in Israel yet?

    You are so right!

  37. Wild Man says:
    @Ron Unz

    [You have been warned. No more anti-vaxxing comments or everything you publish on this website will get trashed and good riddance to you.]

  38. Wild Man says:
    @meamjojo

    There is no ‘only real religion’. That does not exist and never ever did. That is the problem, …. that many many people, (including a whole lot of Christians and and a whole lot of Muslims) continue to fall for, after 2,000 years of western offers to repair this strange ontological condition (actually more than 2,000 years, … our western tradition actually hails from the Greek Stoics).

  39. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    Not an aspect of US politics I am familiar with, but I take it this means a refusal on the part of these people to endorse Biden.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  40. Rurik says:
    @Ron Unz

    Good day, Mr. Unz,

    I haven’t had much time for participating here of late, and so I’ve decided to ignore a few replies by “Patrick McNally” (or whatever that troll calls itself)), and am just jumping ahead to your new open thread. (if “Patrick” wants to, it can continue here).

    There are lots of Truthers around, and none of them have been assassinated.

    Didn’t you consider it a distinct possibility that ‘inadvertent ‘truther’ and Controlled Demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, might very well have been assassinated?

    the MSM would ferociously ridicule and insult him, [Ron Paul] he might lose his Youtube channel, and he’d be blacklisted everywhere, so his political effectiveness would certainly be destroyed.

    I wonder if the day will ultimately come, when we’re all going to have to make that Vlad Putin-type of decision, and realize that any hope of appeasing ZOG, is just going to get us further down the road of increasingly irreversible destruction.

    It seems to me a decision you have made, vis-a-vis 9/11, (and the ‘Holocaust’ and other heresies).

    Wouldn’t Ron Paul’s (or Julian Assange or Edward Snowden or a thousand other highly-respected journalists or academics or political leaders, etc..), particularly at the sunset of their lives, be most politically effective if they were to come out strong on 9/11 truth?

    With the world facing nuclear WWIII, and the Western world under a ferocious war of genocide waged from within, and with Gaza being starved and brutalized en masse..

    .. wouldn’t now be a good time for someone like Ron Paul, (or Elon Musk or Tucker Carlson, etc..) to simply suggest to people that they look into it?

    My fear, (like Edward Snowden’s), is that if the people of the Western world, all have it spelled out for them, that 9/11 was planned and orchestrated by Israel’s Mossad and elements within the Bush administration, the CIA and FBI at the highest levels, et cetera..

    ..that they would collectively go back to chewing their cud. Exactly as Snowden feared. We all now know that our ‘Intelligence’ agencies and Big Tech are all spying on us all 24/7, that it’s unconstitutional, illegal and treason..

    .. and yet the response is

    Perhaps if Ron Paul, (or someone of his stature) did come out with the hard truth, it would generate barely a yawn from the American public.

    Ron Paul endlessly ranted about vaxxing dangers, the evils of Big PhRMA, that the Covid epidemic was mostly a hoax, and all the other ridiculous Covid conspiracy nonsense.

    Do you consider Big Pharma, (and the WHO and CDC, et al…) to be benign entities, who people should trust, and even obey? For the good of all?

    Or rather, the powerful groups who run our society regarding all those anti-vaxxers as a bunch of ridiculous crackpots, happy that they were wasting their time and energy on such total nonsense rather than any of the potentially more “dangerous” issues, perhaps including 9/11.

    I wonder how much truth there is to that, Mr. Unz

    A lot, I suspect.

    You anti-vaxxers have got to be the most gullible idiots in the world.

    I’ve watched on your site, as many people have unleashed unfair vitriol in your direction, for your well-intended efforts to get at the truth of Covid and its provenance. To this day I consider your theory to be sound, if as yet unproven. So I’d consider your ‘less-than-measured’ rhetoric when describing vaccine-skeptics, (as I’d call myself), as an unfortunate consequence of the invective hurled back and forth, vis-a-vis the Covid debate.

    If your theory is correct, and Covid was deliberately unleashed upon China, (and Iran and others), for some nefarious plot by men like Mike Pompeo and others.. Wouldn’t it be prudent to be skeptical of those same PTB? When they’re ordering us all to get vaxxed, while giving congress and Big Pharma employees (and I guess illegal aliens as well) an exemption to the vaxx mandates?

    I respect people who have gotten vaxxed, for whatever reasons they have. It’s their body and their life, so I consider the decision to be theirs, 100%

    But I also respect those people who’re skeptical of our government and Big Pharma and those organizations like the CDC and WHO, (and WEF, and NATO, et al), who imperiously demand they know what’s best for us all. And we’d better obey, or else.

  41. Rurik says:
    @meamjojo

    Since Jesus was Jewish,

    genetically, Jesus was a Palestinian

    and theologically, Jesus was/is, The Christian God, so the people closest to Jesus, would be the Christian Palestinians. (not some so-called “Jews” from Eastern Europe).

    Don’t you think, in a way, that history is repeating itself, as anti-Christ ‘Jewish’ supremacists in the Holy Land, are once again persecuting and crucifying the people of Christ?

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  42. It’s getting to cease to be news.

    ‘Sexual abuse allegation in Kibbutz Be’eri on 7 October ‘not true’, says spokesperson
    New York Times report alleging sexual abuse against two sisters during Hamas attack denied by kibbutz spokesperson…’

    The consistency with which Israel and its advocates have lied about October 7th has moved beyond infuriating.

    It’s just strange. How can they think this is a good tactic?

    • Replies: @muh muh
  43. Ron Unz says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    So yes, in view of that I’ll have to retract any accusations I had made before, because I can’t definitively state that any comments of mine/Dovid Miller/or anyone else have been scrubbed.

    On Demolition a page search shows that you appear 213 times and PhysicistDave appears 194 times (out of a total of 1834 comments), so is that still kosher?

    I really don’t appreciate being falsely accused of deleting your comments when I’ve never done such a thing. However, your outrageous accusation has moved me toward an important decision.

    You’re just a mentally-defective anti-vaxxer who almost never contributes anything of value to this website, so I’ve decided to just trash all your anti-vaxxing comments and also the anti-vaxxing comments of all your idiotic various friends.

    I think the “Lord of ZOG” are extremely pleased when they see the Internet filled with lunatics ranting about “ZOG” in a foolish and self-discrediting manner.

    I’m also shocked that I allowed you to publish 213(!!) comments on previous post promoting that moronic 9/11 Nukes theory. I think henceforth I’ll trash any comments along those lines as well.

    Writing a long comment takes considerable time and effort, so seeing them summarily trashed represents a substantial penalty for your misbehavior.

    In fact, I think I start having many or most of the comments of all of you anti-vaxxers trashed, unless and until you provide sincere and personal apologies on this thread for your bad behavior and also promise to stop leaving anti-vaxxing comments.

    I think that you and the other idiots in your circle should consider that this is probably one the most lightly moderated websites anywhere on the Internet.

    If you went to any anti-vaxxing website and began discussing some of the topics you freely discuss here, you’d be permanently banned within five minutes.

    If you went to any Ron Paul website and began discussing some of the topics you freely discuss here, you’d be also permanently banned within five minutes.

    If you went to almost any “conspiracy” website and began discussing some of the topics you freely discuss here, you’d be once again be permanently banned within five minutes.

    So I think you should carefully consider that this website is probably about your only option, and I’d just as soon see all of you permanently depart. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    But if you do want to stay around here and comment on various controversial topics, I’ll expect to see those personal apologies and also far more respectful behavior in the future. Otherwise, your comments will just get trashed until you get the idea and finally depart for somewhere else.

    • LOL: H. L. M
    • Replies: @Michael Korn
    , @Rurik
  44. @Ron Unz

    I apologize to TV for apparently provoking this outrageous attack against him. But I am thankful that the dark clouds of uncertainty have lifted so we can stop wasting our time and our hope on this site of

    Irrelevance Deflection and Fantasy.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  45. Rurik says:
    @Ron Unz

    yikes

    it seems your ire has been irked, Mr. Unz

    stop leaving anti-vaxxing comments.

    I think that you and the other idiots in your circle ..

    Perhaps if you could be a bit more specific, about what constitutes “anti-vaxxing comments”, that would help those of us guests at your site to know what might be a red line of sorts.

    I did just ask you, for instance..

    “Do you consider Big Pharma, (and the WHO and CDC, et al…) to be benign entities, who people should trust, and even obey? For the good of all?”

    and made this comment..

    “I respect people who have gotten vaxxed, for whatever reasons they have. It’s their body and their life, so I consider the decision to be theirs, 100%

    But I also respect those people who’re skeptical of our government and Big Pharma and those organizations like the CDC and WHO, (and WEF, and NATO, et al), who imperiously demand they know what’s best for us all. And we’d better obey, or else. “

    Which I hope is considered respectful and in accordance with the decorum here at your site.

    In any case, while I don’t agree with all of TruthV’s positions, I certainly would like to be included in what you describe as his ‘… friends’.

    And as opposed to the commenters like PhysicistDave, a thousand times more so.

    But that said, I also agree that you’ve got to have very, very thick skin, Mr. Unz, to take so much of the gratuitous abuse that is so often scurrilously hurled your way. If TruthV has overstepped a line, what I’ve seen you endure from others, makes his transgressions, (which he did atone for) look very mild, at least to me.

    FWIW

  46. Rurik says:
    @Michael Korn

    Irrelevance Deflection and Fantasy.

    MK, I just wrote a comment about Mr. Unz having to endure ‘gratuitous abuse’ that is so often scurrilously hurled his way.

    Implying that his site is an IDF psyop, is as scurrilous and unwarranted as it gets

    !

    While I’ve appreciated your kind words, MK – if you feel that way about TUR, then why don’t you just depart?

    Not that I’m suggesting that you do, but for the sake of propriety and etiquette, perhaps you could desist from descending into the worst kind of calumny towards our host, who has, (as he just pointed out), provided one of, (if not the premiere) site for free speech, (including speech that the IDF consider inconvenient, to say the least), that exists on the English-speaking Internet.

    FWIW

  47. Wild Man says:

    [You are an anti-vaxxer and I’ve become totally fed up with the idiotic anti-vaxxers cluttering up this website, especially the ones who post thousand-word comments on total nonsense. If you sincerely apologize and promise to henceforth avoid anti-vaxxing stupidity, maybe your comments on other subjects won’t get trashed. But since they’re mostly just a waste of space, you must use MORE tags on the longer ones to avoid cluttering up the comments. Otherwise they’ll all get trashed.]

    • Replies: @Wild Man
    , @Wild Man
  48. Wild Man says:
    @Wild Man

    [MORE]

    Alright, … thanks for getting back as requested. You trashed 8 of my comments in this Open Thread #9, and only one of them was primarily about vaxx, with the others either mentioning that topic within a matrix of many competing cultural topics (your claimed forte, … allowing for yourself to make broad cross-cultural correlations among many topics, and so , .. to me, it is only fair you allow your readership what you allow yourself).

    Are you banning all covid-vaxx discussion here at UR? Does that go for you too, then?, … you should not be allowed to make any disparaging comments towards the anti-vaxx stance then, as well. If that is what you are saying, then yes maybe I can agree to you stated conditions. Is that what you are saying?

    Otherwise, what the heck, … you disrupted a fair number of convos there, that I had going on with others, and most of those comments didn’t mention vaxx at all. Yeah, sometimes I write a thousand word comments, and you fucked-up at least a couple of those probably, plus a 2,000-worder, which took some time to write, …. and that is low-ball buddy. What is ‘Open Thread’ supposed to mean?

    We can part ways if that is what you prefer. Tell me and it will be so. I came here primarily to try to help you Ron. OK, … perhaps you don’t need my help (I strongly disagree on that, though). If you can’t appreciate what I offer (a fucking way out of this mess) too bad, so sad, for me then. I get it, then. I am wasting my time then. I don’t like to waste my time. It’s your house – you decide.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  49. Wild Man says:
    @Wild Man

    [MORE]

    Further to my first response, maybe you could also tell me why it is OK for PCR to point these covid vaxx issues out, but not me?:

    https://www.unz.com/proberts/big-pharma-and-its-shills-are-having-to-adjust-their-covid-fiction-to-the-facts/

    I mean he said far more negative than me, but did also allude to the white rubbery shit being pulled from cadavers veins and arteries, for years now, but only since the commencement of the covid phenomenon, ….especially since the vaxxing commenced, …. as I had been also pointing out in those recent comments you trashed (but I pointed out not much more). Look Ron …. I don’t like that it is this way. I have not mentioned this story for all these years, I don’t think (except maybe as mild speculation but I don’t even recall doing that), because it is just too weird and there seemed to be no evidence at all that the medical pathologist community were even interested in these experienced embalmer-findings, … but that has changed recently, … we now know there was some interest, and it aligned with the suspicions raised by me and my colleagues here in the commentariat at the UR, as we shared with you all during the summer of 2021 (including research papers) , that covid displayed much virulence in a small subset of people that looked like, in that form, it was a disease that had morphed into one featuring high vascular trauma, …. and this was spike induced, …… and the vaxx features the body’s presentation of spike to immune system, …. and there was some danger of vaxx-application-method allowing for vascular involvement, …. and now we know this is true, and the end result for some people is this strange rubbery build-up in the person’s vascular system. As per the embalmer’s statements, it seems a good portion (perhaps above 25%) of the dead cadavers dealt with by these embalmers have got this pathology apparent, and the pathology looks so macro and gross, it is likely this condition is implicated in these deaths, which are a high number of all deaths, it seems. It’s nuts.

    Look Ron … I don’t even know what to say (not ‘I told you so’, God Forbid). This is crazy crazy crazy bad. If I were a woman, … I would be weeping for humanity right about now. This makes me feel, very very bad, and I prefer not to feel bad, like everyone else. Maybe it is easier for me to face the ugly truth because I didn’t take the vaxx and didn’t get sick with covid, …. yes probably, …. but that is just so much water under the bridge since this now seeming tragic state of affairs. I am filled with anxiety, brother (and hurt for my brothers and sisters hurt).

  50. muh muh says:
    @Colin Wright

    Leaked Israel lobby presentation urges US officials to justify war on Gaza with ‘Hamas rape’ claims

    The Grayzone has obtained slides from a confidential Israel lobby presentation based on data from Republican pollster Frank Luntz. They contain talking points for politicians and public figures seeking to justify Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip. […]

    A source who was present during several meetings provided Luntz’s slides to The Grayzone. Participants were informed that the presentations and data contained in the slides were strictly confidential, the source said.

    This is NOT helpful,” Luntz stated in response to an email from The Grayzone requesting his comment on the private meetings.

    https://thegrayzone.com/2024/03/06/leaked-israel-lobby-officials-war-gaza-mass-rape/

    lol

  51. bjondo says:

    …Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

    Republican never Yid. Shlomo Luntz, Yid pollster.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

    5ds

  52. Ron Unz says:
    @Wild Man

    It’s pretty simple. Anti-vaxxers are the stupidest, most gullible people in the world and I’m fed up with seeing them pollute this website with their garbage.

    And then a moronic anti-vaxxer falsely accused me of trashing hundreds of his moronic comments because he’s too incompetent to remember where he left them and too lazy to bother checking. So I decided I might just as well go ahead and start trashing them.

    Since I suppose I didn’t give you fair warning, I went ahead and retrieved a couple of your very long comments from the trash, inserting a MORE at the top so that they don’t clutter up this Open Thread. If you want to see your very long comments published, make sure you insert MORE from now on.

    If you look near the bottom of the Sidebar, there’s a section entitled “Anti-Vaxx Articles” and you and all your anti-vaxxer friends should feel free to spout off your nonsense on any of those, not that anyone will probably read them.

    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/is-putin-in-cahoots-with-the-globalists/

    https://www.unz.com/topic/anti-vaxx/feature/

    Otherwise, anti-vaxxing comments are strictly prohibited everywhere else and don’t be surprised if they’re trashed. That obviously includes anti-vaxxing Tweets or videos. Too many of those and lots of your other comments will get trashed as well.

    I’m fed up with the anti-vaxxers on this website.

    • Thanks: Wild Man
    • Replies: @Wild Man
    , @Rurik
    , @Wild Man
  53. Wild Man says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thank-you for reinstating some of my comments. I appreciate that. But this morning I find that those comments now still appear in Open Thread #9, but have now again been removed from my personal comment section. There is some technical glitches still apparent on your website (as I was at first advising you yesterday within one of the trashed comments that never got un-trashed). Can you please return said un-trashed comments to my personal comment section, again, please (like you restored the un-trashing of some of my comments in both open Thread #9 and within my personal comments yesterday, but then this morning I find that is now only true within the Open Thread #9, but not my personal comment section?).

  54. Wild Man says:
    @Wild Man

    See the latest from Andrew Anglin re his analysis of the upcoming 2024 election cycle in the U.S.:

    https://dailystormer.in/a-total-reevaluation-of-the-2024-election/

    Mmmm. Great minds think alike, I guess? AA gives the details around what I had summarized in comment #13 here in this thread, as linked.

    AA notes the stupid gamble being played by the Netanyahu regime in Israel. The main difference between our spiels on this, being that AA doesn’t claim the potential for a hidden occult esoteric angle here in this article, that I do mildly speculate may well end up explaining this strange Bibi-regime dynamic in the fullness of time, … as I have often posted here at UR.

    It is likely that the faux-west globalists are in the process of switching out political pawns (which Trump is), … just as AA outlines. That is what it looks like, from this current time-frame perspective, anyways. But like I said (and AA chimes in) pret near any completely surprising thing, can actually happen at any time now, before election time, as well. I don’t think this looks good, for an analysis of Trump’s character, at all, (perhaps unlike AA’s take), …. and if we get another bad actor as leader (Trump as this?), … well, at this point we are fucked then, unless the globalists realize they have been too brashly confident and goofed that way and realize they now need to re-consolidate, and so will now pick the guy that was actually trying to do that ‘go-careful-mode’ for these faux-west globalist powers in 2016 – 2020 (Trump as president making the moves to keep this faux-west globalist cabal active, as a real power in the world, for at least another 10 years, vis-a-vis what Biden offers, … which seems to be a quicker demise of faux-west globalism as it is on the way to misplaced pretensions of prevailing, within a new One World Governmental Order) … a new One World Governmental Order that is not gonna happen,, … at least not now in the coming decades, … unless it is forced by nukes or something crazy like that.

    Will the faux-west globalists regroup under political pawn Trump, in this way, … or will they quadruple-down on the ‘take over the rest of the world now’ shtick, as under Biden, … even though said attempt appears to be pathetic?

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  55. Rurik says:
    @Ron Unz

    [I’ve already warned that anti-vaxxing comments will be trashed. Take heed!]

    Anti-vaxxers are the stupidest, most gullible people in the world

    Perhaps it would be expedient for your commentariat to know what exactly constitutes an ‘anti-vaxxer’, as you describe them.

    [MORE]

    I suppose there are degrees of ‘anti-vaxxer’, depending on people’s perspectives, that go from-

    ‘The Covid vaccine(s) are a weapon of the WEF and assorted, like-minded genocidal, psychopathic globalists intent upon depopulating 90+% of the planet’s ‘useless eaters’. And they are infused with nano-particles, infiltrating our RNA molecules that can be triggered by 5G technology to control everyone’s behavior, including Manchurian candidate-like behavior for mass-suicide or homicidal actions.’

    on perhaps the extreme end / to my take, which is..

    ‘I don’t trust Big Pharma or the government, and I think they’re lying about Covid, and just about everything else, and so I’ll pass on the ‘jab’, thankyouverymuch’.

    And then of course there is the other extreme, which seems to me more or less-

    ‘Anyone who refuses the vaccine for themselves or their children, are dangerous and irresponsible actors, putting all of us at risk, because they’re wearing tin-foil hats, and believe our leaders are reptilian, shape-shifting ETs.

    They should be strapped into chairs and forced to take the vaccine, (even if un-effective) because fealty to the PTB, is more important for everyone’s feelings, than worrying about assorted naysayers, who we all know are just refusing the jab because they’re deplorable and irredeemable racists.’

    Or something like that.

    So for me, at least, the perspectives on Covid and the vaccines, seems to run the gamut of a very wide range of perspectives.

    I once had a ‘Karen’ shouting at me across the showroom of an Ikea store, because my mask had slipped below my nose.

    I would suggest that there are ‘stupid and gullible’, to go around.

    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  56. Wild Man says:

    Here is comment for tiptoethrutulips:

    See this from Andrew Anglin:

    https://dailystormer.in/florida-150-men-arrested-for-trying-to-have-sex-with-prostitutes-in-human-trafficking-bust/

    He is way too harsh. But nevertheless he is right that ‘This is Vagina Law’, I think. I don’t think it wise to visit prostitutes in this social environment. As well, I have noticed that the profession is muchly psychologically dis-ordering, … and so why would one want to contribute to that, or be on the receiving end of that?

    A man takes care of himself, and that is fine, and not weird, and everybody should just get used to these facts. Men are generally in possession of very high levels of personal discipline, is what I want to impress upon you. Women should not be fooled, to believe otherwise.

    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  57. geokat62 says:

    From wiki:

    Fleischmann… is a distant relative of Harry Houdini.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Fleischmann

    From wiki:

    Erik Weisz [known as Harry Houdini] was born in Budapest, Kingdom of Hungary to a Jewish family.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Houdini

    • Thanks: Rurik
  58. Chebyshev says:

    This is a very relevant article to the initial topic of this Thread.

    The writer for The Atlantic, Franklin Foer, starts off by describing the climate in California’s Bay Area K-12 schools following the October 7 attack in Israel. Based on Foer’s account, there was a very healthy contempt for Israel present among Berkeley and Oakland public school teachers and students after the attack. Foer mistakenly believes the Hamas fighters raped and murdered many scores of Israeli civilians and doesn’t appear to know that the Israeli military did most of the killing of civilians on October 7 and that Hamas treated those it kidnapped nicely, which explains his bemused concern over the teasing and crude insults endured by Northern California Jews after the attack in Israel and subsequent Israeli bombardment of Gaza.

    The article describes the horrible anti-Semitic conspiracy theories claiming that American Jews control U.S. foreign policy, the “absurd” theory that the Mossad took down the World Trade Center, as well as the ascription of excessive power and sinister motives to the Jewish neoconservatives of the Bush administration. The author gives a fair amount of space to the 2018 anti-Semitic mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue that killed 11, a concrete example that Foer and many other Jews would cite as powerful evidence of the scourge of anti-Semitism in America. However, once we recognize that Israeli and American Jews took down the Twin Towers, which immediately led to the Afghanistan War, and that many of those same Jews orchestrated the Iraq War, we see that the over 9,000 American Gentile victims of 9/11 and the War on Terror were victims of Jewish violence. The difference between 11 and 9,000 is very big, suggesting that anti-Gentilism is a much bigger problem in America than anti-Semitism.

    And “anti-Gentilism” is an even bigger problem in Palestine. Foer mentions that every Passover, religious Jews recite the phrase: “In every generation, our enemies rise up to destroy us.” Earlier, he mentions Thomas Friedman’s comment that Jews liked the new images of themselves as pilots and tank commanders created by Israel’s military victories in the 1960s that replaced older stereotypes of Jews as weaklings. Combine that Passover declaration, plus the Talmudic doctrine that Gentile lives have no value, plus the desire for Jews to appear “strong”, with the tendency for both religious and secular Jews to believe the greatest sorts of atrocities have been committed against their people throughout history and to the present day, and we can see why Israel has murdered so many tens of thousands of Palestinians recently with most Jews not really being strongly opposed to this.

    An odd feature of the article is Foer recounting the glories of American Jews in the pluralistic, 20th century America that they helped create, after he earlier on flatly described the establishment of a pluralistic, united state of Palestine containing both Jews and Arabs as the “elimination” of Israel. Surely if American Jews in the past locked arms with blacks during the Civil Rights Movement and promoted the immigration of all sorts of peoples to America, then Israeli Jews can do the same things with Palestinians. Foer also treats the reader to the howler that the number of Jews on several Ivy League campuses has sharply declined this century, when the reality is pretty much the opposite. He closes by suggesting that thousands of American Jews might be on their way to Germany soon because of the terrible anti-Semitic climate in America these days, which says a lot about the mentality of a segment of Jews.

    • Replies: @Dr. Rock
  59. @Rurik

    Well, this thread has gone a bit sideways, and I don’t want to get in trouble with the Host, as sometimes you should dance with the one who brought you, so to speak, but as a mother, I have something to say about vaccines, in general.

    [MORE]

    I did not take the COVID shot, and childhood vaccination programs are out of control.

    When an infant is born in America, they are given a Hepatitis vaccine on the day of birth. The nurses do not ask for permission, nor do they say it was done. I was informed at the first pediatric visit that my infant was vaccinated at the hospital. Why does a child, born in a first-world hospital, in a first-world nation, need this vaccine? They say, in case mom had/has it. This is ridiculous, as screenings for disease is routine obstetric care, and a blood test in a hospital would rule out the mystery of infectious mothers.

    If vaccines stimulate the immune system of the recipient, yet infants are born with no developed immune system, how does this make sense? I won’t get into the importance of breastfeeding, as it relates to the child’s immune system, but suffice it to say, neither obstetricians, nor pediatricians, push breastfeeding as they do immunizations, and I know this firsthand. If you refuse vaccinations for your kids, some pediatricians will not accept your children as patients. I also know this firsthand, and good luck arguing with school administrators, whether public or private.

    Proponents of vaccines also neglect to assert that many communicable diseases were decreased due to treated water; plumbing; wide availability of soap; automobiles, which decreased the need for public transportation – these technologies reduced the spread of germs tremendously.

    So, technological advances continue apace, in medicine/health/nutrition, yet we now have more vaccines than ever, with kids getting 20 – 30 shots before middle school. I stopped the vaccine program for my children, but my eldest, a daughter, who was a successful, competitive swimmer, went in for a quick physical, whilst I was with another child for a different issue at the same office/same time. She was “past due” for the HPV vaccine, and they gave her the shot, without my permission. I was livid, and she received no others, but a few months after, she began to experience extreme pain in her joints, intense headaches, and sinus infections. The joint pain continued for years, and she could no longer swim competitively – she began swimming in meets at age 6; no problems whatsoever until after that vaccine, and my instincts, which have never failed me, say she had an inflammatory reaction to the shot – so, competitive swimming was over just before turning 15. She’s in graduate school now, and she was swimming laps in the campus pool the other day, and a group of students observing her were impressed, as she glides through the water with no splashing, and she was asked, Are you a professional swimmer? She thought it was funny; I wanted to cry, and I did, as I pray competitive swimming is the only difficulty she will face due to that vaccine.

    Somehow, all of my grandparents, great-grandparents, (in-laws, too) lived until 80’s -90’s in relative good health, without a single vaccine. We have a few who nearly made it to 100, and one who did.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  60. Wild Man says:
    @Wild Man

    Wow, further to my two prior comments in this thread I have co-joined, …. look at this, on an emerging Biden plan to interject some American control over the events unfolding in Gaza:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/biden-orders-emergency-mission-build-port-gaza-aid-shipments

    Let’s say we assume Biden here is attempting to actually do the pro-social approach, and intends to interject huge humanitarian aid into Gaza this way, …. well that would immediately be followed by American personnel stationed in Gaza to make sure there is no distribution shenanigans (because Bibi’s regime can’t be trusted, this way, Biden knows). If that is what is going on here, …. guess what?, … that means the Americans are going to take over Gaza then. What’s next after that is a big question mark.

    This is the logical solution for somebody in Biden’s boots (a guy so compromised he has to do what he knows is fucked-up and will be mucho bad for his legacy … expected to watch ethnic cleansing happen and stand down, but pretend otherwise). What an uncomfortable position (even for a psychopath like Biden). Biden is attempting to call the bluff, on the 25% Jewish component of the overall faux-west corporatist globalist billionaire/technocratic-dyad, I suppose, ….. maybe the other 75% faction of this faux-west globalism is waking up to that fact they too are going to get buggered up the ass, in the long run, by the other 25%, … now finally seeing that the actual plan all along, has been for us peons to go first, …. then their exalted privilege too? Potentially dead man walking, for Biden now, then (as the 25% Jewish component of the globalist cabal has shown themselves as the most vicious)? Let’s see.

    Two psychopaths both fighting for their own legacy and now in a death match, over that. Mmm? Who is the bigger sacrificial scapegoat here (Netanyahu or Biden), as measured by the faux-west globalist cabal? Maybe we are now gonna see. Maybe that will shed some light on my mild speculations around a hidden esoteric occult angle around the ongoing mystification that is the Netanyahu-survivorship.

  61. Rurik says:
    @Tiptoethrutulips

    Thank you for your heartfelt story, Tiptoe

    I won’t discuss the vaccines here on Mr. Unz’ site, out of respect for his wishes. But I wanted to reply with something more than a ‘thanks or agree’ button, and so I am.

    God bless.

  62. geokat62 says:

    Just wanted to take this opportunity to wish all the shiksas (especially the White ones) a Happy International Women’s Day!

    Telegram comment posted by Folkish European Paganism:

    [Clara Zetkin (left) and Rosa Luxemburg (right) in January 1910]

    International Women’s Day was invented by two jewish feminists. Keep in mind.

    https://t.me/c/2050147141/68415

  63. Chebyshev says:

    There’s a good discussion with the author of that Atlantic article during the second half of this podcast episode:

    https://slate.com/podcasts/political-gabfest/2024/03/election-president-joe-biden-polling-donald-trump-general-election-supreme-court-judaism

    Foer says China could plausibly be called a settler colonial state like Israel, which is just an astonishing thing to say.

    Also, according to him, the situation for Jews, particularly Jews wearing yarmulkes, is very precarious in the San Francisco Bay Area due to Israel’s recent actions. I say Jews who get harassed on the street should get the word out to their representatives and to powerful Jewish figures like Antony Blinken and Haim Saban that they want the U.S. to stop the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians that has caused so much grief for American Jews.

    • Replies: @Dr. Rock
  64. @Wild Man

    When you get married, you are paying a woman to have sex with her for life.

    I would say this is from the mind of a scorned man. Men and women, both, have to sacrifice something of themselves if they want a family. On the front end, the woman bears the brunt, as in my case, quitting a firm/career I worked hard to achieve, to bear and raise children. The raising of children does not end when they are in high school/college, but if you handled the early years well, high school/college is a breeze, and today, my husband works, and I do whatever I want (within reason), after twenty plus years of non-stop (all day, everyday, every night – it does not stop) looking after everyone in my family, including parents/in-laws. That was my job – still is, but it’s much easier now.

    No government run by men would ever ban hooking (unless there was a syphilis outbreak and antibiotics didn’t exist).

    In point of fact, most governments have been, and still are, run by men. Syphilis has been around for hundreds of years, and I suppose prostitution has been around since modern civilization began, and as disease and prostitution, particularly between different ethnic groups, go hand in hand, it makes sense that prostitution would be banned eventually, as venereal diseases get spread to wives/children/society, with deadly/degenerative consequences. In fact, the males from Europe brought syphilis to the Old World from the New, or that’s the claim, so what were you saying about men keeping things in order?

    Men are generally in possession of very high levels of personal discipline, is what I want to impress upon you

    When did I say otherwise? Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, P. Diddy, Bill Cosby, the Kennedy boys, predatory men all. Obviously, not all men possess high levels of personal discipline when it comes to sexual matters, and in most of these mentioned cases, the women go along willingly, or they put themselves in dangerous positions. I do not accept the sob stories of most of the Epstein victims, who thought private air travel, lots of cash, booze, great travel destinations, etc., were offered with no expectation of something in return , and anyone with half a brain knows not to get sloshed at a frat party and/or that it’s best to leave a party when it gets late and the “mood” changes…when people start passing substances around and a bunch of “newcomers” just crawl out of the woodwork, it’s time to go.

    Also, anyone with half a brain knows the difference between trafficking and prostitution, in general. If a prostitute is under the age of 18, she’s a victim, especially if she was forced/coerced. That said, the age of consent in Mexico is 12, so….this is another example of a clash of civilizations, and why, like syphilis, mixing of races is destructive to the higher culture/race.

    Because humans, with a few exceptions, have divorced sexuality from just another biological process, and because, with a few exceptions, we no longer live in roving bands of hunter/gatherers, breeding indiscriminately, we have to manage our sexuality, because if we don’t, everyone suffers. The loosening of sexual boundaries and expectations in modern society is wreaking havoc, i.e. single motherhood, and people without boundaries, responsibilities, morals, etc., often fail to form close, permanent bonds with a partner, and so they just drift…

    Jordan Peterson gets flak for his recent capture by Jewry, and I agree, but I was listening to his lectures long before his recent fame/fall…here’s a 3 minute spiel on personal responsibility; it’s worth a listen –

    • Replies: @Wild Man
    , @Dr. Rock
  65. meamjojo says:
    @Rurik

    “There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.”

    –Golda Mier (As quoted in Sunday Times (15 June 1969), also in The Washington Post (16 June 1969))

    “When were Palestinians born? What was all of this area before the First World War when Britain got the Mandate over Palestine? What was Palestine, then? Palestine was then the area between the Mediterranean and the Iraqian border. Eastern West Bank was Palestine. I am a Palestinian, from 1921 to 1948, I carried a Palestinian passport. There was no such thing in this area as Jews, and Arabs, and Palestinians. There were [only] Jews and Arabs.”

    Golda Meir (“Iron Lady of Israeli politics” Thames TV (1970))

    • Replies: @Wild Man
    , @Colin Wright
    , @Rurik
  66. Wild Man says:
    @Tiptoethrutulips

    “I would say this is from the mind of a scorned man”

    Yeah, …. I guess maybe it might be like that for Andrew Anglin (I just don’t know), …. I was married and in my case it wasn’t like that (despite the fact that I was sort of scorned, in the end, hahaha!). It wasn’t like that because the whole sex deal just never ever was even remotely about that … about quid pro quo ….. never ever was (it was about mutual pleasure). Despite it (the sex frequency) very very slowly all going south. …. maybe you could say it all goes south because the woman feels ripped-off (saddled with a guy, that is just fine, I think, that was seen that way [just fine] at the very long beginning, but then this guy didn’t instill enough of the right kind of drama into the relationship I suppose [though there was a lot of drama], … rendering him [to her] as: ‘You feel like a brother to me now and so I don’t want to fuck you anymore’,… pretty much literally). It’s pretty funny actually, when as a man, you are faced with this. At that point, as the man, … you just know, …. what a fucking massive bad joke, this, …. my more disciplined (masculine) temperament made out to be a disadvantage here I suppose (yeah right, … better to throttle the bitch-behavior when one gets it)? … obviously that is fucking dumb and I’m not going to do that for you, unless maybe that particular lady who became my partner wants to play like that a bit in the bedroom, fine (not my thing, but I like my partner to be turned on, so my enjoyment is a bit flexible that way, .. but mostly, in the bedroom, in my experience, women just want to feel masculine presence I would say, … the man takes charge let’s say, and that is enough), … otherwise, no (no throttling gonna happen), ….. very glad to end it too by then, because the whole thing had become a massive joke for years, by then (I am not talking about the sex going south quite a bit, like that is not so huge as long as she is still monogamous with me, … the jerking off never ever was fully replaced by 100% fucking, even when the fucking was gloriously abundant for a long while in the early innings, so it is not the end of the world or anything stupid like that…. I am talking about what that condition was a condition of, ….. and that was this bad joke about misjudgments about my character, …. pretty dumb she wouldn’t actually know this about my character, – only with me for all that time, testing me a whole lot on the regular with quite a bit of hurt-feeling-instigated bitch-mode – eh?. …. and mis-measuring my very very well-measured responses to that, all along), …. and I am not going to remain in a relationship that is a bad joke like that. And once the woman makes up her mind like this, .. she is not changing it back. So there’s that.

    “The raising of children does not end when they are in high school/college, but if you handled the early years well, high school/college is a breeze, and today, my husband works, and I do whatever I want (within reason), after twenty plus years of non-stop (all day, everyday, every night – it does not stop) looking after everyone in my family, including parents/in-laws. That was my job – still is, but it’s much easier now.”

    OK, …. your general demeanor now makes a whole lot of sense. No wonder you have such a way, with feminine turns of phrases and such, … taking care of everybody, like you do. And you like it, I can tell. Because your influence is indispensable and you know it (as you should).

    “Also, anyone with half a brain knows the difference between trafficking and prostitution, in general. If a prostitute is under the age of 18, she’s a victim, especially if she was forced/coerced.”

    I think maybe AA meant by his meme: ‘This is Vagina Law’, …. as ‘the Law of the Vagina as felt by every woman, is the law that now one-sidedly prevails in the commons’. When I said, ‘yes I think that is true,’ … I was responding to AA’s implied meaning there. I looked at the photos of the prostitutes that AA provided before weighing-in. Those faces are not under-aged, as far as I can tell by way of photo, yet somehow ‘trafficking’ is involved. I thought, in the case of regular-aged prostitutes, the johns wouldn’t get charged with trafficking (just johning), but the pimps (if there is any involved, there doesn’t have to be, … all psychological, … the only reason for the pimp-gig is because the woman is so fucked-up she cannot do that prostitute gig and hold it straight, on her own … and then he is gonna just take all the money from her, though … kinda crazy) would get the trafficking charge. So I guess those few charged with trafficking were pimps, I guess? Of maybe there are minors involved in a few of the cases, as you suggest is the case, and johns then got charged with trafficking too, then? Could be.

    “That said, the age of consent in Mexico is 12”

    Yeah, … that is hard to understand. coming from Caucasian culture.

    “The loosening of sexual boundaries and expectations in modern society is wreaking havoc, i.e. single motherhood, and people without boundaries, responsibilities, morals, etc., often fail to form close, permanent bonds with a partner, and so they just drift…”

    Yes I agree. Some might say what a guy like me does, in the face of these new conditions, as I have described is: ‘Men Going their Own Way’ (checking out). I don’t look at it that way (I still look to it as, the conditions have changed, …. so I have to step up to these new conditions to be relationship-successful, …. and I know I have other priorities right now, .. but I am not giving up on any part of my potential future life, and why should I?). Look …. I think for men outside of actual marriages, …. what I am doing, is clearly probably now the norm (and not what Robert Lindsay, is doing, for instance).

    Yes, I had already recently come across that short Jordan Peterson clip myself. Dude knows westernism (as you say … very impressive in this way). Dude is bamboozled on the JQ (as you say). And his message is superb in that clip (and his overall messaging on westernism is very good and well-resonates), …. I try to have my two best friends see it this way, …. we need to collectively do better, which means we each must individually do better, with our singular voices and such, and it is sinful to turn your back on that human responsibility. Men do wan to refuse that, now though. The married men tend to wan to just get along, and the unmarried men tend to be very cynical in that respect, ….’nothing I can do about it’. I do challenge my friends. I expect alot from my friends (thoughtfulness).

    • Replies: @24th Alabama
  67. Wild Man says:
    @Ron Unz

    The technical glitch I outlined in comment #53, appears now to be repaired. Thank-you.

  68. Wild Man says:
    @meamjojo

    We were trained in our youth (late 1960’s as a 10 year-old) to view Golda Meir as the most humanitarian person in the world, … and oh so heroic, …. and so special too because she has these traits as a woman, …. and that this special dynamic was possible, most of all because she was Jewish, oh so sweetly Jewish.

    You just can’t make this stuff up (too rich!). The Jews write the script themselves! (the Cluster-B-type psycho-pathology of the fem-mode variety).

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Wielgus
  69. @meamjojo

    “There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state?

    You’re not demonstrating what you think you’re demonstrating.

    But continue. You have my smile of approval.

    • Replies: @meamjojo
  70. @Wild Man

    You have had complicated relationships and have spent an inordinate amount of
    time reflecting and analyzing them. I have had three marriages and about five other
    “close” relationships and have never felt the need to really understand them in such
    depth, indicating that I’m uncaring and avoidant, and you are OCD, or perhaps both.
    Sometimes, we just need to heal our bruises and move on without regrets or blame.

    • Replies: @Wild Man
    , @Wild Man
  71. meamjojo says:
    @Colin Wright

    I’m quite certain I am demonstrating what I think I am demonstrating!

  72. Wild Man says:

    Here in this article from Ralph Nader, he claims this (among many other atrocities) occurred in Gaza, by IDF action:

    https://www.unz.com/item/how-many-gazans-have-already-died-perhaps-200000/

    “bulldozed many cemeteries;”

    I don’t know any of the details around that. I suppose it it probably true if Ralph Nader is claiming it. Think it through. This is nuts. The people that glorify their dead as ‘God’s chosen eternal victims’, and build tributes to this their claim, all over the world, for which we are expected to grovel at, …. and then they just bulldoze up other people’s cemeteries?

    I mean you really can’t get more psycho-cunt than that (cluster-B-type psycho-pathology of the fem-mode variety). The evidence for my group-psychological-claims (preponderance of problematic psychological traits vis-a-vis other groups), and how that affects geopolitical realities, … is just laying all about, everywhere, …. and has been for a long time, …. it doesn’t even really matter if the holocaust is partly true, which I doubt (I tend to agree with Unz’s take), ….. nobody else does what the Jews do, this way, even when they have ‘real’ dead, in ‘real genocides’, that have actually really occurred (because they generally refuse to dishonor their dead, …. bad mojo, … a bad mojo that the Jews laugh at, though).

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  73. Wild Man says:
    @24th Alabama

    Well I am still friends with me ex-wife (that marriage relationship ended nearly 20 years ago). I really like her. Because she is very intelligent (and though emotional, like most all women, was never mean). You know, …family, ….for family-sake it is best to get along, for all involved, after a divorce, and she didn’t actually spurn me hard (didn’t decide to just start fucking around behind my back, that I understand, from others, is something that often happens in this dynamic), …. and of course my ex-wife, mainly being a very good person I think (I picked her after all, just as much as she picked me) … saw it exactly the same way, as far as family goes, …. we had a very dear son together, who unfortunately died suddenly at the age of 27, … 6 years ago now, …. who was just a treasure, …. who had developed into just such a well-nuanced-big-hearted person, …. I won’t go into the many many details as to his passing, ….. suffice to say this all happened to him within less than a two month period, …. culminating in a emergency surgery for stage 4 glioblastoma, which was not successful. This crushed my ex-wife (me too). We have a bond that can never be broken, around that.

    I don’t hold any ill-will towards my ex-wife at all (probably not even during the divorce, if I recall correctly). The divorce was a breeze. I found a lawyer that advised me, not to fight, go for what case-law has deemed fair (in terms of division of matrimonial property and such), … and once my ex met my lawyer, … she realized this approach was much much better and told her ‘let’s fight’ lawyer to stand down. You know, in many many ways, my ex is a stand-up person and I have no regrets, having her in my life. For all her employment gigs, she has always shown very high levels of loyalty to the hand the feeds. Put that together with her high level of professional competency. I think that combo is very commendable too.

    On the OCD thing. Maybe? I got this thing, …. if I really feel I have hurt someone in a way that will do no good (the ‘hurting’ behavior, all ego driven, on my side, let’s say) …. I really do start to feel many regrets, starting just a few minutes after, that just grows and grows and drives me to distraction. Is that OCD? Maybe. I don’t like to feel that way, … so I am quite guarded around: ‘trying hard not to go down that pathway’.

    • Replies: @24th Alabama
  74. Rurik says:
    @meamjojo

    “There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state?

    you know your zio-lies used to get more traction before the atrocities in Gaza, that now due to the Internet are getting widely reported

    people are starting to find out that you thugs terrorized over 700,000 people- who were living peaceably for centuries in Palestine,

    out of their homes, and into the desert, to flee your murderous tribe of racial supremacist lowlifes. Who then stole the homes and farms, and claimed them as their own.

    Imagine that.

    But no one knew, Meamjew. Now they’re finding out.

    Guess what will happen when eight billion people, who’ve been lied to for generations, finally find out who are the real murderous terrorists are in the Middle East, and who have been their victims.

    • Agree: chris
    • Replies: @bjondo
    , @meamjojo
  75. Wild Man says:
    @24th Alabama

    Further to my last reply comment (#73), …. I realize now I should say more. Your comment has now made me realize I haven’t been entirely fair here, as to my ex-wife’s perspective, on all this, ….. and this is so important, all round. The stuff I said about what happened to me and my ex, in comment #66 above, …. I don’t blame my ex-wife for (not really even while it was happening). I probably should have said that, in that comment.

    Think it through. Me and my ex were/are people that have aptitude/ability to take on adult responsibility, and were willing on that front, …. in other words, pretty much a normal couple ‘contributing/partaking-of’ the normalized cultural gestalt (westerism, pretty much). And yet what happened to me and my ex, …. is so very common (among similar couples). In my asshole moments I blame Oprah Winfrey (hahaha!), …. a very very bad influence with respect to normalized western monogamous hetro relationships (for a good while there, near the beginning-midterm of our marriage, …. Oprah was crazy around that stuff, back then, and had a huge audience, including my ex, …. and I am not kidding, .. I think there is something to seeing it like Oprah poisoned my ex’s mind).

    But even blaming Oprah is a blame-out cop-out. Because it wasn’t/isn’t just Oprah. Oprah was just a reflection of what was already occurring out there, back then, in the culture. Brass tacks: It was all spawned by Jewish bogus but Academic nevertheless, ‘Critical Theory’ (I learned some years later, after the divorce). What I am saying is my ex-wife, someone smart and generally has her head screwed on right, and as such can see that by reason, much of the 2nd wave feminism was pure hogwash, …..still, cannot really put it together how that precise subversion, this 2nd wave Jewish feminism, works, and cannot really see that it is still impinging upon her subconsciously in ways that she is still not really aware. On this 2nd wave Jewish feminism … I am saying ‘Jewish’ here in terms of provenance, … who the scholars were in the Humanities offering this bunk, …. an attribution I am quite sure my ex-wife would not be willing to make, …. to her 2nd wave feminism is bad but definitely not ‘Jewish’, I think, ….. my ex-wife is very pro-Jewish, ….. but ever since covid-vaxxo-weirdness, …. smart cookie her and she works in the medical field, ……. she, I think, has subconsciously seen the writing on the wall and decided to no longer take any interest whatsoever on geopolitical matters, any more, ….. my ex was a political animal at one time, …. very conservative politically, and even co-ran-campaign-management for a winning MLA’s (member of our provincial legislature’s, campaigns), … so just to decide to go ‘no-go-politico’, …. well there is a subconscious unstated reason, I think (I don’t think she would even disagree that there is a subconscious unstated reason, but she doesn’t want to talk about it, and of course I respect that.)

    There are may avenues towards undoing all this cultural subversion. Discussion around the western normative man/woman dynamic, and what has since happened to it, … is one of many such avenues (and that is why I am bringing it up here).

  76. @Wild Man

    The people that glorify their dead as ‘God’s chosen eternal victims’, and build tributes to this their claim, all over the world, for which we are expected to grovel at, …. and then they just bulldoze up other people’s cemeteries?’

    This isn’t new. To commemorate the Holocaust, Yad Vashem built a ‘Museum of Tolerance.’

    They insisted on using a Muslim cemetery as the site — bulldozed the graves.

    It’s one thing that makes me a little skeptical when we learn that the site of Treblinka mustn’t be excavated — the final resting places of all those Jews would be sacrosanct.

    • Thanks: Wild Man
    • Replies: @Wild Man
  77. bjondo says:
    @Rurik

    Both architecture and clothing very nice.

    Do you have info about buildings?

    I tried search under Ahmad Mrowat came up with very little.

    5ds

    • Replies: @Rurik
  78. Rurik says:
    @bjondo

    if you do an image search for ‘1920s Palestine’, the picture of the Palestinian women having coffee will pop up periodically.

    The image of the Hotel in Jerusalem is from an image search of ‘1930s Palestine’.

  79. Wild Man says:
    @Colin Wright

    Thinking this through a bit, … I might be a person that easily feels empathy, I suppose, …. and the shocking thing for me, on the cluster-b-type psycho-pathology of the fem-mode, …. is that there is no register of this empathy for these types (well there is sometimes in small measure, but it isn’t something that haunts them, let’s say, … if it occurs it passes very quickly), …. and so confusion abounds (on both sides of this equation, actually), …. and maybe people less empathic will not look at it this way (won’t be as shocked as I am).

    Mmmmm. Gotta think about this some more. Jewish tendency towards less empathy? Doesn’t really make sense. Jewish people obviously have outsized tender feelings (of the genuine kind I think), … I guess just selectively, I suppose. What is this weird Jewish ‘same-self’ or ‘self-same’, then, if not straight-up cluster-b-type psycho-pathology of the fem-mode? What’s the twist? Does the Jewish collective tend to believe that they are lost in a vast sea of the unknown amidst the infinity of the unknowable (provisioning them with the tools to impose ’empathy’ upon their own psyches), but as a Jewish collective experience though (instead of a human collective experience), and then hidden within an esoteric occultism, … rendering goys sub-human then, …. congenitally unable to appreciate this deep Jewish (but hidden/esoteric/occult) gestalt? Well, that would be preposterous (because goys already think in those terms long before Jews, it seems, ….. Greek Stoics and such, ….without the need/crutch of any occultism).

    It’s like there is some deep underlying ideological war being conducted right now, or something, that I can’t really make-out very clearly. I know what westernism is, but what the heck is westernism fighting exactly? (Akin to asking the question … ‘what is this contrary spirit, exactly as carried by ‘Jewdom/JQ/Israel/the-Judaic’?).

    There is going to be an occult angle. I just know it. But I still can’t see.

  80. tanabear says:
    @Ron Unz

    What kind of training would they have in discriminating between the sound of explosions and other similar sounds? Why would they ever have had any such training at all? Is there any evidence that they did?

    NIST claims that the connections between various structural members snapped.

    The breaking of structural steel beams do not cause the following effects:

    The windows blew in, everything went black, and we all got thrown.”

    There was this incredible rush of air, and it literally sucked the breath out of my lungs. Everything went out of me with this massive wind.”

    “…he threw me under the hose, which in a way felt great, because I didn’t realize until then that my skin was actually burning. I had burn marks, not like you’d have from a fire, but my face was all red, my chest was red.”

    These are statements from Sue Keane, an officer in the Port Authority Police Department (PAPD) where she had been for eight years. Before this she had spent 13 years in the U.S. Army, where she received training on how to respond to explosions.

    https://ic911.org/toronto-hearings/report/toronto-report-ch-08/

    • Troll: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Wild Man
  81. geokat62 says:

    Gab comment posted by Mark Taylor:

    Years ago I came across this anonymous comment in response to someone saying they didn’t care about race they cared about immigrants adopting American values. It was so good I saved it and I’m reposting it now.

    “Multiculturalism isn’t gonna work just because you do it legally. Look at South Africa.

    And when you say “become American”, what you really mean – even if you don’t realize it – is that you want them to act like white people. You want them to be orderly, respect the law, dress a certain way, prioritize family and education, and have disagreements without pulling out a weapon.

    But those “American” values didn’t really exist among the natives before we got here. And they don’t exist among the countries where we get most of our (non-white) immigrants from, exceptional inviduals notwithstanding. And they didn’t just fall out of the sky and land on America either. Those values were characteristic of America, because WHITES were characteristic of America, and they were white values going back millennia.
    What you really value is white culture. But you’re not gonna have that without white people, just like you’re not gonna have a flower without its roots. If you care about your culture, then you need to start caring about your race.”

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  82. Here’s one for Jack to enjoy.

    Mighty warriors of Yahweh execute 73 year-old man at point-black range. Live footage!

  83. Wild Man says:
    @tanabear

    Are you Canadian? I’m in Alberta. It seems like in Alberta, it is not uncommon to find people that think the official 9/11 narrative is wrong and that the perps may have included Mossad. Then these same people won’t go on to see the massive Jewish influence that is otherwise quite pervasive (so much more than 9/11, then), or if they do start to cotton on to that, will turn rather cynical and say, …. that’s just the way it is, human nature, ….. I guess sort of implying that: to those both eager and intelligent goes the spoils.

    Weird. People are willing to accept that the official 9/11 narrative may be a hoax, but then are also willing to isolate that finding in their minds (I suppose sort of like people accept that the CIA has to do what they do, and that the U.S., must have a big military). This is quite the trick. How does Mossad get that same tolerance-attribution in a whole lot of western people’s minds, sort of unspoken-like (of course they won’t say nice things about Mossad, …. but tolerate it just fine, like the do the CIA/American Military Complex) and why do these people then not immediately get freaked that their ‘CIA/American Military Complex’ are therefore implicated, …. with the shots on own goal, type-thing?

    Generally, especially since October 7th, I absolutely do find regular people to be quite schizophrenic (willing to hold many contrary beliefs for long periods of time), …. so much water under the bridge since 9/11, …. all this false-narrative promulgation of many stripes, just escalating and escalating in frequency, since then. Bright people like my ex-wife cannot bear the culturally-demanded level of schizophrenic mental-ordering, … and eventually turtle (many, many like that too …. just refuse to watch any news, even alternative news).

    What do you think can be done? Personally, …. I think if someone important, linked-up the common thread among all the false-narrative promulgation of many stripes, …. it might work. I guess we are kinda dumb and we need a bright and colorful moving picture, to get it. I believe examination of the Frankfurt School is key, in that vein. I believe that deep topic would be a valuable addition to Ron Unz’s American Pravda series.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @tanabear
  84. meamjojo says:
    @Rurik

    You forget that most of the Arab countries expelled all their Jewish populations, who thenmigrated to the new Israel.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  85. Wild Man says:
    @geokat62

    I have had some interesting convos over the years as to the idea that hybrid vigor is probably something necessary for the ongoing invigoration of each ethnicity that is in a sense in competition/collaboration with the others, … and that each such ethnic grouping probably has a different ‘ideal’ rate of said hybridization operation, (as we know from our long history of plant and animal breeding methods for fixing favorable phenotypes).

    But it is probable that that rate has been well-exceeded for all the ethnic groups involved in a place like Canada, and the U.S. So who knows what is going to emerge? Do you think it appropriate that North America not be the place this all happens in a big way though? If it has to happen somewhere, better here than in Europe, … the home of the root ethnicities. That’s my view. But we at least have to try to pick people that might get it (westernism), instead of the free for all in America (probably in Canada by now, too). I say that because the expectation would be that these such people could then eventually bring back westernism to their home countries (because you can’t force it on nations, … that’s not westernism then). This can happen.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  86. @Wild Man

    ‘…What do you think can be done? Personally, …. I think if someone important, linked-up the common thread among all the false-narrative promulgation of many stripes, …. it might work…

    Part of the problem is that people ‘important, high up’ work to keep anyone from picking up on that common thread — or at least coming out with it.

    Sometimes I’m pretty sure Tucker Carlson has picked it up — but he’s got more sense than to come out with it. A reference to ‘the Democratic donor class,’ an obstinate refusal to praise Israel — that’s about as far as he dares to go.

    …and if he did go farther, that would be the last we’d see of him. Maybe he could post here…

  87. @meamjojo

    You forget that most of the Arab countries expelled all their Jewish populations, who thenmigrated to the new Israel.

    Please. Not those lies again. Want to go through it? Morocco, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Tunisia, Algeria…

  88. geokat62 says:
    @Wild Man

    Do you think it appropriate that North America not be the place this all happens in a big way though?

    Given that Jewish Supremacist Organizations saw fit to push for legislation in America (1965) and in Canada (1967) that would open the floodgates to mass immigration so as to protect themselves from the inevitable backlash that inevitably follows soon after they capture all the levers of power, I outright reject their efforts to destroy our homelands.

    And given the bleak future that awaits our progeny, I will do everything in my power to restore the sovereignty of our European and European-derived homelands.

    If you think I’m exaggerating, see how things have unfolded in South Africa.

  89. muh muh says:

    From Ilan Pappe:

  90. Federal Reserve employee accused of driving Morrison Planetarium architect to suicide

    ObURL: https://salanave-runyon.org/herbie.html

    Truth is stranger than fiction

  91. @muh muh

    Meh. ‘This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. It may, perhaps, be the end of the beginning.’

    Going by the example of South Africa, and allowing for all the evasions, pretended compromises, and so on, I give the Zionist entity a good twenty more years.

    But hey: throw it in my face when I’m wrong. That’ll be okay as well.

    • Replies: @muh muh
  92. muh muh says:
    @Colin Wright

    Going by the example of South Africa, and allowing for all the evasions, pretended compromises, and so on, I give the Zionist entity a good twenty more years.

    Yeah. One generation, little more, at most.

    Safe to say we’re well on our way.

    • Replies: @muh muh
  93. muh muh says:
    @muh muh

    Israel’s manpower crisis worsens as wave of resignations hits army

    The Israeli military has not responded to requests for comment.

    The resignations come as significant tension has overtaken Israel’s military establishment.

    Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has been calling for an end to draft exemptions for Israel’s ultra-Orthodox community, citing a severe manpower crisis in the army. Gallant said he would only support legislation to settle the issue if certain members of the ruling coalition backed it.

    “The army is in need of manpower now. It’s not a matter of politics, it’s a matter of mathematics,” the defense minister said on Sunday.

    https://thecradle.co/articles/israels-manpower-crisis-worsens-as-wave-of-resignations-hits-army

    …However…

    Mass exodus threatened by Chief Rabbi if Haredim are forced into military service

    The Chief Rabbi’s stern message did not stop at criticisms but extended to a direct threat of collective action. “We will buy tickets; there is no such thing as forcing us into the army. The state stands on this,” he asserted, implying a profound and widespread willingness among the Haredim to relocate rather than compromise on their religious convictions.

    https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-791086

    This is the largest constituency of Jews in Israel.

    Something’s gotta give.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @meamjojo
  94. @Wild Man

    I started to answer you this morning but was diverted by a tub faucet diverter.
    More water was not being diverted to the shower than was, and my wife was
    fed up with my procrastination. Now she’s happy, at least until tomorrow.

    Obsessions are common but most are temporary unwanted thoughts that keep
    recurring for a day or two and then fade away. A common obsession concerns
    an ex-wife’s behavior, usually her sexual activity. Sexual jealousy is likely hard-
    wired in everyone, although I remember a guy who solicited dates for his ex
    in hopes of reducing his alimony and child support.

    If an obsession with an ex wife caused a man to drive by her house 10 times a
    night, that would turn an obsession into an obsessive-compulsive disorder,
    since he has now acted on his obsession and cannot stop the behavior.

    As you might guess some people deal with the breakup trauma by compulsive
    gambling, drug or alcohol use. Many work longer hours to distract themselves,
    but at some point most look for a new relationship.
    When I was a state social worker there was a cruel joke that the only love
    relationship that was guaranteed to last was one of unrequited love.

    • Replies: @Wild Man
    , @Wild Man
  95. Wild Man says:
    @24th Alabama

    No, …. none of that, at all (sexual jealousy or over-concern) …. she would say I still remain steadfastly unconcerned, even as a friend, as per the usual, .. hahahaha! We don’t see each other much. I help her out a tiny bit sometimes. She does little things for me too. I do care about her though, …. all purely platonic. I care about her just because I like her, I guess, and did come to know her very well, … so it’s hard to put that behind you, even though it is purely platonic, and I’m not sure why I would even want to, … I think it is good to care at least a bit, about people you know.

    • Replies: @24th Alabama
  96. @Wild Man

    Sorry, I wasn’t referring to you with the sexual jealousy mention.
    It is a fact that obsessions frequently involve ex spouses and that’s
    a good part of my experience. I suppose the reason for this is the
    intensity of the marital bond, which cannot be broken without
    a profound sense of loss and emptiness.

  97. Wild Man says:
    @24th Alabama

    “but at some point most look for a new relationship.”

    I should say, we both did that (and that’s a long time ago now). In the end, we both dropped that too. Really, … she is just my friend (and ‘just’ is the wrong word, … it is a very good thing to be my friend, I think) and she sees it the same way (very good thing to be her platonic friend). What I give, and what she gives, are different. And that is fine.

    Truth be told, … I want her to be happy. I hope she can find romantic (if that’s the right word?) happiness again. She seems pretty jaded, to that, though.

  98. geokat62 says:

    Sam Parker does an excellent job documenting all the blessings bestowed on the dumb goyim by HaShem’s chosen people (be sure to read all 30 posts in this thread)…

  99. muh muh says:

  100. muh muh says:

    Seems to be just more gaslighting, a staged ‘hot mic’ comment made to appear as if Biden is actually at odds with Netanyahu while he’s literally surrounded by cameras.

    I mean, after everything we’ve seen, who’s left to trust here?

    Knowwhadamean, wink, wink? 😉

  101. meamjojo says:
    @muh muh

    “Mass exodus threatened by Chief Rabbi if Haredim are forced into military service”

    Buh bye. They contribute nothing to the state anyway, so no big loss. But where will they go? Who will have them?

    • Replies: @24th Alabama
  102. muh muh says:

    Recently, Kevin Barrett asked ‘Why Are Arab Regimes So Impotent in the Face of Zionist Barbarism?’

    This short segment provides part of the answer.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  103. @muh muh

    Anthony Loewenstein lives in Sydney and I chatted with him in one of those pro-Julian Assange rallies staged last year.

    He’s a good bloke, a Jew with a conscience that has done much to expose the human rights abuses and murderous antics of the Apartheid Israeli state over many years.

    • Thanks: muh muh
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  104. @Ron Unz

    Ron,

    I am not sure how to move subthreads over to this new Open Thread, so I am just posting here my response to a comment by Mark G. (see here).
    ———
    Mark G. wrote to me:

    No matter how much of a Jew hater you are, there is almost always someone else here in the Unz comment section who is even a bigger Jew hater than you are.

    Yeah, it’s weird.

    I have been very critical of Jews who are part of the “Israel Lobby” simply because they are damaging the United States, not to mention what they are doing to the Palestinians. And I am harshly critical of Judaism because the Old Testament really is a seminal source for killing people because they hold the wrong religious beliefs.

    And yet our little Fed Truth Vigilante thinks he can make points with most of the posters here by claiming, falsely, that I am a Jew, just because I reject nonsense such as that the Twin Towers’ collapse was caused by a nuclear explosion.

    And, weirdest of all, he thinks he can score points by accusing me of being “a serial offender in falsifying data” *(see here), even though he knows everyone will know that is a lie.: he of course offers no evidence at all for that lie, and anyone who looks at my thesis can see that I was not reporting my own data but rather comparing data gathered by others to theoretical predictions.

    So I think the key question is: why does Truth Vigilante do it?

    The answer seems pretty obvious: the 911 attacks occurred as blowback as a result of disastrous US government policies pursued in the Mideast. Anyone who faces the truth about 911 — that this was a Muslim terrorist attack in response to US actions in the Mideast — has to think about those US actions.

    But, if we pretend that the Twin Towers came down for some other reason than a a retaliatory attack by Muslims, that distracts attention from the real issue of US Mideast policy.

    And that is clearly what Truth Vigilante and the whole 911 Truther movement is doing.

    They are serving the interest of the US Deep State.

    Was the 911 Truther movement created by the Deep State? Is it funded by the Deep State?

    Hard to say.

    Are a number of the members of the 911 Truther movement in fact knowing, active assets of the Deep State?

    Well, this would be the first time in over a half century that the Deep State did not have assets within fringe dissident groups!

    And given how effectively the 911 Truther movement deflects attention from the real cause of the 911 attacks — US policy in the Mideast — it is hard to see how any sensible person could deny Deep State involvement.

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

    Mark G. also wrote:

    You pretty much have to turn yourself into an admirer of Hitler to escape their wrath.

    I assume that you saw that in response to that comment, Truth Vigilante wrote (see here):

    But in RELATIVE TERMS, Hitler was BY FAR the standout world statesman of the 20th century.

    So Truth Vigilante is indeed claiming openly to be a Hitler-lover.

    Again, why would he do this?

    Even if this is in fact Truth Vigilante’s true belief, this is hardly an effective means to convince ordinary people of his decency, honesty, or good will!

    What does this achieve?

    Only to cause ordinary people to be alienated from critics of the US Deep State, because such critics seem to be, quite literally, announcing that they are admirers of Hitler!

    Is Truth Vigilante so delusional that he does not realize this, or is he doing it on purpose?

    Hard to say.

    What is not hard to say is that this most assuredly serves the interest of the Deep State.

    My old friend Murray Rothbard was involved in the antiwar movement back in the 1960s, and he got to know a fellow whom he referred to as “Comrade Carlos” who behaved very much as our own Truth Vigilante behaves. As Murray says (see here, pp. 199-200 (or pp. 224-225 in the pdf numeration)):

    And, oh yes, I heard later that Comrade Carlos had turned out to be a police agent

    Yep, the spitting image of our own Truth Vigilante.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  105. @muh muh

    muh muh quoted Ilan Pappé.

    It should be noted that Pappé is an Israeli Jewish historian and author of numerous books on the situation in Occupied Palestine, most notably the brief Ten Myths About Israel, which is well worth reading.

    He is also an example of the fact that numerous Jews have been and are harsh critics of the crimes carried out by the Zionists.

    It is not true that Zionism equals Jewishness.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    • Agree: muh muh, Chebyshev
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  106. @PhysicistDave

    ‘…And given how effectively the 911 Truther movement deflects attention from the real cause of the 911 attacks — US policy in the Mideast — it is hard to see how any sensible person could deny Deep State involvement.

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…’

    Well, mere stupidity can also explain things — the improbable belief or action is not in and of itself evidence of a deep-laid plot.

    Take, say, Wilhelmine Germany’s decision to build a high seas fleet and challenge the British. It was incredibly foolish, and directly counter to Germany’s material interests.

    Does it follow that British or French double agents must have somehow bamboozled the poor Germans into building it? The building of the fleet certainly served France’s interests.

    So certainly the more radical forms of 9-11 trutherism serve Israel’s interests. It doesn’t follow that she has to do anything to encourage them. In fact any novel catastrophe will provoke radical explanations: Pearl Harbor, the 1944 German Ardennes offensive, Kennedy’s assassination, AIDS, the death of Princess Diana, the 2000 election, 9-11, the 2016 election, the Corona Virus, the 2020 election…

    I subscribe at least partially to some of the resulting theories — but the point is that they will always appear. One no more needs to deliberately foster them than one has to sow weed seeds in the back yard.

    They will come — all by themselves. With something like 9-11, they were inevitable. It’d have been weird if they hadn’t sprung up.

    We used to just file unexpected or catastrophic events under ‘God,’ apologize and ask Him nicely not to do it again, pick up the pieces, and get on with life. Now we invent the conspiracy theory. No one has to help us, either. We’re good at it.

  107. @meamjojo

    Who would have any of you? Hitler first tried to
    export Jews but there were no takers. Ever hear
    of a product without a market?

  108. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote to me:

    Well, mere stupidity can also explain things — the improbable belief or action is not in and of itself evidence of a deep-laid plot.

    My point is that the US Deep State has a very, very long and well-documented record of establishing assets within dissident movements, going back to COINTELPRO in the 1960s and as recently as the goofy Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot.

    Pretty much as certain as death and taxes.

    It is therefore certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the Deep State has some assets within the 911 Truther movement.

    The only serious question is: who are the Federal assets in the 911 Truther movement? Truth Vigilante? Rurik? Gaffney?

    In the case of Truth Vigilante, the tell-tale is his claiming that I have been”a serial offender in falsifying data” *(see here): he does not even pretend to have any evidence at all of this, and he could not have any evidence, since anyone can see that my Ph.D. thesis does not report on any experimental data that I took but merely compares other people’s data to theoretical predictions.

    Truth Vigilante knows he is lying about this.

    This cannot be explained by, as you say, “mere stupidity”: it is intentional, conscious lying.

    The only question is: what is Truth Vigilante’s motive?

    The only plausible motive I can think of is that Truth Vigilante wants to smear any movement that dissents from the mainstream narrative by hurling out obvious lies.

    Is there any other plausible motive? Why else would he openly, knowingly, and brazenly lie in a way that any sane person can see is a lie?

    Does this prove that Truth Vigilante is a paid Federal asset? Well, that is certainly a plausible conclusion — as I pointed out above, all historical experience indicates that there are indeed Federal assets within the 911 Truther movement.

    But, paid or not, it does prove that Truth Vigilante is serving the purpose of the US Deep State.

    For all practical purposes, Truth Vigilante is indeed a Fed, whether paid or not.

    It serves the interests of the US Deep State to distract dissidents with nonsense like this so that they ignore the elephant in the living room: the fact that the 911 tragedies were in fact brought about by Muslim terrorists as “blowback” against longstanding US policy in the Mideast.

    That is what the 911 Truther movement is doing. And Truth Vigilante is a maestro at this.

    This is a critical goal for the US Deep State.

    There really is no serious doubt about this.

    An you’ll see, Truth Vigilante will not try to seriously refute these points: he will just, once again, insist that I am a Jew, as if that somehow disproves what he himself is proven to have done.

    And, bizarrely, some of his dupes — his “useful idiots” — will swallow this.

    You gotta admit: this is certainly entertaining! Get some popcorn and enjoy the show!

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  109. ‘There were tense scenes outside a New Jersey synagogue on Sunday where several hundred pro-Palestinian supporters assembled to demonstrate their outrage over a real estate event showcasing land and properties for purchase in Israel and the occupied West Bank.

    Several dozen pro-Israel supporters from the local Teaneck community stood outside the synagogue and taunted and heckled the travelling pro-Palestine rally, resulting in several scuffles, at times forcing police intervention. ‘

    I suppose it wouldn’t be quite as bad as Nazis selling soap made from Jewish fat.

    Have to ask JackD.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  110. @Colin Wright

    Colon Wrong writes:

    So certainly the more radical forms of 9-11 trutherism serve Israel’s interests.

    But Mr Wrong, how the f*ck do you know what constitutes ‘radical trutherism’ and what constitutes ‘plausible trutherism’.
    In the tens of thousands of comments related to 9/11 in UR threads over recent years, your input (assuming there was any), was negligible at best.
    Admittedly, the comments section of the UR threads is not the be-all and end-all of 9/11 research, but your juvenile remarks on the 9/11 False Flag have emphatically demonstrated that you’ve done NEXT TO NO OBJECTIVE RESEARCH on this heinous crime.
    And, to the extent that you know ‘something’, it is what you’ve absorbed from the propaganda peddled by the corrupt ZOG owned MSM.

    SUMMARY: The 9/11 False Flag was a NO EXPENSE SPARED extremely elaborate operation that deliberately left a ‘trail of evidence’ that implicated non guilty parties (like the Saudis, Pakistan’s ISI to name just two).

    It deliberately used never before used technology in both the electronic commandeering of the four aircraft alleged to have crashed that day and in the demolition of the WTC towers.
    Those peddling misdirection like Fizzy-cyst Dovid about Oscar’s Razor or Occam’s Shaver, do so on purpose – because they were instructed to do so by their handlers.
    Because, by peddling the line of KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid), Fizzy Dov is implying that no entity would arrange an operation with added complexity when it could’ve applied a myriad of other, far simpler processes to achieve a similar result.

    But one should never lose sight of the fact that the ZOG perpetrators of this False Flag are not garden variety criminals with finite budgets and finite capabilities. They can finance any operation they can dream up with the printing press (ie: ownership/control of the U.S Federal Reserve and the other major western central banks),.
    They have at their disposal the full gamut of military and technological capabilities in the arsenal of the Anglo Zionist empire.
    And on that fateful day they used it.

  111. @PhysicistDave

    In the case of Truth Vigilante, the tell-tale is his claiming that I have been”a serial offender in falsifying data”

    This is the third or fourth time Fizzy-cyst Dovid has whined about the exposure of his less-than-illustrious tenure at Sanford and Son university.
    UR readers, I ask you this, if the allegations had no merit, of course Fizzy Dov would ignore them and not make an issue out of it.

    But it really gets under his skin. The fact that he could be exposed as an academic fraud has entailed many a sleepless night.
    Now readers, let me put things in context. You’ve all observed how Fizzy Dov has stooped to the most egregious of lies in trying to defend the USG/NIST version of how the WTC towers collapsed on 9/11.
    He had not hesitation in twisting and contorting the Newtonian Laws of Motion to make them say something they clearly don’t.

    Readers, do you really think such a conscience-free individual would not resort to scientific fraud?
    I wouldn’t put anything past this low life. He is capable of anything.

    Meanwhile, I posted this in Open thread # 8 but, for those of you that missed it, here it goes again. (Picture Dovid Miller singing along to this, his favourite song. It explains what motive he had for posting the distortions and disinformation that he has in the UR threads):

  112. @Truth Vigilante

    Our self-admitted Hitler-lover (see here) Truth Vigilante wrote to me on the previous open thread (see here):

    I suggest you watch this 3 min video titled: ‘I want to be in the Illuminati’, and imagine Fizzy-cyst Dovid singing in place of this bloke:

    Yes, yes, I do urge everyone to watch the video — it is quite funny and very well done — and keep in mind that Dom Frisby is a comedian: the whole point of the video is that Frisby is making fun of conspiracy nuts such as Truth Vigilante.

    There are many giveaways in the video that it is actually, very funny, satire aimed at fellas like Truth Vigilante: for example, the line:

    It is rumoured they are aliens
    Some form of reptile.

    But, in my opinion, the funniest line was:

    I want to be in the same gang as Beyoncé

    I mean, she is really not all that talented: how else to explain her success… except that we Illuminati have pushed her to the heights?

    Dom Frisby is, like me, an anarcho-captialist (see here), and he loves the crazy fringies like Truth Vigilante just as much as I do.

    Every movement needs its balladeers: the Old Left had Woody Guthrie, the ’60s antiwar movement had Dylan and Baez… and we libertarian anarchists have the great Dominic Frisby!

    Our little Hitler-lover ended his comment by saying:

    That video encapsulates everything you need to know about this repugnant individual called Dovid Miller.

    Yes, yes, you bet — Dom Frisby is me!

    I mean, he’s not literally me, of course, but we are, like, soul brothers!

    Or am I really Dom Frisby — how would you know? And is the video really satire or is that just protective cover we Illuminati are using to throw all you bloodhounds off the scent? Is Dominic Frisby really a member of the Illuminati?

    And, by the way, this Friday — the Ides of March — we Illuminati are having a little get-together to immanentize the Eschaton. It will be a day that will go down in history: they will say, “It was the day they immanentized the Eschaton!”*

    Anybody here want an invite? Should be a bigger blast than any rave you’ve ever been to!

    And we’re planning on sacrificing a ref heifer!

    Your favorite neighborhood Illuminatus,

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  113. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote:

    ‘There were tense scenes outside a New Jersey synagogue on Sunday where several hundred pro-Palestinian supporters assembled to demonstrate their outrage over a real estate event showcasing land and properties for purchase in Israel and the occupied West Bank.

    I hear that property in the North of Israel, across the border from Hezbollah, is going for pennies on the dollar (or should we say agorots on the sheqel?).

    Might be a good speculative investment.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Colin Wright
  114. @PhysicistDave

    Fizzy-cyst Dovid, still posting falsehoods, writes:

    Dom Frisby is, like me, an anarcho-captialist

    Dom Frisby is nothing like you Dovid Miller. You’re a pretend AnCap and fake Libertarian.
    Frisby was a little over the top in that video in mentioning the ‘shape shifting reptilians’ and such, but he included that on purpose.
    He does so to provide ‘cover’ – in case someone suggests that the video was all about exposing the crimes of ZOG.

    But the reality is that Frisby is one very clued-in individual. He knows that ZOG controls the entirety of the western financial system, he knows that Bill Gates is up to no good and that the ZOG hierarchy do indeed have a depopulation agenda.
    Yes Dovid, that same ZOG that you’re on record as saying you dispute their very existence.

    SUMMARY: Make no mistake, Frisby is indeed exposing the crimes of ZOG and simultaneously having a laugh at the slavish minions of ZOG like you Dovid.
    Of this there is no doubt.

    Meanwhile, for the benefit of other UR readers that get all their information from ZOG affiliated sources and/or the ‘Enclave of Imbecility’ (aka the Steve Sailer threads), and thus know next to nothing about anything, the video below from Dominic Frisby is even better than the one above.
    It’s the video he made in the immediate aftermath of Brexit eight years ago, where 17 million Britons voted to exit the ZOG controlled E.U.
    Enjoy:

    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  115. @Truth Vigilante

    Sanford and Son university.

    Now, that’s funny. I’m stealing this one.

    I think the tell, of which there are actually many, is Building 7. And, of course the admission by Larry Silvertongue – “Pull it!” And, “My wife made an appointment with a doctor for me, unknown to me, until that very morning, and both my spawn, Thanks be to Moloch, were running late that very morning!”

    So, America/media- finds a passport, which survived the blast/implosion/whatever, whilst nearly nothing else remained intact; determines the identities/guilt of the perpetrators within hours; reports the fall of building 7, before it falls; a street “witness” notices the plane was a “United” issue from the ground; there is no significant debris at the Pentagon, nor the Shanksville, crash sites – “Aircraft debris from United Airlines Flight 93 was likewise found in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Wallace Miller, the former coroner for Somerset County, where Shanksville is located, has said that only 8% of the human remains were ever recovered because the plane exploded when it crashed at 570 miles per hour.
    Everything vaporized on impact,” Miller said” – whilst someone else said, “There was nothing there – it was just a hole/scar in the dirt” – the dancing Israelis, dressed as Arabs, were turned loose; the family of Osama Bin Laden, in America, were permitted to leave America; the rubble at Ground Zero was shipped off, immediately, without inspection/analysis, to China (or who knows where, really?)…..what else? Yes, nothing suspicious with the official story.

    Zion = (Hebrew: צִיּוֹן Ṣīyyōn, LXX Σιών, also variously transliterated Sion,[1] Tzion, Tsion, Tsiyyon)[2] is a placename in the Hebrew Bible, often used as a synonym for Jerusalem[3][4] as well as for the Land of Israel as a whole.

    The term Tzion came to designate the area of Davidic Jerusalem where the Jebusite fortress stood, and was used as well as synecdoche for the entire city of Jerusalem; and later, when Solomon’s Temple was built on the adjacent Mount Moriah (which, as a result, came to be known as the Temple Mount), the meanings of the term Tzion were further extended by synecdoche to the additional meanings of the Temple itself, the hill upon which the Temple stood, the entire city of Jerusalem, the entire biblical Land of Israel, and “the World to Come”, the Jewish understanding of the afterlife. [Wikipedia]

    If Zion/Zionism is not Jewish, what else is it? I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but Santa Claus/Christmas is Christian/European, nonetheless.

  116. Ron Unz says:
    @PhysicistDave

    You’ve probably already seen this, but UT Austin just returned to using standardized tests for admissions:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/us/ut-austin-standardized-test-admission.html

    This follows quite a number of other colleges including Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, M.I.T., Georgetown and Purdue.

    So unless Caltech professors have been coerced into totally watering down their coursework over the last couple of years, I think it’s very likely I’ll be proven correct and they’ll do the same within the next year or two.

    It’s fine if ideological administrators publicly declare that rocks fall upward, but after a couple of years of severe structural engineering problems in building bridges and high-rises, they’re forced to eventually admit that they were mistaken.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  117. @Truth Vigilante

    Well, I take issue with the mention of Diane Abbott, in his little ditty about English Fuck Offs, as she is leading the world in the reemergence of indigenous maths, and none too soon, as Eurocentric bridges and multi-level buildings are really just for White people to meet their ridiculous standards. I wonder if Air Traffic controllers need to be good at maths? Or, just good, in general?

  118. @PhysicistDave

    ‘…It is not true that Zionism equals Jewishness.’

    It’s close to being equal. Jews have a decided taste for iconoclasm (or subversion), so of course a few Jews are going to oppose Zionism. ‘Two Jews, three opinions,’ as they say. You could drum up a constituency for banning electric lighting among Jews. Just point out to them that most Jews are for it.

    That’s the way they are.

    However, in my experience, most Jews support Israel — albeit often reluctantly. Bernie Sanders is pretty typical of the Left end of the spread: ‘why can’t Israel be nice.’

    But there should be an Israel — that’s the story with 90% of all Jews. And if you think there should be an Israel, you’re a Zionist.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  119. @PhysicistDave

    ‘I hear that property in the North of Israel, across the border from Hezbollah, is going for pennies on the dollar (or should we say agorots on the sheqel?).

    Might be a good speculative investment.’

    If I did invest, would it be more appropriate to deed it to Hezbollah or Hamas?

    It’s a poser.

    • Agree: Wielgus
    • Replies: @Wielgus
  120. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    I have actually seen some of it. I visited Lebanon and travelled down to the border, where there is a large wall which however does not stop missiles etc. From a height it was possible to see countryside, but no human being or Zionist was visible. A Lebanese said to me that down there was Jalil. I did not immediately understand that what he meant was what we call Galilee in English.

  121. muh muh says:

    Too much money for aging America.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @bjondo
  122. @muh muh

    This sort of thing is written by people who have never had to physically work for a living.

    I bought the thing about raising the retirement age — until I read an article about a guy who made his living changing truck tires. Ever seen someone take a truck tire off a rim? It’s fine for fit twenty-forty somethings — not necessarily feasible on a forty-hour-a-week basis if you’re sixty-something.

    Dude needed his Social Security — and I can relate. Every now and then I do something that really wears me out — and I realize that thirty years ago, I wouldn’t have even thought of it as hard work. My wife is impressed by how strong I still am; I’m not.

    So let’s face facts. Not all people wisely save for retirement, or follow some career path that has them sitting behind a desk by the time they enter their golden years. Ben Shapiro may not need his Social Security by the time he’s sixty five — but others will.

    • Replies: @muh muh
    , @Mark G.
  123. Dr. Rock says:
    @Chebyshev

    Foer was born in 1974 in Washington, D.C. to a Jewish family.[2][3] He is the son of Albert Foer, a lawyer, and Esther Safran Foer, the child of Holocaust survivors from Poland. He is the elder brother of novelist Jonathan Safran Foer and freelance journalist Joshua Foer.[4]

    There is pretty much nothing worse than listening to a jew, recount the history of the jews, the oppression of the jews, the importance of the jews, etc. Seriously, when some of these jews decide to go “full-jew” about jewish matters, you get the most absurd take in history. i.e. it almost always ends with lampshades and bars of soap.

    You know what would be an interesting task for some AI system? “AI, show me everything the jews have ever said about the jews”

    Why? Because it would break the goddamned thing! It would blow it’s circuits trying to compile everything ever, especially while it’s STILL being churned out at a record pace.

  124. Dr. Rock says:
    @Chebyshev

    I say Jews who get harassed on the street should get the word out to their representatives and to powerful Jewish figures like Antony Blinken and Haim Saban that they want the U.S. to stop the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians that has caused so much grief for American Jews.

    Ha ha, yeah, that would make some heads explode! That kind of logic would have the average 135 IQ Ashkenazi scratching his head in dismay! “Oy vey, what’s this crazy goyim thinking, ‘eh?”

  125. Dr. Rock says:
    @Tiptoethrutulips

    When you get married, you are paying a woman to have sex with her for life.

    Sounds like something a “never been married” man would say… Sure, you’ll screw like bunnies for the first few years, if you’re lucky, but then it slows down, and at first it will bother you, and then later, you won’t care that much about it either.

    Marriage can be a great blessing, obviously, and one of those “Blessings” can be that you, the man, eventually stops thinking like a 14 year old horny toad, and learn that there is actually more to life than screwing 24/7.

    That said, enjoy it while you can, because later in life, you’ll stop even remembering why it was the only thing you thought about for the first 30-something years of your life.

    That’s when you finally start to “get wise” about the real ways of the world.

  126. bjondo says:
    @muh muh

    Angry rat-brain Shapiro should be retired away from America.

    He is a fool given, not earned, what he has.

    Retirement age should be 50.

    Wall St, Koch Bros, ilk, can pay into SS all they have stolen.

    5ds

    • Thanks: muh muh
  127. muh muh says:
    @Colin Wright

    This sort of thing is written by people who have never had to physically work for a living.

    Cut Ben some slack. He’s looking for solutions to help Israel’s ailing economy and the cash cow’s running dry.

    Less social security for us means more for the ol’ light unto.

  128. ‘Cut Ben some slack. He’s looking for solutions to help Israel’s ailing economy and the cash cow’s running dry.’

    Be fair. I’m sure he’s just a glib asshole.

    Sure. He can keep working until his brain starts rotting. It never occurs to him that there are all these dumb, inarticulate schmucks out there for whom that does not apply. How confident is he that he’ll still be able to slug two sacks of concrete at a time up a flight of steps on a hot afternoon?

    Social Security’s a misconceived mess: but for everyone over 6’0″ to say ‘let’s just fill the pool until it’s five and half feet deep instead!’ doesn’t strike me as a very equitable solution.

    I have seen this sort of ‘solution’ in action. In Chile, there was some poor old bastard playing a guitar outside a restaurant for tips. This works — if you’re not the poor old bastard.

    Society shouldn’t be designed for the convenience of people like me and Ben Shapiro. Sure, we can see the lay of the land — and if we fuck up, well, we had fair warning. It needs to be designed so that the average IQ 95 bozo who can manage to get to work on time every morning for forty years doesn’t get totally screwed.

    • Replies: @muh muh
  129. @Ron Unz

    Ron Unz wrote to me:

    So unless Caltech professors have been coerced into totally watering down their coursework over the last couple of years, I think it’s very likely I’ll be proven correct and they’ll do the same within the next year or two.

    Well… Caltech is generally known to be a very weird place: I suppose it is possible that applicants will self-select, so that students who apply are generally those who can survive.

    We’ll see.

    Personally, as I have said many times, I am in favor of razing all the colleges and universities in the country to the ground.

    And then sowing the ground with salt.

    The current higher-educational model simply makes no sense — a student can learn enormously more from a good library system and, of course, from the Internet than the vast majority of students do learn even at elite schools like Stanford and Harvard, if the student is strongly focused on learning.

    And this is true even of MIT and Caltech.

    I taught myself Special Relativity in junior high, and I was self-taught in calculus in high school (our school back then did not offer a calculus course). Similarly, I am self-taught in Galois-field theory, a subject in which I have earned patents.

    Isn’t it true that I am much smarter than most people? Sure, but most people do not aspire to learn Galois-field theory! If you’re smart enough to understand it, you can indeed teach it to yourself, if you have access to appropriate books and, now, Internet resources.

    Above all, it takes hard work, very, very hard work. As I have mentioned, I am currently writing a book that derives the key results in General Relativity using only first-year calculus. I have therefore been going over Einstein’s classic papers on General Relativity.

    I have lost count of how many, very serious, errors Einstein made- not just factors of two or pi, but deep conceptual errors.

    But he never gave up.

    And so he fixed the errors and finally developed what seems to be the correct theory, as the result of nearly a decade of very, very hard work.

    This is the opposite of the current educational model: students at Stanford or Harvard or even MIT or Caltech figure that they earned an “A” in quantum mechanics or electromagnetism or whatever and so they think they “had” quantum mechanics or electromagnetism.

    No, they had a brief, a very brief, overview of quantum mechanics or electromagnetism. Unless they really struggled to understand the subject, unless they themselves ran into various sources of confusion, various counter-intuitive features, they do not understand quantum mechanics or electromagnetism.

    We’re seeing that here on unz.com with multiple moronic posters who think they understand how to apply Newton’s Third Law of Motion. They obviously don’t, but, sadly, many of them probably were given a passing grade in some physics course, basically because the instructor can’t flunk ninety percent of the class.

    Even though he really should.

    The whole American educational system, from kindergarten through Ph.D., should be torn down and put on a bonfire.

    And everyone should be told that learning any serious subject is a hell of a lot harder than training for the varsity football team.

    And that if you don’t want to go to that excruciating effort, that is really fine… but then you will continue to be the ignoramus that you were born as.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  130. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote to me:

    [Dave] ‘…It is not true that Zionism equals Jewishness.’

    [Colin] It’s close to being equal

    Nope. Not even close.

    You forget about the Evangelicals. Almost all Evangelicals are Zionists.

    And, as a matter of simple arithmetic, because there are enormously more Evangelicals than Jews in the country, most Zionists are Evangelical Christians.

    I grew up among these people — I take it you did not. (Of course, I myself never did drink the Kool-Aid. so I was never baptized, never joined the church, etc.)

    On the whole they are nice enough people — hard-working, good neighbors, etc.

    But they have their blind spots. And Israel is one of them.

    If every single American Jews came to his senses — perhaps because he realized the disaster into which Bibi is leading Israel — we would still have the majority of Zionists, the Evangelicals.

    And there is no sign they will ever come to their senses. Again, I know them — these were “my people.”

    And, as pleasant and responsible as they generally are, on certain matters they are stark, raving mad, matters, alas, like Israel.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Ron Unz
  131. @Truth Vigilante

    Our self-confessed Hitler lover (see here) Truth ‘the Fed’ Vigilante wrote to me:

    [Dave] In the case of Truth Vigilante, the tell-tale is his claiming that I have been”a serial offender in falsifying data”

    [The Fed] This is the third or fourth time Fizzy-cyst Dovid has whined about the exposure of his less-than-illustrious tenure at Sanford and Son university.
    UR readers, I ask you this, if the allegations had no merit, of course Fizzy Dov would ignore them and not make an issue out of it.

    But it really gets under his skin. The fact that he could be exposed as an academic fraud has entailed many a sleepless night.

    Oh, many and many a sleepless night!

    So, why don’t you just put me out of my misery and expose the info that you have that exposes me “as an academic fraud”?

    Pretty please, little buddy!

    Being exposed would just be so much fun!

    No, it does not get under my skin — if it did, I would not keep coming back to it.

    But I am going to come back to it, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade.

    Because it proves who you are.

    If you had any actual evidence that I had engaged in academic fraud, you would present it.

    But you don’t — you are just a pathologically lying Fed.

    Just a typical Fed.

    Let’s be honest: your whole purpose here is to distract everyone’s attention from the very real crimes that led to the 9/11 attacks by Muslim jihadists — the mass murders carried out, quite openly, by the US regime in the Mideast over many decades.

    If the 9/11 attacks were not really blowback by Muslims who were enraged by US terrorism in the Mideast, if the 9/11 attacks were really engineered by Mossad or by some rogue operation in the US government, then everyone could just forget about the crimes carried out by the US regime over so many decades.

    It is your goal — your very purpose in life — to draw innocent people down a rabbit hole about some crack-pot conspiracy theories — the Illuminati and all the rest — so that they will be distracted from the very real, and very public, crimes that the US regime has openly committed.

    And everyone here who is sane knows it.

    Now, you still have not told me if you want an invite to our little celebration on the Ides of March when we Illuminati are going to immanentize the Eschaton! What about it?

    Your friendly neighborhood Illuminatus,

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  132. muh muh says:
    @Colin Wright

    Be fair. I’m sure he’s just a glib asshole.

    In all fairness, we are talking about Ben Shapiro.

    ‘Glib asshole’ seems too kind.

  133. Mark G. says:
    @Colin Wright

    “Dude needed his Social Security.”

    Well, Shapiro did appear to make an exemption in his comment for those in poor health. When Social Security was originated, the average life expectancy was 65 and the retirement age was set at 65. That worked. It does not work when people live to 78 and those people did not have enough children that can then be taxed to help pay for the system. It was always a Ponzi scheme.

    I am 67 and still working but am aware not everyone can do that. We certainly do not need our trillion dollar military and can get some money there. Of course, neocons like Shapiro would oppose that. The typical liberal solution for this and all our other problems is raise taxes on the rich. Raising taxes, though, can be a disincentive to work hard. Tax increases hit all rich people equally and do not distinguish between productive people and parasites.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  134. @Tiptoethrutulips

    the admission by Larry Silvertongue – “Pull it!” And, “My wife made an appointment with a doctor for me ….. and both my spawn, Thanks be to Moloch

    TTTT, I think you’re reading too much into this.

    After all, Dovid Miller (aka Fizzy-cyst Dovid), assured me that Larry Silverstain is one of the good guys, that Lucky Larry has devoted his remaining days (beginning straight after being awarded the lease to the World Trade Centre complex in July 2001), to the betterment of the lives of his fellow Americans.
    Dovid insists that all the anomalies you mentioned about the 9/11 False Flag can be explained by his Orwellian interpretation of the Newtonian Laws of Motion.

    Like the junk yard proprietors Sanford and Son on that 1970’s TV show, Dovid Miller assures us that his junk science is not to be questioned, since his wisdom was derived from Sanford and Son university.
    He does have a Phd (Phony Doctorate), and everything we’ve heard from him in his defence of the bogus USG/NIST explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers, is testament to that phoniness.

    BTW TTTT, don’t expect Fizzy Dov to engage with you on the 9/11 False Flag. Earlier in this thread (comment # 15), Dr Kevin Barrett slapped down Dovid Miller’s nonsensical propaganda on 9/11, and Dovid Miller ran off and hid under a rock. He’ll do likewise for you Tippy Toe lady, because he’s too much of a coward to address anything you’ve written.

    Also, take note of how Fizzy Dov began his comment # 113, when he responded to me with:

    Our self-admitted Hitler-lover (see here) Truth Vigilante wrote to me ….

    He wrote this after I made the irrefutably true statement that the crimes of Hitler’s Germany pale into insignificance in comparison to the heinous atrocities committed by the Anglo Zionist empire during WWII.

    Dovid Miller keeps insisting that he’s not a Jew, but I ask you UR readers, what goyim responds this way to anyone giving a positive appraisal of Hitler?
    I mean, even those gullible goys that have been duped by the constant ZOG propaganda through watching Swindler’s List and other Spielberg productions, even they would never respond this way and accuse you of being a Hitler-lover.
    Yes, they might politely say that what I’ve said contrasts with what they’ve heard about the plight of Jewry during that conflict, they’ll ask you to explain Hitler’s alleged Final Solution/the gas chambers/the 6 million dead/the lampshades and soap made from Jewish foreskins etc.

    BUT ONLY A MALEVOLENT JEW like Dovid Miller would come back with this standard knee-jerk response – just like they taught him to always defend the (((tribe))) in that yeshiva he attended.
    Whenever someone gives Hitler even the mildest of praise or when doubt is expressed over the Holohoax, all good Jews are instructed to go into attack dog mode.

    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  135. @Truth Vigilante

    TTTT, I think you’re reading too much into this.

    Yes, I know as pull it! could mean all sorts of things, especially in the context of a burning building, or rather a few office fires, when there’s already been so many lives lost. Since when does a Fire Chief take direction from a Silvertongue Real Estate Guru?

    So, the Arabs were pissed at America for meddling in the Middle East prior to 2001? When have the Arabs maintained their spheres of influence only within the Middle East? They did quite a bit of meddling themselves, certainly within southern Europe; I think Eastern Europe, as well, until European barbarians (Germans) had had enough. It seems to me that the U.S. only began to act with impunity in the Middle East after 911, or the meddling was certainly intensified afterwards, as well as the ability of the American government to spy/monitor American citizens in the name of “security.” If I’m not mistaken, immigration of Muslims increased after 911. The official mumbo-jumbo makes no sense. Building 7 makes no sense whatsoever.

    So, let’s say the Middle Eastern/Arab men did it, which they didn’t. They trained on prop planes, yet were capable of flying passenger jets? Have you ever seen the interior of a passenger jet cockpit? I knew several jet pilots still in military training in the mid-late 90’s, so I’m somewhat familiar with the rigor based on their comments/stories, and there’s no way those Arab nimrods could maneuver those jets. And, as we know/knew who the pilots were, why haven’t they been arrested?

    PD and I already had a 911 exchange, and it did not go well. Personally, I think he has a few suspicions, as anyone with a reasonably advanced intellect and critical thinking skills can discern many anomalies with what occurred, even if they can’t explain it in the language of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. A fire can be extinguished with sound waves; it’s a thing to behold, and it seems like magic, but it’s not too difficult to speculate how that works and draw a nearly correct conclusion before looking it up to confirm, whilst certain people could care less, or can’t begin to fathom how it’s possible, and certain others believe it is magic. America now has too many citizens within the latter three categories, which is why we are circling the drain.

    • Replies: @Chebyshev
  136. @Mark G.

    ‘…We certainly do not need our trillion dollar military and can get some money there….’

    Definitely. I would also means test Social Security — and do away with cash disability payments for half the vagrants in America. That’s Social Security, and that goes straight to drugs.

    …a fundamental problem, though, is that the whole thing is billed as a pension scheme. You put money in, and you get your money ‘back.’ Of course, what you get back bears only the slightest relationship to what you put in — but the end result is that every old gaffer who would be perfectly well-off anyway becomes outraged if you suggest taking away ‘his’ social security.

    We’d be better off if we’d frankly billed it as what it always was: a tax to provide welfare for old people who couldn’t or didn’t make adequate provision for their dotage. After all, that certainly should exist in any humane society. No reason we can’t call it what it is.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  137. Chebyshev says:
    @Tiptoethrutulips

    So, let’s say the Middle Eastern/Arab men did it, which they didn’t. They trained on prop planes, yet were capable of flying passenger jets? Have you ever seen the interior of a passenger jet cockpit? I knew several jet pilots still in military training in the mid-late 90’s, so I’m somewhat familiar with the rigor based on their comments/stories, and there’s no way those Arab nimrods could maneuver those jets.

    Is there a consensus among Truthers as to how the planes were maneuvered? Did Mossad assess the Arab hijackers’ piloting abilities and make sure they were good enough for flying planes into skyscrapers? Did Mossad train or command any of the hijackers?

  138. Chebyshev says:

    The Stanford-educated, Los Angeles native Sam Harris continues to push the official and false narrative that the Russians are badly losing the war that they started for no good reason.

    https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/358-the-war-in-ukraine

    I exposed Harris almost a year ago:

    The reality that Jews did 9/11 is really devastating for the oeuvre of a Jewish pro-Israel intellectual like Sam Harris, who has focused most of his energies over the past couple of decades on the threat of radical Islam. While Islamist terrorist attacks presumably are motivated by Islamic texts and teachings, if you take out 9/11, which had a massive Jewish role, the scale of atrocities by ragtag Islamist militias in recent decades simply doesn’t compare to the scale of all the death and destruction inflicted by Zion and its American agents and meat-puppets on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the Muslim world. Israel is inherently the weaker party when compared to all the nearby Muslim countries put together, and our propping up of Israel via warfare has been disastrous for that region.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/filling-the-blank-spots-in-our-national-history/?showcomments#comment-5872983

  139. Ron Unz says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I taught myself Special Relativity in junior high, and I was self-taught in calculus in high school (our school back then did not offer a calculus course). Similarly, I am self-taught in Galois-field theory, a subject in which I have earned patents.

    That’s really very impression, certainly in keeping with your extremely strong record at Caltech. Where did you happen to grow up?

    The whole American educational system, from kindergarten through Ph.D., should be torn down and put on a bonfire.

    I’m not sure I agree with that, though given the direction things sometimes seem to be heading, that may anyway be happening.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  140. @Chebyshev

    Is there a consensus among Truthers as to how the planes were maneuvered?

    I can’t speak for Truthers, and I don’t know what they generally believe about the aircraft.

    I was not there, but I know what I saw on film; I know what I heard on audio. One particular unknown witness proclaims, as the plane is flying overhead, on film/audio, “Did you see that United plane?” I watched the footage filmed from his/their field of vision, and I can’t see how the airline was determined.

    I also know, for certain, that a building does not collapse in the same manner as a building does during a demolition due to a few office fires. I also know what the term “pull it” means. I know how long it takes to wire a building to pull it. I know Fire Chiefs do not seek advice from real estate moguls, in general.

    The media solved the mystery of Who Done It? quite handily. If there had been a serious investigation into what occurred, Larry and DidYouSeeTheUnitedPlane Guy would be in the Hot Seat on Day Two. And, the Dancing Israelis would not have been released, nor would the family members of Osama Bin Laden been permitted to leave America.

    I have heard from pilots that flying and maneuvering jets at a low altitude is not really part of the general training guidelines, as most of the maneuvering occurs at higher altitudes.

    Did Mossad assess the Arab hijackers’ piloting abilities and make sure they were good enough for flying planes into skyscrapers? Did Mossad train or command any of the hijackers?

    Who knows?

    Do you know that America trains foreign pilots at American military bases? I don’t know the selection criteria for those pilots, but I know for certain many are not Americans, as my former roommate went through a “hot pilot” phase in college, so they were at our townhouse all the time, and obviously, the US military is a sieve.

    Regardless of who planned the “plane attack,” which must have been years in the planning, why not select a few Muslim pilots already trained for military craft? Why such a clumsy choice of obviously inept yahoos, who leave an obvious trail with their prop plane training? I suggest they chose the yahoos to make it appear as if the planners were just mostly disgruntled, resentful, anti-American Muslims, who managed to pull off the crime of the century, second only to the so-called Holocaust, by the skin of their teeth, so there, we solved it, easy-peasy. A highly trained pilot would suggest serious infiltration into the American military.

    There is a former flight attendant, I don’t recall her name, who wrote a book on the numerous inconsistencies with the official narrative from the standpoint of the hijacking and violation of protocols. I didn’t read her book, but I heard her speak. It’s an interesting perspective. In any case, I don’t believe the hijackers flew those planes into anything.

    • Thanks: Chebyshev
  141. @Ron Unz

    Ron Unz wrote to me:

    [Dave] I taught myself Special Relativity in junior high, and I was self-taught in calculus in high school (our school back then did not offer a calculus course). Similarly, I am self-taught in Galois-field theory, a subject in which I have earned patents.

    [Ron] That’s really very impression, certainly in keeping with your extremely strong record at Caltech. Where did you happen to grow up?

    An unincorporated inner suburb of Saint Louis known as Affton. I was a couple years behind the actor John Goodman at Affton High, and so I have performed on-stage with John: I was one of three backup singers to John in the song “It Takes a Woman” in our school production of Hello, Dolly!. John has a Kevin Bacon number of one, and so I would have a Kevin Bacon number of two… if amateur stage productions counted!

    All of which impresses most people more than the fact that I took classes from or worked with five Nobel laureates.

    I taught myself Special Relativity from Hermann Bondi’s wonderful little book, Relativity and Common Sense, which our local library happened to own. I had to teach myself algebra in order to understand the book, since I had not yet had algebra in school.

    I learned the very basic ideas of Galois-field theory from some math book I read in high school whose name I’ve forgotten (Galois fields are the finite fields that obey the same algebraic rules as the rationals and real numbers). I never took a course in the subject. After I got my Ph.D. and went out into industry, which I was forced to do by the Zionist professors at Stanford who kicked me out of academic physics, I found out, to my amazement, that Galois-field theory had practical application in error-correction systems: my patents (e.g., see here for and here) employ Galois-field theory.

    One of the great virtues of Caltech is that the faculty assumed that, if we had been admitted to ‘Tech, we could learn anything we needed to learn on the fly. So, for example, I spent one summer working on a large program with a very complex memory-management system that was modeling the interaction of elementary particles with a large detector located at Fermilab (this was in the old days of Fortran 66): the professor, Frank Sciulli, told me what developments were needed in the program and told me to figure out how the program worked and to ask any questions if I needed to.

    And so I just did it. Sciulli assumed I could. (He was not, however, real keen on my suggestion that I modify the entire program to embody Hagedorn theory, which was a precursor of string theory. He was right about that, though it would have been interesting.)

    You see what I mean about ‘Tech being an unusual place. My general point is that the sort of student who chooses to go to ‘Tech really can do this: I was far from unique among ‘Techers.

    Ron also wrote:

    [Dave] The whole American educational system, from kindergarten through Ph.D., should be torn down and put on a bonfire.

    [Ron] I’m not sure I agree with that, though given

    Well, it won’t happen that dramatically, of course. But our current education system, both K-12 and higher-ed, were designed in the age of the general store, literally before there were department stores or supermarkets, much less amazon.com.

    For various reasons — government operation and ownership or heavy government subsidies, the inertia built into certification processes, etc. — we now have an education system that is more than a century out of date. No one would design the system this way from scratch today, now that we have the Web, live-streaming, and all the rest.

    But it is hard to alter institutions that are not part of the market. One of the biggest virtues of the market is that it can gently put businesses out of their misery when they no longer serve any real purpose — as happened, of course, to such once major corporations as PanAm, Montgomery Ward, TWA, etc.

    Non-market organizations — religions, educational institutions, and, above all, governments — tend to require rather more disruptive events to be terminated. You need a Reformation, a revolution, etc.

    Existing educational institutions no longer serve human needs. Somehow, they will eventually be dismantled. I hope it comes sooner rather than later, for the benefit of taxpayers, and, above all, students, who are wasting years of their lives in these outdated institutions.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  142. @PhysicistDave

    ‘Nope. Not even close.

    You forget about the Evangelicals. Almost all Evangelicals are Zionists.’

    Technically, that’s irrelevant to the validity of your original claim.

    Almost all Evangelicals could have gills and be able to breathe under water.

    What would remain true is that most Jews support Israel — however unhappily. Ergo, most Jews are Zionists.

    Now, admit that you’re wrong and that I’m right, and we’ll all be happy.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  143. @Chebyshev

    Is there a consensus among Truthers as to how the planes were maneuvered? Did Mossad assess the Arab hijackers’ piloting abilities and make sure they were good enough for flying planes into skyscrapers? Did Mossad train or command any of the hijackers?

    I’m entranced by my latest idea — if only because the truth so often lies in the middle.

    Someone — Arab or Israeli — could have planted beacons in the targets. Such a device would be relatively inconspicuous and seemingly innocuous — and it could make the pilot’s job relatively easy. You’re on the glide path onto the runway into the target. Airliners are built to make this easy.

    Al Qaeda came up with the plan. Israel’s representatives within the organization improved it. Let’s make sure you don’t miss the frigging buildings entirely.

  144. Ron Unz says:
    @PhysicistDave

    You forget about the Evangelicals. Almost all Evangelicals are Zionists.

    And, as a matter of simple arithmetic, because there are enormously more Evangelicals than Jews in the country, most Zionists are Evangelical Christians.

    I’m very skeptical that the Evangelicals have had much to do with America’s support for Israel.

    If you consider all the dozens of ideological issues important to Evangelicals over the last half-century, I’d say they’ve been politically defeated on virtually all of them, often to such an extent that American society today is “worse” that their worst-case scenario of even just a couple of decades ago. Just consider “transgenderism.”

    The sole exception to that universal record of defeat is support for Israel, which strongly suggests that their numbers and political power have little to do with that victory.

    By contrast, I’d say that Jewish activist groups have won about 70-80% of all their political battles over the last half-century, including support Israel.

    So empirically, I think the two correlations provide a good sense of which group is probably more responsible.

    Here’s a related thought-experiment. The early Zionists strongly considered the British offer to establish their Jewish state in Uganda rather than Palestine. Assuming they’d done so, I’d think a great deal of “friction” would have developed over the generations with their African neighbors, much like it did with the Palestinians. And partly as a consequence, I’d suspect that the racial policy and politics in America today would be unimaginably different…

  145. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote to me:

    Technically, that’s irrelevant to the validity of your original claim.

    Almost all Evangelicals could have gills and be able to breathe under water.

    What would remain true is that most Jews support Israel — however unhappily. Ergo, most Jews are Zionists.

    Now, admit that you’re wrong and that I’m right, and we’ll all be happy.

    Nope — you’re wrong. As a matter of elementary mathematics.

    I take it that you did not legitimately pass sixth-grade math?

    Our initial exchange was:

    [Dave] ‘…It is not true that Zionism equals Jewishness.’

    [Colin] It’s close to being equal

    Now, if ninety percent of Zionists were Jews and ten percent were Evangelicals, then it would be fair to say that Zionism and Jewishness were “close to being equal.”

    But, given that the number of Evangelicals is several times the number of Jews and, of course, that most Jews and most Evangelicals are Zionists, it follows as a matter of simple math that the number of Zionists vastly exceeds the number of Jews.

    Not at all “close to being equal.”

    What probably is true ts that American Jews provide most of the “mnoneybags” for the Zionist movement. Evangelicals do fork over some money, but there is good reason to think it is much less: Mearsheimer and Walt discuss this in The Israel Lobby.

    On the other hand, money alone does not win elections, as Hillary found out in 2016.

    You need votes.

    And what politicians care about, above all else, is winning elections. The power of the Israel lobby consists of their ability to defeat politicians in elections.

    And the Jewish vote is pretty small.

    But the Evangelical vote is huge.

    I know that most of the commenters here are hypnotized by Jewish money.

    But votes win elections.

    So, the fact that most American Zionists are Evangelicals really does matter: if the Evangelicals were ever to turn against Zionism (around the time Hell freezes over!), the Zionists would be toast.

    As usual, the real fault lies within your and my own ethnic group.

    But most commenters here want to evade that basic fact and so spend their time tilting at windmills.

    Funny guys. In a pathetic sort of way.

    Unwitting foot soldiers of the ruling elite.

    The commenters here are almost all buttressing the ruling class.

  146. Chebyshev says:
    @Colin Wright

    Al Qaeda came up with the plan.

    That would’ve been difficult without the participation of Osama bin Laden, who denied any involvement in the attacks.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  147. @Ron Unz

    Ron Unz wrote to me:

    [Dave] You forget about the Evangelicals. Almost all Evangelicals are Zionists.

    And, as a matter of simple arithmetic, because there are enormously more Evangelicals than Jews in the country, most Zionists are Evangelical Christians.

    [Ron] I’m very skeptical that the Evangelicals have had much to do with America’s support for Israel.

    I’m not making any abstruse claim about measuring power levels: it is just simple arithmetic.

    You did not grow up among Evangelicals, did you?

    As I said, I did: these are “my people.”

    And a very, very easy way to get them to vote against someone is to convince them that that candidate is anti-Israel.

    And there are tens of millions of Evangelicals in America.

    Now, of course, if there were a comparably large voting bloc on the other side, the massive size of the Evangelical voting bloc might not be decisive.

    That is the case on abortion, on which most of us Americans are moderately pro-choice.

    Hence, the fact that most Evangelicals are pro-life is not enough to give them easy victories — even after they succeeded in getting Roe overturned (and Roe was indeed legally a bad decision, even though most of us were satisfied with its results), the Evangelicals are still having trouble in many states advancing their cause on the abortion issue because there is a large countervailing bloc on the other side.

    But in the case of Zionism, you have a small number of Jewish voters who are pro-Zionist and a small number of us, on both the Left and the Right, who have learned about the history of Palestine and are therefore anti-Zionists. The numbers on the two sides might be in a rough balance.

    Except for the tens of millions of Evangelicals who are, for quite bizarre religious reasons having to do with the Second Coming, fanatically pro-Zionist, in a very weird way (the End Game is that the Jews all end up dead in the battle of Armageddon!).

    Numbers matter.

    At least in elections when you count votes.

    And the Evangelicals are the foot soldiers among the Zionists who decisively swing the numbers in favor of Zionism, simply because there would otherwise be no numerically large bloc of voters on either side. The Evangelicals are the “muscle” in this fight.

    Imagine if the Evangelicals all came to their senses (fat chance!) and swung against Zionism. That would be the end of Zionism in America. At least in terms of electoral politics.

    There is a tendency among so many of your posters and commenters here to try to somehow look “behind the veil” and try to see the “hidden forces” at work.

    But what actually takes real effort is to see clearly the forces that are not hidden, but what is rather “hidden in plain sight.”

    And, in the case of Zionism in the USA, that is the Evangelicals.

    And the Jewish Zionists know it: read Mearsheimer and Walt’s section where they quote Jewish Zionist leaders being aware of these facts.

    As Orwell said:

    To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.

    This is the central point I am hammering away at in these Open Threads.

    What is the key fact, in front of our nose, about the 9/11 attacks?

    That they were carried our by Islamic jihadists as “blowback” for the horrifically murderous actions of the US government in the Mideast. As Ron Paul has said again and again, they are over here because we have been over there. They killed us because the US government killed so many of them.

    That is the “surface story” of 9/11; it is plain to anyone who chose to follow news reports at the time; and yet that is the story that the regime, for very obvious reasons, wants people to avoid focusing on.

    And that basic fact is what many of your columnists here and most of your commenters also want to keep everyone from focusing on.

    “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

    You have written at length about the events that led up to US involvement in WW II. And yet, most of that information was available to anyone who paid reasonable attention to the news at the time.

    But it was “memory-holed.” The lies passed on to younger generations were that the attack on Pearl was an unprovoked and dastardly sneak attack, a bolt from the blue, a “day that would live in infamy.”

    You see this bizarre behavior in this very Open Thread where our little friend Truth Vigilante insists that the obviously satirical video by the great Dom Frisby is really in earnest (lizard people and all!), where Truth Vigilante libels me by claiming that I engaged in academic falsification of data, even though he does not even pretend to have any evidence for that claim, etc.

    He is quite transparent about being a pathological liar.

    And yet few commenters here bother to notice this: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

    And of course this constantly happens in the mainstream media as well: Biden and his neocon minions claim that Putin, if he succeeds in Ukraine, will, in short order, move on NATO countries. Which ignores the quite obvious fact that it is taking a major effort by Russia even to defeat Ukraine. Which therefore makes the idea that Putin could successfully drive to the Channel simply absurd.

    By and large, the history of the world is hidden only in the sense that it is “hidden in plain sight.”

    The CFR, the Trilateral Commission, the WEF are not secret. And the crimes that the members of such groups commit –the destruction of the currency, the wars they start, the collapse of the education system, and all the rest — are front-page news.

    These are not secrets.

    But people are well-trained to forget or ignore the obvious facts that were presented a month or a year or a decade ago on the front page.

    That is the real basis of the power of the ruling elite: making people forget what everyone once knew.

    To again quote Orwell:

    ‘Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.’

    And most of your columnists here and most of your commenters are supporting the ruling elite in obfuscating the past, trying to manufacture some bizarre fantasies in place of facing up to the actual horrors that are sufficient to indict the ruling elite.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
    , @Ron Unz
  148. @Chebyshev

    Chebyshev wrote to Colin Wright:

    [Colin] Al Qaeda came up with the plan.

    [Cheb] That would’ve been difficult without the participation of Osama bin Laden, who denied any involvement in the attacks.

    I think you do not know how to organize an underground operation: “Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”

    For that matter, that is also how the Deep State operates. (Hey — as I have confessed, I did work for the US Intelligence Community back in the ’80s and ’90s! I actually do know.)

    Bin Laden both accepted and denied responsibility for 9/11.

    It is quite possible that it was a “compartmented” operation that he was not at first aware of.

    Or maybe he was just lying to confuse the “special services” in the West — that’s what they would do: look at how they are quite transparently lying about the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline.

    You need to learn a bit about how the Deep State and its opponents operate!

    • Replies: @Chebyshev
  149. @Chebyshev

    Is there a consensus among Truthers as to how the planes were maneuvered?
    Did Mossad assess the Arab hijackers’ piloting abilities and make sure they were good enough for flying planes into skyscrapers?
    Did Mossad train or command any of the hijackers?

    Chubby, you’re in desperate need of an education on what actually occured during the 9/11 False Flag.
    The clue comes courtesy of the words ‘False Flag’ – which means that Entity A perpetrates a crime on entity B, yet somehow manages to leave ‘evidence’ that entity C did it.
    Of course entity C (the innocent parties ) are the Muslims/Al Qaeda. A subset of entity C is the Saudis and Pakistan’s ISI (ZOG left ‘evidence’ to implicate them, even though both had NO involvement whatsover).
    Entity A, the same entity that murdered JFK/RFK/JFK Jr/MLK Jr, James Forrestal, perpetrated the Covid Psyop, the Holohoax, the Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud and much, MUCH more, is ZOG (The Zionist Usury Banking Cartel – the same cabal that lords over the entirety of the western financial system),

    Click on the link below and be sure to read the comment (it is # 948 in Open Thead #8).
    Most important of all, make sure you watch the 3 min section of the video in that comment that I’ve specified, and do so over and over until it sinks in:

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/open-thread-8/#comment-6441107

    SUMMARY: There is NO PROOF that a single one of those alleged Muslim hijackers (that were alleged by the corrupt ZOG owned MSM to have crashed those four aircraft on 9/11), boarded ANY of those four planes.
    In fact, SEVEN (7) of them were reported to be ALIVE after 9/11 !!

    As to your other questions, unfortunately there is no consensus among truthers on what happened that day. Because ZOG has so much riding on not being discovered as the villain in this heinous crime, they have expended much time and energy into infiltrating various Truther movements and even concocting elaborate diversionary stories like ‘No Planes actually struck the WTC towers’, and that what we saw were either Holograms or CGI applied to the videos after the event.
    Unfortunately, many sincere truthers have been sucked in by the ‘No Planes’ theory and are not willing to objectively analyse all the evidence.

    In fact, NONE of the four real aircraft with real pasengers and crew were hijacked/crashed that day.
    The real planes were electronically commandeered using BUAP (Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Auto Pilot) technology – in the same way that Malaysian Airlines MH370 was commandeered and landed safely in Diego Garcia in 2014 (and not crashed into the Indian Ocean as the ZOG owned western media would have us believe).

    The real planes of 9/11 were landed at alternative venues and the passengers and crew, seeing as we haven’ t heard from them in the interim, were almost certainly murdered.
    The planes that struck the WTC towers and the Pentagon were DRONES that replaced the original planes mid flight. They turned on an identical transponder signal at the same instant that the real planes turned theirs off – hence what appeared to be a continuity of flight path as far as the Air Traffic Control that was monitoring their movements.

    Chubby, what I’ve discussed above (and a hell of a lot more), has been covered exhaustively by many others (myself included) in the various 9/11 threads in UR featured over recent years.
    But, for whatever reason, you weren’t paying attention.

    My advice to you: Don’t be like Colin Wrong. No matter how many times he’s shown irrefutable proof that NO MUSLIMS WERE ABOARD ANY OF THE FOUR ‘9/11 planes’, let alone being able to hijack them and steer them to their targets, he still writes asinine things like ‘Al Qaeda came up with the plan’, as he posted in comment # 144.

    Once Colin Wrong fixates himself on a particular hypothesis, there is no changing his mind.
    He’ll take that belief to the grave, irrespective of what evidence is presented to the contrary.

  150. Ron Unz has banned me from posting comments on the Covid Psyop, as many of you will be aware.
    I get how it works: ‘His webzine, His rules’, so I will be refraining from commentary on that topic henceforth.

    Meanwhile, assuming you’re reading this Ron, I know you have a lot of respect* for the Libertarian Tom Woods Phd.
    (*Proof of that appears near the bottom of the UR home page, where Tom Woods is recommended by Ron as ‘SELECTED ALTERNATIVE MEDIA’).

    Well, Tom Woods just appeared on The Ron Paul Liberty Report speaking about his book titled: “Diary of a Psychosis: How Public Health Disgraced Itself During COVID Mania.”
    Ron, if you haven’t already read it, I think it’s something you might consider looking at in the future.

    Meanwhile, many individuals are of the opinion that Libertarianism cannot be applied during emergencies, that authoritarian government is needed and liberties must be restricted for the common good.
    Well, Tom Woods begs to differ (watch the 2 mins from 9:00-11:00 of the video below):

  151. @Colin Wright

    so often lies in the middle.

    Colleen?

  152. @PhysicistDave

    You did not grow up among Evangelicals, did you?

    I grew up around Pentecostal People. Well, not around them, but that’s the church my mother hauled us to for some reason. Fire & Brimstone, and speaking in tongues….I heard it all.

    Perhaps the point is that there would be no Zion/Zionism without Jews/Jewry, and secular Jews do support Israel, nonetheless, because their parents/grandparents/relatives train young Jews to do so, and also “train” them to see themselves somewhat apart from everyone else. I have been to bar mitzvahs, and foreskin snipping parties of completely atheist, bacon-eating, gentile-loving Jews, surrounded by their yarmulke-wearing relatives. They toe the line due to familial/community pressure, which is intense.

    So, Zion/Zionism/Israel is Jewish in core and form, and Evangelical Christians, and many other Christians, support Israel because Jesus was a Jew, or because that’s the message they extract from the Bible. That book is so full of omissions, I don’t understand how they don’t question the conclusions drawn by the pastor/preacher. My first subversive inquiry was – who did Cain marry, and how did he come to rule a great nation, if he was one of only three people on earth when he was banished?

    I think the Jew-loving Christians are Useful Idiots. But, they were also trained, yes?

    As Ron Paul has said again and again, they are over here because we have been over there.

    I’m not defending the American government, but Arabic muslims are not docile people. Islam was spread by violence/conquest. I suppose ancient Christianity was too, but I don’t think to the same degree as Islam; certainly not in more modern times.

    Who allowed the Muslims to enter the U.S.? What is this inane practice of disrupting or decimating a community of people, generally hostile to Christianity/Judaism, and then bringing them on over to live amongst the people who ruined said community? It’s intentional – who is that stupid? Or Useful?

    You have written at length about the events that led up to US involvement in WW II. And yet, most of that information was available to anyone who paid reasonable attention to the news at the time.

    I’m not so sure that was true before the internet. FDR lied constantly about Germany, and at that time, most people trusted their president; pro-Germany, anti-FDR, reporting was designated fringe and antisemitic; US senators who opposed FDR were punished/ruined.

    I began reading history extensively in middle school. I never read about the European slave trade into Africa/Arabia – I had only read about the Barbary Pirates capturing America/English vessels; I learned of the European slaves on an archeology tour. Mainstream textbooks, media, etc., have been slanted against reality for decades. And, as you correctly say, the American education system of the last few decades is exponentially devolving from the decline that seems to have begun after WW2.

  153. Sparkon says:

    There were no hijacked jetliners that crashed anywhere on September 11, 2001.

    We can be sure there were no hijacked or crashed planes on 9/11 for the simple but decisive reason there was no authentic and verifiable airplane wreckage recovered in a timely fashion at any of the claimed 9/11 crash locations – not at the World Trade Center, nor the Pentagon, nor a field near Shanksville, PA – while the reasonable expectation would be that those sites would have been littered with broken airplane parts, as is the case with every other airplane crash on solid ground known to man. A few airplanes have crashed into the ocean and disappeared, but that’s it.

    At one point, reported only in a few regional publications, the FBI did claim to have recovered almost all of the wreckage of UA93 from its hole in the ground at Shanksville, but of course we’ve never seen any of it, nor have we heard much more about this FBI claim.

    There were a few attempts to plant airplane wreckage, both at the Pentagon and around the WTC, but critics have pointed out discrepancies and problems with all of that material. Obviously, planted evidence is a big red flag alerting us to fact that 9/11 was a charade with no real hijacked airliners crashing into anything.

    Sept. 11, 2001 – Black Tuesday – was a made-for-TV special, a Hollywood-style Psychodrama in SFX that had most of the world transfixed and fooled.

    But not everyone. You really can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

    Even as I watched on TV as the Twin Towers came down, I knew that a 150-ton airplane could not possibly destroy a 500,000-ton skyscraper. No way, Jose. I knew with certainty then there had to have been some other agents involved in bringing down those massive buildings, probably some kind of explosives. Donald Trump knew it too, and said so publicly before going silent on the matter, but that was his usual shtick anyway, to first flirt with the truth for awhile, then flee from it at full tilt later.

    No airplane wreckage means no hijacked jetliners, and no hijacked jetliners means no hijackers. Drones too would have left wreckage. Pixels, none at all.

    The televised images of a Boeing 767 jetliner we saw seemingly crashing into WTC 2 on 9/11, purportedly UA175, were created with CGI. Knowledgeable video analysts can point out numerous telltale flaws in these videos, making it crystal clear those were not real airplanes on 9/11, and not real videos of them crashing.

    The notorious Hezarkhani still frame seems to show UA175 has plunged into WTC and penetrated the skyscraper up to the airplane’s wing roots, but there is no sign of any reaction from either airplane or building, which is impossible. Obviously, both airliner and building would be visibly affected by a collision. The airplane would begin to shatter and crumple at first impact, and cladding and other material would fly off the building there, but we see nothing like that in the Hezarkhani video. Instead, the airplane seems to be gliding into the skyscraper without resistance or any reduction in speed, smoother even than the proverbial hot knife into butter, for even that colliding combo creates more resistance than pixels.


    Image: Michael Hezarkhani at

    911planeshoax.com

    The complete lack of any reaction from either airplane or building is 100% guaranteed proof that the image is fake, does not represent a real-world event, and was created with CGI.

    If only the MSN then had paid as much attention to the obviously fake videos from 9/11 as they are now paying to Kate Middleton’s hands, as if the world turned on pictures of the “Royal Family,” we might have had a chance of stopping Shrub’s GWOT.

    Is this a strange planet, or what?

    No planes on 9/11 – just pixels.

    However, there was a jetliner, possibly under remote control, that overflew the Pentagon on 9/11. This is likely the airplane, purportedly AA77, about which Vice-president Dick Cheney was getting timely updates as it approached the Pentagon, as was witnessed at the time, and subsequently reported by Norman Mineta to 9/11 Commission Vice-chairman Lee Hamilton.

    We can be certain as well, that no airplane was shot down at the Pentagon, despite the timely warnings being given to Dick Cheney, who, by the way, as vice-President, had no operational role in national defense. The VP is entirely out of the DOD’s chain of command and has no military authority whatsoever, so it’s pretty clear something highly unusual, unprecedented, and probably illegal was going on with Dick Cheney seemingly giving orders to the military while hunkered down in the PECC.

    Since no airplane was shot down at the Pentagon, we can be sure that the “orders” discussed by Cheney and the “young man” must have been “hold your fire.” There is only one explanation for the Pentagon’s failure to shoot down the approaching plane, and that is the aircraft must have been a friendly. Its whole purpose was to impress upon a number of witnesses the presence of a large jet near the Pentagon right as bombs were set off therein. Blast and smoke from the bombs provided cover for the big jet as it overflew the Pentagon and flew off to land somewhere, which would have been easy enough to do after all the planes were grounded.

    Meanwhile, down in a Florida classroom, Pres. Bush had been notified by Andrew Card that “America is under attack.” because apparently, “a second plane has flown into the second tower.” So the game was, well, the first plane could plausibly be considered some kind of terrible accident, but boy, when that 2nd one went in there, everybody knew it was no accident.

    So lessee. At that point, the situation was there had been two airplane crashes into the World Trade Center, and American was under attack, so wouldn’t you think Plan A would have been to get the President of the United States and his staff and those kids out of that classroom as quickly as was humanly possible?

    I mean, for goodness sake, the Booker school where Pres. Bush was sitting is just 2 miles from the end of the runway at Sarasota’s Bradenton international airport! Couldn’t another one of those hijacked jetliners have come plunging through the roof at Booker at any second? In the official 9/11 narrative at least, Bush and his party and the kids at Booker were sitting ducks for Kamikaze Arab Hijackers with Boxcutters.

    In any normal circumstance, Bush and his party would have boogied on outa there with all due haste, but no worries.

    Clearly, Pres. Bush and some of his party knew there were no real hijacked jetliners, and no real danger to Bush, who in any case decided against jumping to his feet and taking charge as Commander in Chief with his nation under attack, and chose instead to remain in his chair for another seven minutes until the bizarre chanting session mercifully came to an end, and W was free to hang around the schoolhouse a bit more to glad hand and pose for pictures with the staff and kids.

    It must have been a festive occasion, after all, for Bush and his crowd, what with America under attack, and all.

    Finally, some 20 minutes or more after the word came in that the country was being attacked, the Commander-in-Chief and his entourage at last pulled out of Booker.

    It could be said, I suggest, that 9/11 and George W. Bush’s subsequent Global War on Terror were the sparks and conflagrations that ignited what is trying hard to be WWIII.

    • Replies: @niceland
  154. Ron Unz says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I certainly don’t doubt that lots of the Evangelicals these days are fanatically pro-Israel. However, I think the underlying causes are interesting to examine.

    For obvious reasons, Christianity had traditionally been pretty hostile to Jews and Judaism. But there are very widespread claims that a little over a century ago Samuel Untermyer subsidized the publication and distribution of the Scofield Reference Bible that drastically shifted that perspective among American Protestants. I’ve never looked into the matter, but it seems perfectly plausible.

    Also, during the middle decades of the 20th century, many of the most influential and popular Christian preachers were very antisemitic, and there are claims that a mixture of money, media, and perhaps blackmail were used to gradually elevate a different group of preachers who were far more favorable towards Jews and Israel. Although I’m not too familiar with that history, last month I published an article discussing it:

    https://www.unz.com/estriker/americas-church-the-invention-of-the-evangelical-christian-movement/

    So it wouldn’t surprise me if the same general forces used to shift American elected officials in a particular direction were also used to shift leading Christian preachers the same way. And just like most ordinary conservatives follow the beliefs of the leading conservative public figures, probably most ordinary Christians do the same with leading Christian preachers.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  155. Chebyshev says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Bin Laden both accepted and denied responsibility for 9/11.

    It is quite possible that it was a “compartmented” operation that he was not at first aware of.

    Or maybe he was just lying to confuse the “special services” in the West — that’s what they would do: look at how they are quite transparently lying about the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline.

    What? That doesn’t make any sense.

    Bin Laden denied responsibility in September 2001, so he clearly wasn’t involved. If he was involved in the successful terrorist attacks he of course would’ve wanted credit.

    How could his small terrorist organization have pulled off a massive operation like 9/11 without the top leadership knowing about it? I think the Mossad Theory of 9/11 requires the involvement of Ariel Sharon, so I don’t see how the Al Qaeda Theory could work without bin Laden.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  156. @Ron Unz

    ‘…I’m very skeptical that the Evangelicals have had much to do with America’s support for Israel.’

    To be somewhat unfair about it (or maybe not), the Jews are like STAVKA. The Evangelicals are the poor oiks in the endless waves of Red Army Rifle divisions.

    If anyone doubts that, see the funding and leadership of CUFI, or the activities of that Singer creature.

    I think Physicist Dave is a bit too intimate with his Evangelical roots. I’m (involuntarily) familiar with the animal as well, but from a more detached perspective. Blaming Evangelicals for America’s support for America’s support for Israel is like blaming the pit bull for mauling your daughter.

    Talk to the owner.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  157. Yo ho, the mistletoe…

    Jack’s people in action.

    ‘Dozens dead, wound­ed as Is­raeli he­li­copter opens fire on Gaza aid seek­ers’

    Anyone who still supports Israel at this point — may you burn in hell.

  158. @Ron Unz

    Ron Unz wrote to me:

    But there are very widespread claims that a little over a century ago Samuel Untermyer subsidized the publication and distribution of the Scofield Reference Bible that drastically shifted that perspective among American Protestants. I’ve never looked into the matter, but it seems perfectly plausible.

    Well… I know that academics who “study” Evangelicals often make a big deal of the Scofield Reference Bible.

    But, having grown up among Evangelicals, and having had friendly debates with numerous Evangelicals after I became an adult, not one single one of them has ever mentioned the Scofield Reference Bible to me.

    I rather suspect that academics who “study” Evangelicals do not much bother talking to real live Evangelicals, rather as if the Evangelicals had cooties or something.

    Sort of like shopping at Walmart.

    Ron also wrote:

    Also, during the middle decades of the 20th century, many of the most influential and popular Christian preachers were very antisemitic, and there are claims that a mixture of money, media, and perhaps blackmail were used to gradually elevate a different group of preachers who were far more favorable towards Jews and Israel. Although I’m not too familiar with that history, last month I published an article discussing it:

    Well… I’m afraid you are again showing that you don’t have much real-life experience with Evangelicals!

    Your column goes on and on about Billy Graham and you also mentioned:

    On the home front, recruitment to the new marketing-driven fandom-cum-church was booming. From 1965 to 1975, Evangelicals were always on offer on the television and radio, allowing the movement to gain waves of followers and become the largest Protestant denomination in the country.

    Well, no.

    The Evangelicals were mainly a grass-roots operation, off the radar of most academics, journalists, and, indeed, most Americans on the East or West coasts. They were not a product of Billy Graham and the televangelists.

    I remember when Jimmy Carter, who was a “born-again” Christian, ran for President in 1976. The news media actually ran specials explaining to “normal” Americans what it meant to be “born again.”

    I found this to be enormously hilarious: what planet had these “journalists” been living on throughout their lives?

    The answer, of course, is a planet with other people like them, a planet that ignored the largely lower-middle-class, working-class, and truly poor people who had tended to be Evangelicals. These people had always been a significant part of the American population, going back, indeed, to colonial times.

    Serious historians of American religious history have, of course, always known this, but the “journalists” truly did not. And I assume you too had little or no contact with that class of people, coming from a secular family on the West coast, going to Harvard, etc.

    But if you read serious US religious history, they have always been among us: they were not somebody’s creation in the mid-twentieth century!

    Could it be, as you say, that “a mixture of money, media, and perhaps blackmail were used to gradually elevate a different group of preachers who were far more favorable towards Jews and Israel”?

    Billy Graham, maybe.

    But actual Evangelicals in the pews viewed him as you and I viewed Carl Sagan: perhaps not a bad chap, but lacking in relevancy to our lives.

    When I was in grade school, the church which my parents attended kicked out their preacher — Reverend Montgomery — and installed the “education director,” known to us all as “Brother Ed,” as the new preacher.

    My own parents were closely involved in this, and I myself was allowed to attend the church service at which the vote was held to change preachers (yes, this was majority vote of all church members who chose to attend — had I chosen to join the church, I could have voted!).

    The idea that our church’s choice of preacher was or could have been influenced by outside money is just laughable.

    By the way, the main issue was that Reverend Montgomery was an old-fashioned “fire-and-brimstone” preacher who frightened the children and irritated the younger suburban moms — the old geezers liked the old guy. Brother Ed held exactly the same views as Montgomery, but Brother Ed was not really into yelling.

    Sure: Billy Graham was a publicity hound who sucked up to high-ranking politicians. Everyone in the country knew who he was, of course, but I never recall hearing his name mentioned in our church. He was simply an irrelevancy to the members of our church.

    I am afraid that what we are seeing here is the same thing as journalists who try to “understand” Trump voters by reading some crazy posts by QAnon supporters online.

    QAnon conspiracy nuts are simply not the vast majority of Trump supporters.

    And the people who think that Billy Graham or televangelists were the center of the real Evangelical movement need to come down from their high perches and lower themselves by mixing with real, living people.

    I’ve spent my life doing that. Even though I think their religious views are quite loony, I find Evangelicals to be rather nice people, on the whole. And, indeed, they are no loonier than most secular upper-middle-class liberals — they are just loony in different ways.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  159. @Chebyshev

    Chebyshev wrote to me:

    [Dave] Bin Laden both accepted and denied responsibility for 9/11.

    It is quite possible that it was a “compartmented” operation that he was not at first aware of.

    Or maybe he was just lying to confuse the “special services” in the West — that’s what they would do: look at how they are quite transparently lying about the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline.

    [Cheb] What? That doesn’t make any sense.

    As I said, you clearly do not understand how to organize a revolution!

    Or, for that matter, a spy agency.

    The key is: compartmentalize, compartmentalize, compartmentalize.

    The more people who know about a Black Op, the more likely someone is to blab about it.

    Do you think that the “antifa” movement has one central command that knows about and controls every single act carried out by “antifa”?

    If you think that, you would make a really poor revolutionary cadre!

    Cheb also wrote:

    How could his small terrorist organization have pulled off a massive operation like 9/11 without the top leadership knowing about it?

    But it wasn’t massive at all!

    It was something like twenty guys, a few of whom learned some very, very basic flying skills (they did not learn how to land!) and who managed to get through lax security at Logan, Newark, and Dulles.

    Why is this any more surprising than the small group who dumped tea into Boston Harbor in December of 1773? Do you think that was a massive operation?

    Or, for that matter, Tim McVeigh blowing up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City?

    Or even the Unabomber?

    The truth is that modern industrial society is stunningly fragile against a handful of guys who want to kill a bunch of people. For obvious reasons, I am not going to list possible future scenarios here, but anyone with a bit of imagination, or anyone who has read a lot of thrillers, can come up with quite a few.

    Because of over-reaction by the ruling elite, the 9/11 terrorists had an outsized impact.

    But they were just a bunch of guys who managed to take advantage of some real loopholes in American security. And who lucked out in not getting caught.

    The key characteristic of “conspiracy theorists” is that they do not want to believe that huge consequences can flow from small actions by a tiny handful of marginal, nutty people. They want the world to have meaning — it is all really due, as our friend Truth Vigilante recently informed us, to the Illuminati! Or whatever.

    But in fact history often is just one damn thing after another. Gavrilo Princip actually failed to nail Franz Ferdinand when he had planned, but, unfortunately, Franz Ferdinand’s driver made a wrong turn, and Princip got a second chance. Fanny Kaplan, on August 30, 1918, did manage to shoot that evil thug Lenin, but, alas, he survived. And Zangara, sadly, took out Anton Chermak but missed FDR, in my opinion one of the greatest tragedies in American history. And the monster Hitler sadly survived the 20 July attempt to take him out.

    But some people cannot accept contingency.

    And so they need something else. They need the world to have a coherence that it does not in fact have.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  160. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote to Ron Unz:

    [Ron] ‘…I’m very skeptical that the Evangelicals have had much to do with America’s support for Israel.’

    [Colin] To be somewhat unfair about it (or maybe not), the Jews are like STAVKA. The Evangelicals are the poor oiks in the endless waves of Red Army Rifle divisions.

    If anyone doubts that, see the funding and leadership of CUFI, or the activities of that Singer creature.

    I’m not sure we disagree: as I said, I think American Jews are probably the “moneybags” of the American Zionist movement, and they certainly provide the brains (Evangelicals tend not be the brightest among our countrymen!) and most of the organizational skills.

    But you do still need those “endless waves of Red Army Rifle divisions,” don’t you?

    Colin also wrote:

    I think Physicist Dave is a bit too intimate with his Evangelical roots.

    Well, ’tis indeed a bit of a love/hate relationship. As I’ve said, I was never baptized, never joined the church, and was certainly never “born again” and never “accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior”! And I am still angry about the nightmares I had as a young child because of the fire-and-brimstone teaching — of course, those went away once I realized it was all just a sado-masochistic fantasy.

    On the other hand, most of the Evangelicals I grew up among actually were quite nice people. In fact, contrary to popular opinion, most Evangelicals are actually more tolerant than almost any liberals. After all, they know that we are all sinners, and they merely want to save you and me from eternal torture in Hell, which is rather thoughtful of them, don’t you think?

    In a weird way.

    Of course, as you have noted, I certainly do have an evangelistic urge to expose liars and con artists wherever I find them.

    But my family will tell you that this seems to be inborn in me and to antedate my exposure to Evangelical teachings.

    I just have an innate hatred of lies.

    It puzzles me that most people don’t.

  161. Chebyshev says:

    According to this article in Tablet, the daily casualty figures reported by Gaza’s health ministry are fake, as indicated by several anomalies in the data.

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers

    But assuming that’s true, does that mean the figures are wild overestimates? It must be very difficult to accurately estimate the daily casualties in Gaza because of all the destruction inflicted by Israel. Maybe Hamas has just reported inaccurate (but not necessarily inflated) daily casualty figures in a regular, predictable fashion since it’s hard to produce an accurate daily estimate in a 24 hour period over and over again.

    The important thing is the estimate of total casualties. The daily estimates don’t really matter as much. If the total estimate of casualties as well as the age and gender estimates produced by the Gaza health ministry are way off, then why did Biden and Austin cite them? They’re not in the pocket of Hamas.

    • Replies: @bjondo
    , @Patrick McNally
  162. Wild Man says:
    @PhysicistDave

    My dear grandmother (born in the very late 1890’s) was a very devout Roman Catholic who was also a private Christian Zionist. There was a tent revival movement occurring all over North America, in the 1920’s when my grandmother was young woman, and that is from which that ideological vein came to her (and to at least one of her sisters, my American grand-auntie, who often visited us in Canada, and vise versa, as well).

    I was curious and as a young lad (maybe around 13 or 14), I asked her so many questions about this strange belief system (not really Roman Catholic, as per my parental-raising, …to my mind anyways) and she gave me the pertinent reading material (Hal Lindsay’s 1970 book – ‘The Late Great Planet Earth’).

    Of course I have also known some Evangelicals (not Roman Catholic), also Christian Zionist. Converse deeply, …and you will find they believe the same as my grandmother:

    They feel like they are personally burdened, with heavy heart, by the sins of the world, and hope for a way to finally reconcile that, … within the here and now of this earthly realm, …. as all intimately related to what their heart truly wants: Peace and prosperity on earth for all, for all of humanity. They feel that, due to that which their heart truly wants, …. perhaps they are marked this way, ….. and as well, … this precise attitude ( a grasping towards an ‘ontological humility’) may be the elixir that saves them from damnation, in the afterlife.

    I would say that my dear grandmother was oh so very sincerely trying for this ‘ontological humility’ but did not go far enough, and was still off the mark, like the Evangelicals, of course, too (i.e. … I think, in the end, ontological humility demands the refusal of any sort of notion of certainty around afterlife tropes).

    The Christian Zionists are not who you appear to believe they are (with respect to their views on the Judaic). It so happens that the Institutional Christian doctrine (of all denominational stripes) dictates that the Christians are the true inheritors (usurpers?) of the blood covenants that the Judaic Jews prior proclaimed they had with ‘God’. And of course, you do see that as a bad joke (because no one knows the mind of God, …. even an agnostic claiming the atheist mantle, like yourself, will agree with that). OK, …. well what about the Christian Zionists’ heavy hearts, then? What are they to do with that heartfelt-condition that colors their entire lives? I guess they could deign to instead go Buddhist, …. but Buddhism ultimately counsels them to distrust and discount their ‘heavy heart’. So what else is there, for such a heart-centric person, in the west, to adhere to, then?

    OK, … I hope you glean my implied meaning there: The Christian Zionists, because they want afterlife (like nearly everybody wants, apparently), …. but as well are ‘heavy-heart experiencers’, …. deign to believe their rotten and small-minded institutional church fathers (of all Christian denominations actually, as far as I am aware), …. that the magical Jews were first-informed about what is what around ‘God’ interface with humans, …. a template therefore that may be used to deal with their own personal heavy-hearted condition. Look, …. to these heavy-hearted Christian Zionists it is not the Judaic conception of ‘God’ that is the important feature of their faith, (the Christians sense is so convoluted no one really understands, …. Yahweh converted into the triune God, hahahaha!), …. no, …. what is important is that they now have a way to give fuller expression to their heavy-heartedness.

    Coles Notes: I think perhaps you tend to like Evangelicals irl, as you say, because they indeed are people trying for ontological humility (but have not gone far enough, in that endeavor, … but at least it is a start). As such though, there indeed is more spiritual sophistication apparent, among Evangelicals and Christian Zionists of all denominational stripes, than you want to give credit for (i.e. – the heavy-heartedness). I get it, …. since October 7th I have had some convos with the more devout Christians of different kinds, …. and what I observe is that basically they have allowed themselves to see the Palestinians as sub-human (as per Jewish-media and general-Israeli counsel). This all, is going to ideologically break the current thread of Christian Zionism. And that is because of this simple existential fact:

    It is unbelievably and astoundingly sinful to deign to see some others as sub-human, in order to protect your normalized wish for the afterlife. This existential fact will come to visit upon the Christian Zionist movement of the various stripes, … quite soon now, …. and will break it (the current Christian Zionist ordering), ….. yet this doesn’t mean the dissolution of the Christian Zionists, …. they will have to regroup (i.e. – because they still feel burdened with the heavy-heartedness for all the sins of the world), …. and as such we now have an opportunity here to instill real ontological humility into the culture (the full blown version, … not just a half-measure like now with the current Christian Zionists), …. the ‘real’ version goes like this: We humans are a species-collective that is lost in a vast sea of the unknown amidst the infinite backdrop of the unknowable, …. rendering us all as psychically-shocked personages, …. and this ‘shocking’ hurts (because it goes against our deep-felt wish for far more certainty than is actually available), …. and it is within this precise ‘shocking’ condition that we feel deep compassion for the same-said plight of all my human brethren. Nothing more is needed (than these realizations).

    What I am saying is that to truly understand the Evangelicals, or the Christian Zionists (and I am talking about the regular congregation here, … not the church leaders, whom are mostly rotten, as far as I can tell) you must understand their heavy-heartedness, …. because they are onto something important, around that (they just didn’t go far enough with working out an ontological humility that truly gives full expression to this heavy-heartedness, and as such is not just a half-measure). The Christian Zionists are much more-so beholden to ‘human-heavy-heartedness’ than they are to any undying notions of ‘Jews are God’s Chosen People’ (despite the mostly rotten church leaders of all denominational stripes that always deign to refuse that ordering, among the flock in their congregations, …. making it out like that experienced heavy-heartedness among the congratulation is contingent upon seeing ‘Jews are God’s Chosen People’, ……hahahahahaha!, …. and some more hahahahahahaha!, …. these various church leaders are truly dreck, and should not be leading anybody, …including the fucking pope). Don’t mistake the church-going regular folk for their very flawed leadership, … is what I am saying (i.e. – regular Christians tend to understand that uncertainty must hugely feature, within their own personal conception of ‘faith’, … whereas the loons that get up at the pulpit in every church of every Christian denomination, …. twist this conception of ‘faith’ into a bad joke featuring huge but unwarranted certainty).

  163. @PhysicistDave

    You seem to know a lot about this from personal experience, but for some reason you failed to stress the Zionist angle, which also goes back centuries (though it had another name before the 20th century).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  164. Somewhere in the mish-mash, this was part of the founding doctrine of the Mormon church by Joseph Smith.

  165. bjondo says:

    Seymour Hersh:

    I consulted with an experienced American expert who believes that Netanyahu is obligated at this point to offer Hamas reasonable terms for surrender. He said the major elements should be:

    —Surrender of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and his staff to the Israeli forces.

    —Referral of the Hamas leadership to the International Criminal Court for trial.

    —Full disarmament of Hamas.

    —Release of all hostages in Hamas’s control and a full accounting of those who died in captivity.

    The “American expert” would be a Yid, right.

    https://open.substack.com/pub/seymourhersh/p/bidens-bibi-problem?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

    Reasonable?

    5ds

    • Agree: Iris
  166. Chebyshev says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Well, I’m definitely not an expert in running terrorist groups, but I really think any Al Qaeda plan to hijack a couple of commercial planes in the U.S. and fly them into two of the largest Manhattan skyscrapers would’ve required approval from bin Laden.

    The official narrative is that bin Laden was the mastermind of the attacks. Truthers believe government officials at the highest level planned the attacks. They believe either Cheney and Rumsfeld, or Sharon and the Mossad leadership were the masterminds. So everybody agrees the top guys within some organization planned the attacks, so I don’t think 9/11 could’ve been a rogue, “compartmentalized” operation.

    Dumping of a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor and Antifa rioting aren’t really analogous to 9/11. The 10/7 attack by Hamas is probably a good analogy – does anybody think it was planned without the highest level of Hamas’s involvement? I think all JFK conspiracy theorists believe the assassination was planned by the top leadership(s) of the CIA and/or organized crime and/or the Mossad. I think hugely consequential attacks and assassinations that are at all complex require approval from the top of some organizational hierarchy.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @PhysicistDave
  167. Ron Unz says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Well… I’m afraid you are again showing that you don’t have much real-life experience with Evangelicals!

    That’s certainly true, but I really wonder whether the situation you describe had also been true in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.

    For example, the most popular preacher of the 1930s was the Father Coughlin, who I think may have had the second largest radio audience in America after the President. He’d originally been a populist FDR supporter, but turned against him partly because of the Communist influence, and also became very critical of Jewish influence around the same time. His weekly newspaper was banned from the US mails and in a series of steps he was eventually yanked off the air. Obviously, he was Catholic, but I think many of his views were widespread among Evangelical preachers during that same period.

    For example, I’d never heard of Gerald L.K. Smith, but he was supposedly an incredibly popular Protestant stump-orator from the 1930s to the 1950s, who had a huge national following and could fill stadiums for his events. He’d originally started under Huey Long and became an ally of Coughlin.

    I think he was regarded as the leading antisemitic figure in America during some of those decades, and probably for that reason was kept off radio and television by the companies that controlled those. Therefore, his huge Christian following was gradually absorbed by other preachers who were given media access because their views were considered less hostile.

    I’ve never tried to research these issues, just picking things up here and there in my other readings, but I strongly suspect that the philo-Semitism you encountered among Evangelicals may have gradually come from the late 1940s onward, largely due to media influence.

  168. Ron Unz says:
    @PhysicistDave

    The key characteristic of “conspiracy theorists” is that they do not want to believe that huge consequences can flow from small actions by a tiny handful of marginal, nutty people. They want the world to have meaning — it is all really due, as our friend Truth Vigilante recently informed us, to the Illuminati! Or whatever.

    Well, you’re obviously a very smart guy, but analysis without sufficient data can lead to faulty conclusions.

    If you actually look into the details of the 9/11 Attacks, there are probably something like 100 fatal flaws with the “official narrative,” which is absolutely ridiculous in many ways. Perhaps some of them can be successfully explained away, but the total number is enormous.

    I’ll just mention one item. The hijackers were allegedly fanatic Islamicists who were followers of Bin Laden, and they’d lived in Florida for something like six months before the attacks. Yet when an investigative journalist went down there and talked with the locals, he found the hijackers had all been heavily involved in drinking alcohol, using drugs, eating pork, and spending time in strip-joints or with prostitutes. That’s hardly typical behavior for fanatic Islamic fundamentalists.

    Incidentally, there’s also very strong evidence that Timothy McVeigh’s involvement in the OKC Bombing was part of a much larger plot in which he was probably something of a fall-guy although the exact details aren’t clear. For example, it seems very likely that the building was actually destroyed by bombs placed inside it rather than by a truck parked outside. At the time, there were lots of public statements by the initial rescue workers that they found unexploded bombs inside the building and had to defuse them, and I think the governor even reported that in a press conference. However, it’s not at all clear who exactly was responsible or why, although there are numerous conflicting theories.

    Still, I can certainly understand why you’d prefer not to admit that all these cans of worms exist let along open them, so I won’t press the point. But if you ever do get interested, my articles provide a pretty good road-map to the source material, allowing people to do their own research or make up their minds.

    • Replies: @orchardist
  169. Ron Unz says:
    @Chebyshev

    Well, I’m definitely not an expert in running terrorist groups, but I really think any Al Qaeda plan to hijack a couple of commercial planes in the U.S. and fly them into two of the largest Manhattan skyscrapers would’ve required approval from bin Laden

    What I found particularly striking and suspicious was that Bin Laden almost immediately denied that he’d had anything to do with the 9/11 Attacks, but even though I always carefully read all my MSM sources, I only discovered that shocking fact about a decade later, though some article on Counterpunch.

    One would think that Bin Laden’s public statement was important enough that it would have been reported in some American MSM outlet.

    There’s such a huge number of enormous holes in the official 9/11 narrative that each of us can simply pick which are the most important.

    I think the entire 9/11 issue should be divided into two entirely separate pieces. The first question is whether the official story is false and the second is who was actually behind the attacks. Many people can fully agree about the first and then diverge on the second, which is why I’ve tried to usually segment my own analyses in that way.

    • Replies: @Chebyshev
    , @Colin Wright
  170. Chebyshev says:
    @Ron Unz

    One would think that Bin Laden’s public statement was important enough that it would have been reported in some American MSM outlet.

    There’s such a huge number of enormous holes in the official 9/11 narrative that each of us can simply pick which are the most important.

    I think the entire 9/11 issue should be divided into two entirely separate pieces. The first question is whether the official story is false and the second is who was actually behind the attacks. Many people can fully agree about the first and then diverge on the second, which is why I’ve tried to usually segment my own analyses in that way.

    Yes, the lack of reporting of bin Laden’s denial of responsibility suggests that bin Laden’s involvement was essential for the official narrative.

    The 9/11 attacks took place in New York City. That massive city has produced zero trillion-dollar companies, but your small Palo Alto has produced four:

    https://map.simonsarris.com/p/small-spaces

    It has also produced American Pravda, which is worth a lot, but not a trillion dollars. It would be worth tens of billions if its contents went mainstream.

    • Thanks: Ron Unz
  171. @Ron Unz

    And maybe the best of these is that of Theodore Taylor, famous Nuclear Explosives Designer, who in 1973 told the world in the book by John McPhee, The Curve of Binding Energy, how the Twin Towers could be easily brought down by using a small-yield nuclear device, mounted in a shaped-charge form in the basements of each of the two buildings, pointed vertically up.

    Some folks still seem to have trouble with that thesis, when Taylor, who was the most knowledgeable man of these things at the time, was NOT hesitant to put forth a very simple, but detailed plan, many times.

  172. bjondo says:
    @Chebyshev

    According to me Tablet and Abraham Wyner
    are longstanding fakes. Whatever figures we

    have from Gaza, those from Hamas would be
    honest, if not exact, but would most certainly

    be an under count. My estimate still one mill.

    5ds

  173. Chebyshev says:

    Matt Yglesias raises an important point about this time four years ago, when Corona had just become a national emergency:

    If we accept that the Covid pandemic was started by members of the Trump Administration, like Pompeo or Bolton, then perhaps the reason for the reversal of the politics of Covid during spring 2020 becomes clear.

    Initially, Trump thought it was a good idea to be tough on Covid, a virus that he thought originated in China, and favored quarantining NYC and the wearing of masks. But at this point, when it was clear that the virus was going to be as bad for America as it was supposed to be for China, maybe Pompeo or whoever became very nervous that they were going to be caught and then executed. They could’ve pushed Trump to be soft on Covid so that the economy would take less of a hit from lockdowns and also so that no one would ever suspect that members of Trump’s administration actually started the pandemic through a biowarfare attack. Then, liberals were negative polarized into supporting quarantines and masking, a reversal of their lackadaisical stance earlier on.

  174. @PhysicistDave

    Fizzy-cyst Dovid writes (in relation to the 19 Muslims that were falsely accused of hijacking four aircraft on 9/11):

    It was something like twenty guys, a few of whom learned some very, very basic flying skills (they did not learn how to land!) and who managed to get through lax security at Logan, Newark, and Dulles.

    Dovid Miller writes this despite the info I posted in an earlier comment that emphatically demonstrated that THERE IS NO PROOF THAT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE 19 INDIVIDUALS BOARDED ANY OF THOSE FOUR AIRCRAFT.

    Moreover, SEVEN (7) of them were still alive after 9/11.

    These anomalies do not concern Dovid Miller. His handlers have instructed him to repeat OVER and OVER, the official narrative.
    Similarly in the case of Third Reich Germany when he writes:

    And the monster Hitler sadly survived the 20 July attempt to take him out.

    Of course, any objective assessment of WWII atrocities will show clearly that the Anglo-Zionist empire committed BY FAR the most egregious crimes (both quantitatively and qualitatively).
    Dovid Miller does occasionally give FDR and Winston Spendthrift Churchill a rap on the knuckles and say they were flawed individuals, but he will NEVER say that they were the stand-out war criminals of WWII.

    Dovid Miller does it once again when he speaks of: ‘Tim McVeigh blowing up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City?’

    Anyone who has looked into that event will know that McVeigh was a patsy, who had nothing to do with the destruction of that building.
    The blowing up of the Murrah Bldg was yet another ZOG orchestrated crime, intended to be blamed on Iraq, and used as a pretext for military intervention.
    There is a deluge of evidence that shows McVeigh did not blow up the Murrah Building (no truck/van parked in front of the building could have caused that type of damage – explosives were pre-planted INSIDE the building).
    But, for those of you that are (like Dovid Miller) completely clueless about this ZOG orchestrated False Flag, I urge you to take the time to watch this video about a brave Oklahoma policeman that was murdered because he found out the truth about what occurred that day:

    The video is called ‘Requiem for the Suicided: Terrance Yeakey’ and the caption below the clip reads:

    In this edition we turn the focus of our open source investigation to Sgt. Terrance Yeakey, one of the first responder heroes at the scene of the OKC bombing who discovered something that conflicted with the official story of the bombing…something that cost him his life.

    Dovid says the things that he does because his handlers in Herzliya (in Occupied Palestine) have handed him a script. And that script says: ‘Keep repeating the lie over and over’.
    With enough repetition the non-critical thinkers will end up believing it.

    And so it has come to pass, as people like Colin Wrong still keeps bleating the party line. ie: that Al Qaeda orchestrated 9/11 and that the Holohoax* occurred.
    (*Colin Wrong no doubt still believes that a significant subset of Jewry were turned into lampshades and soap during that ZOG orchestrated conflict).

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  175. @Chebyshev

    Chebyshev wrote to me:

    I think all JFK conspiracy theorists believe the assassination was planned by the top leadership(s) of the CIA and/or organized crime and/or the Mossad.

    That is indeed probably what they think.

    That does not mean that what they think has any connection to reality.

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    Cheb also wrote:

    Well, I’m definitely not an expert in running terrorist groups, but I really think any Al Qaeda plan to hijack a couple of commercial planes in the U.S. and fly them into two of the largest Manhattan skyscrapers would’ve required approval from bin Laden.

    Well, it is very, very nice that you “really think” that.

    The mere fact that you “really think” something is is not evidence.

    One of the things that goes on in talking with you conspiracy theorists is that you claim that you “really think” something and then seem to believe that the fact that you “really think” that means that sane people are obligated to to prove you wrong.

    Proof to your satisfaction.

    You are mistaken.

    We sane folks have no obligation of any sort to prove anything to your satisfaction.

    You guys are the ones who are trying to convince us of something. We are not trying to convince you.

    I am a lifelong connoisseur of cults — from Christian fundamentalists to Scientolo0gists to Mormons to Young Earth Creationists to 911 Truthers.

    I know that I could spend every minute of every day for the rest of my life proving that one claim after another made by some particular cultist is false.

    And yet it would make no difference.

    Look, for example, at “Truth Vigilante”: he made the following accusation against me (see here) in which he claims that I have:

    been shunned by fellow academics because he has a history of peddling junk science/been a serial offender in falsifying data etc,

    Truth Vigilante does not even pretend to have any evidence that I have been viewed by any academics at all as being guilty of “falsifying data.”

    And indeed, Truth Vigilante could not have such evidence: anyone can look at my Ph.D. thesis, available online, and see that I was not reporting on data I had taken myself. I was evaluating data reported by experimentalists and comparing that data to theoretical predictions. I had no opportunity to falsify data even had I wanted to.

    And this pathological liar’s response when I point that he is quite obviously lying? He responds (see here):

    This is the third or fourth time Fizzy-cyst Dovid has whined about the exposure of his less-than-illustrious tenure at Sanford and Son university.
    UR readers, I ask you this, if the allegations had no merit, of course Fizzy Dov would ignore them and not make an issue out of it.

    But it really gets under his skin. The fact that he could be exposed as an academic fraud has entailed many a sleepless night.

    Again, note: he does not claim to have any evidence.

    Instead, he explains that “UR readers” should believe him, because it does annoy me to have someone blatantly libel me in this way!

    Because, I suppose, an innocent person would not be annoyed by being blatantly libeled?

    The important point here is that this does not cause the 911 Truthers here to dismiss Truth Vigilante as the obvious pathologically lying thug that he is.

    He continues to get approval.

    You see my point?

    This matter with Truth Vigilante is open and shut.

    But it makes no difference.

    There is no possibility at all — absolutely zero — of getting cultists like 911 Truthers to behave honestly.

    You and I have discussed the issue of Evangelicals and the fact that the Bible is obviously not literally, word for word, true: for example, the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke blatantly and bizarrely contradict each other.

    I have pointed this out to fundamentalists: it makes no difference.

    Just like with 911 Truthers.

    In both cases, what they care about is their self-image and their self-identification as members of some supposedly elite group.

    It goes back to my favorite quote from Vonnegut:

    And here, according to Trout, was the reason human beings could not reject ideas because they were bad: “Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter. Friends agreed with friends, in order to express friendliness. Enemies disagreed with enemies, in order to express enmity.

    “The ideas Earthlings held didn’t matter for hundreds of thousands of years, since they couldn’t do much about them anyway. Ideas might as well be badges as anything.

    “They even had a saying about the futility of ideas: ‘If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.’

    “And then Earthlings discovered tools. Suddenly agreeing with friends could be a form of suicide or worse. But agreements went on, not for the sake of common sense or decency or self-preservation, but for friendliness.

    “Earthlings went on being friendly, when they should have been thinking instead. And even when they built computers to do some thinking for them, they designed them not so much for wisdom as for friendliness. So they were doomed. Homicidal beggars could ride.”

    Yes, that is what Sceintology and Young Earth Creationism and Mormonism and fundamentalism and, yes, the 911 Truthers are: groups whose beliefs are badges of group identity.

    Anyone here want to prove me wrong?

    Show me all the 911 Truthers willing to denounce Truth Vigilante for the obvious pathological liar that he is.

    Is there even one 911 Truther here willing to do that?

    Even one?

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  176. @Truth Vigilante

    Our Hitler -lover (see here) Truth Vigilante wrote to me:

    Fizzy-cyst Dovid writes (in relation to the 19 Muslims that were falsely accused of hijacking four aircraft on 9/11):

    It was something like twenty guys, a few of whom learned some very, very basic flying skills (they did not learn how to land!) and who managed to get through lax security at Logan, Newark, and Dulles.

    Dovid Miller writes this despite the info I posted in an earlier comment that emphatically demonstrated that THERE IS NO PROOF THAT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE 19 INDIVIDUALS BOARDED ANY OF THOSE FOUR AIRCRAFT.

    Moreover, SEVEN (7) of them were still alive after 9/11.

    Well, that would be something if you had actual evidence for that!

    Don’t you think that maybe some media outlet not controlled by the Deep State — say al-Jazeera or rt.com or The Grayzone or Tucker — might have published that evidence if it really existed?

    But it is just one more of your lies, isn’t it?

    I want to remind everyone that you made the following maliciously false accusation against me (see here) in which you claimed that I have:

    been shunned by fellow academics because he has a history of peddling junk science/been a serial offender in falsifying data etc,

    But you have not even pretended to have any evidence that I have been viewed by any academics at all as being guilty of “falsifying data”!

    And your response when I pointed that you are quite obviously lying? You said (see here):

    This is the third or fourth time Fizzy-cyst Dovid has whined about the exposure of his less-than-illustrious tenure at Sanford and Son university.
    UR readers, I ask you this, if the allegations had no merit, of course Fizzy Dov would ignore them and not make an issue out of it.

    But it really gets under his skin. The fact that he could be exposed as an academic fraud has entailed many a sleepless night.

    Again, you do not even claim to have any evidence.

    Instead, you claim that “UR readers” should believe you, because it does indeed annoy me to have someone blatantly libel me in this way!

    Because, I suppose, an innocent person would not be annoyed by being blatantly libeled?

    But I gotta admit: you certainly have your fellow 911 Truthers pegged!

    Because not a one has been willing to denounce you as the obvious pathological liar that you are. Despite the fact that the proof is beyond dispute.

    Because they are all pathetically evil members of a cult.

    Oh, my friend, you guys are indeed the Mother Lode, a priceless vein of psychotic cultists!

    I could not have asked for specimens in my ongoing study of human psychopathology as rewarding as all of you!

    Beware the Ides of March!

    Your friendly neighborhood Illuminatus,

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    • Agree: Mark G.
  177. @Brás Cubas

    Brás Cubas wrote to me:

    You seem to know a lot about this from personal experience, but for some reason you failed to stress the Zionist angle, which also goes back centuries (though it had another name before the 20th century).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

    Oh, I have mentioned that in other comments (see here for example), specifically Shlomo Sand’s detailed discussion in his books. As the Wikipedia article you link to notes, this has been a subject of extensive and detailed scholarship, with a number of scholarly books on the subject, even more than the extensive list in Wikipedia.

    For example, Wikipedia does not even mention Philosemitism in History, edited by Karp and Sutcliffe, which I was recently perusing.

    But I just can’t mention everything in every comment! Each comment would end up being a hundred thousand words!

    Dave

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
  178. For Catholics: Vatican I and II are dead. Vatican II was a gnostic council and published error and JP IIs Catechism published error thus nullifying Vatican I.

    Vatican I & II are dead, the proof:
    https://www.academia.edu/114768631/

    It is all pretty bad. But on the good side–union with the Orthodox and reunion with the Old Catholics will be possible now!

  179. Chebyshev says:

    Asad Abukhalil crushed it on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher in fall of 2001. He argued against blaming Muslims for 9/11 as well as against the Afghanistan War and U.S. sanctions on Iraq.

    https://pumpkinperson.com/2021/05/31/the-iq-of-asad-abukhalil/

  180. @PhysicistDave

    I just have an innate hatred of lies.

    It puzzles me that most people don’t.

    I’d say I hate conscious lies, calculated to deceive. In fact, they infuriate me.

    But I see someone like Truth Vigilante as more incapable of distinguishing between what he would like to be true and what is true than anything else; I think he sincerely believes what whatever it is he’s saying when he says it. At worst, in the heat of the fray he just starts slinging whatever abuse comes to hand without regard to whether it’s factual or even plausible.

    That sort of thing is more exasperating than infuriating; infuriating is like when Israel claims it is striving to minimize civilian casualties.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  181. @Ron Unz

    ‘What I found particularly striking and suspicious was that Bin Laden almost immediately denied that he’d had anything to do with the 9/11 Attacks…’

    I didn’t find it either striking or suspicious.

    If I have the sequence of events right, the situation immediately after 9/11 was that Osama bin Laden had taken refuge in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan took the position that we hadn’t proven he was responsible for the attacks — so they weren’t going to turn him over.

    Obviously, if that ploy was to work, Osama bin Laden would have had to deny any involvement in the attacks. It wouldn’t have done at all for him to then insist he had mounted the attacks. Given such a statement, Afghanistan would logically have had to wash their hands of him.

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
    • Replies: @Chebyshev
    , @Ron Unz
  182. Wild Man says:
    @PhysicistDave

    “But some people cannot accept contingency.

    And so they need something else. They need the world to have a coherence that it does not in fact have.”

    Mmmm. Are you arguing against some sense of ‘conservation of coherence’, within human affairs (i.e. – what do you mean, precisely, by ‘contingency’?). Assuming you meant the usual, by ‘contigency’, …. that would be a crazy stance for a physicist to take – no? Maybe you should change your knee-jerk critical responsorial psalm from ‘things, over words’ (as directed to those you disagree with) to ‘meaning, over things’. After all, … that is indeed what you physicists are attempting to do (by way of deep dives into said coherence, that we do indeed, find all around us, all the time), … and we salute you on that front, … but jeez, … don’t fucking play low-ball with us, by way of that dis-respect then offered (what is allowed for you is not allowed for us, to your mind, it seems), …. respect is a two-way street.

    People that have managed to ‘change the world’ (as you say), … that action didn’t just happen by accident. This weak signal of coherence is real, …. that a minority of people with clear insights often do see things quite differently than the officious cultural version, …. and usually are flummoxed by this dynamic, …. causing them, generally, to stand-down mostly, on any existential type action (like an assassination, let’s say), that they may be contemplating, ….. but yet by way of action of ‘large numbers’ (many, many, many individual humans), …. you cannot say that this weak signal is an illusion, ….. it indeed does make itself overt, very very occasionally within overall human affairs. It is odd that you seem to discount this ‘cultural weak-signal coherence’, which is obvious (to my mind, anyways).

  183. Sparkon says:
    @PhysicistDave

    [NB: My first attempt to post this comment ran into database error, so I’m trying again with my apology if it turns out to be a duplicate]

    PhysicistDave wrote:

    Anyone here want to prove me wrong?

    Show me all the 911 Truthers willing to denounce Truth Vigilante for the obvious pathological liar that he is.

    Is there even one 911 Truther here willing to do that?

    Even one?

    Obviously, you haven’t taken part in very many of the 9/11 or COVID discussions at Unz Review, or you wouldn’t even ask this question.

    First, let me say that, In general, I prefer to discuss facts, not people.

    But just for your edification, I’ve had to call TV “a lying sack of shit,” on several occasions after he posted a video of some guy claiming it was I.

    Sparkon says:
    September 3, 2022 at 8:11 pm GMT • 1.6 years ago ↑
    @Truth Vigilante

    This makes the third time you have posted that video to make false accusations against me, you lying sack of shit.

    By again making this false accusation, you prove only that you are a desperate and despicable low-life.

    https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/9-11-jfk-covid-holocaust-will-americans-be-the-last-to-know-that-their-leaders-are-criminally-insane/?showcomments#comment-5526048

    That comment got me a “Troll” tag from Iris, btw.

    Sparkon says:
    December 22, 2022 at 6:07 pm GMT • 1.2 years ago ↑
    @Truth Vigilante

    otherwise I’ll trot out that video of yours taken in a Walmart where you’re taking photos of minors.

    You persist in telling this idiotic lie, as if to underscore the fact that you’re an Internet crank, and a lying sack of shit, to boot.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-and-the-covid-cover-up/?showcomments#comment-5719492

    Another one:

    https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/why-chomsky-is-wrong-about-9-11/#comment-5846797

    Will you now acknowledge, Physicist Dave, that you’ve been proven wrong?

    ~

    Back to 9/11. You’ve written a lot of rather boastful words here, but not a single word in reply to my 1,300 word comment #154, above, where I began

    There were no hijacked jetliners that crashed anywhere on September 11, 2001.

    So now, the ball’s in your court, Dave.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  184. @PhysicistDave

    Greetings, Dave,

    I hope this comment finds you well.

    I do remember reports at the time (September 2001) of some of the alleged hijackers (four of them if memory serves) being alive after the event. These stories were not widely publicized at the time, though they were not difficult to find either. Here is one such example…

    Hijack ‘suspects’ alive and well

    Whether these are cases of mistaken identity, a part of some nefarious scheme, or just plain old incompetence, I have no idea. Perhaps it’s just confusion due to the hysteria surrounding the event.(?)

    I do know that the official narrative has a foul stench…

    FBI Bin Laden Wanted Poster

    I hope you have a great weekend, Dave!

  185. @PhysicistDave

    ‘…I just have an innate hatred of lies.

    It puzzles me that most people don’t.’

    To expand on this a bit further — and to tie it into my response to Evangelicals…

    I don’t see religious faith as a lie; it certainly doesn’t infuriate me. I consistently find the various sets of tenets implausible; but others obviously do not. If they are ‘lying,’ they’re doing an awfully good job of it. I just find their conviction at best understandable if mistaken, and at worst simply incomprehensible.

    I leave it at that. It’s like the obvious love the world prior to about 1900 had for poetry — bits aside, I can’t really share it, but I don’t think on that account that everyone up to our era was lying.

    As I already said, there are lies, and there are mistaken beliefs. Newton was wrong about physics — but he wasn’t ‘lying.’ Nor was Aristotle — who was really mistaken — ‘lying.’ It would merely appear they were wrong, that’s all.

    The distinction can be extended to 9/11 Truthers and even Holocaust Deniers. Without going further, suffice it to say that my opinion is that they are wrong — but I don’t see them as ‘lying,’ nor do I find their statements infuriating. More exasperating — again as I said. Such fallacies get in the way of a useful discussion of what occurred.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  186. Chebyshev says:
    @Colin Wright

    If I have the sequence of events right, the situation immediately after 9/11 was that Osama bin Laden had taken refuge in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan took the position that we hadn’t proven he was responsible for the attacks — so they weren’t going to turn him over.

    Obviously, if that ploy was to work, Osama bin Laden would have had to deny any involvement in the attacks. It wouldn’t have done at all for him to then insist he had mounted the attacks. Given such a statement, Afghanistan would logically have had to wash their hands of him.

    Your memory of that period is definitely better than mine, but I thought the main value of the attacks from bin Laden’s perspective, besides the destruction of the WTC and the loss of so many American lives, was that they would provoke the U.S. to enter into a costly quagmire-war in Asia. If that was bin Laden’s motive, and he was hiding in a cave in rural Afghanistan, then he would’ve accepted responsibility for the attacks and as a result would’ve given the U.S. a good reason to invade Afghanistan.

    Did the Afghan government even know where bin Laden was or have the ability to go capture him? It took an elite Navy SEAL unit to eventually go and kill him almost a decade later.

  187. @Chebyshev

    Wait a minute:

    Didn’t he die in France 10 years BEFORE 9/11 of Kidney failure?

  188. @Adam Smith

    Just imagine what would occur if ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et al, would just air the footage of Just Pull It! by LuckyLarry Silvertongue? On prime time? And, again on the weekend?

    Did the girl in St. Louis, who had her head smacked against the concrete by a 15 YO Diverse Being, who are the Jew’s greatest strength, and battering rams, get national MSM coverage? Did Channon Christian? Did George Floyd? Who decides what news is fit to print?

    “The First Amendment is not absolute because a bunch of White Goyim had the audacity to flee judaized England, and feudalism, too, do all the heavy lifting, and then bothered to create the Bill of Rights without regard to – is it (will it be) good for the Jews?! But, it’s ok because we’ll use the Freedom of Religion, and All Men Were Created Equal mumbo-jumbo clauses, as a shield against any criticism of Jewry and the World Cattle Pen to Come prophesy.” – US Representative, Dan Goldman (not a Goy), defending legacy Americans, first and foremost. (Perhaps I paraphrased, but I just know I’m not inaccurate)

    • Replies: @niceland
  189. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote to me:

    I don’t see religious faith as a lie; it certainly doesn’t infuriate me. I consistently find the various sets of tenets implausible; but others obviously do not. If they are ‘lying,’ they’re doing an awfully good job of it. I just find their conviction at best understandable if mistaken, and at worst simply incomprehensible.

    I myself have had several members of the clergy confess to me personally that they knew that what they were telling their congregations was false.

    You may not like to call that “lying,” but I think that is what the ordinary word in English does mean.

    And my own experience in this is not unusual: see, for example, the book by retired United Churhc of Christ pastor Jack Good, The Dishonest Church: he gives evidence from the inside.

    And similarly for the second edition of Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind by Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola.

    Yes, they are indeed lying, and, to use your words, “they’re doing an awfully good job of it.” It’s their source of income.

    As to the people in the pews… have you ever tried to point out to any of those who claim to believe in the literal, word-for-word truth of the Bible the obvious contradictions between, say, the genealogies in Matthew and Luke?

    They do not react well. I think that level of dishonesty counts as lying.

    Colin also wrote:

    The distinction can be extended to 9/11 Truthers and even Holocaust Deniers. Without going further, suffice it to say that my opinion is that they are wrong — but I don’t see them as ‘lying,’ nor do I find their statements infuriating.

    Have you read my repeated posts above directly quoting Truth Vigilante’s claims about me — that I engaged in “falsifying data” in the academic world?

    He does not pretend to have any evidence at all of this — he is just lying.

    And I have had numerous other experiences of the same sort with these guys. As far as I can tell, to a man, they are psychotic pathological liars.

    You are an easy-going guy who would prefer just to block all the liars like Truth Vigilante rather than come our and call them what they are.

    Fine — your choice.

    Nonetheless, it is most assuredly true that a lot of Christian preachers — again, some have confessed this to me personally — are knowingly and intentionally lying. And the same is provably true for Truth Vigilante and his ilk.

    We can debate what fraction of both groups are liars. But a significant fraction certainly and provably are.

    Read Jack Good’s book. And look at my posts directly quoting Truth Vigilante’s knowing and intentional libels against me.

    Sorry, but facts are what they are.

    Dave

  190. niceland says:
    @Tiptoethrutulips

    Just imagine what would occur if ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et al, would just air the footage of Just Pull It! by LuckyLarry Silvertongue? On prime time?

    Since I recall excellent comment about this from six months ago I am going to post it here: Written by Intelligent Dasein:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/remembering-the-9-11-truth-movement/?showcomments#comment-6147968

    9/11 Truthers are not very skilled at epistemic contextualism. They don’t track the plot; they don’t think about how things would have to be done and what kind of preparations that would entail, and who would have to know about them; they don’t care about who is saying what to whom and why, and what they knew at the time. They just lift facts and snippets of dialogue out of context and assemble them into alternative explanations of reality.

    One particularly egregious example of this is the mythology they’ve woven around Larry Silverstein saying “maybe the best thing to do is to pull it.”

    The Truthers would have us believe that this was Silverstein giving the order to proceed with the controlled demolition of Building 7, but this makes no sense at all in context.

    First of all, the quote comes from an interview Silverstein was doing for a PBS documentary. It was him talking about an event that occurred several years in the past. And what was he talking about? He was talking about a telephone conversation he had with the Fire Commander on 9/11. If this had anything to do with a controlled demolition, we would have to assume the following:

    First, we would have to assume that Building 7 was already prewired for demolition. We would have to assume that both Larry Silverstein and the Fire Commander knew this and were in on the plot to demolish the building, since that is supposedly what they were talking about. We would have to assume that the Fire Commander, even though he intended to blow up the building, for some reason allowed his men in and around the building to fight the fires that were burning there, where they might be blown up or at the very least discover some evidence of the planted explosives. Then we would have to assume that the masterminds of 9/11, having no clear plan as to when they wanted Building 7 to come down, left this critical decision strangely in the hands of Larry Silverstein and the Fire Commander. We have to assume that either Silverstein or the Commander had access to the controls to initiate the demolition, or were in communication with the people who did have such access (in which case, since their locations and communications at the time were known, would be an easily discoverable smoking gun). And finally, to crown it all, we have to assume that, after going through all this elaborate maskirovka to pull off the crime of the century, Larry Silverstein decides to just casually admit to it all on national television.

    The ineptly named “Truth” movement has done irreparable damage to the collective sanity of our society. It has accustomed tens of millions of people to the dangerous habits of sloppy, decontextualized thinking and of believing things without evidence and without reason. And it has created an heuristic out of the loopy notion that official sources always lie about everything, and since they always lie about everything, any crazy-ass alternative notion I come up with must be the truth. This is a recipe for civilizational disaster that has done more harm to our society than the 9/11 attacks themselves.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  191. niceland says:
    @Sparkon

    It’s strange, I think I recall reading few reasonable comments from you, and then you continue to post this ridiculous theory about ‘no airplanes’

    Rurik had good comment about this:
    https://www.unz.com/runz/remembering-the-9-11-truth-movement/?showcomments#comment-6148138

    Someone gathered 50 videos showing the airplane hit the south tower.

    In reply to Jonathan Revusky about the ‘no airplanes theory’ I made this comment. Challenging him to fire up his brain for once – well it didn’t work. Still, here is the relevant part.
    https://www.unz.com/runz/remembering-the-9-11-truth-movement/?showcomments#comment-6152243

    Put yourself in the shoes of those who planned the whole 9-11 attack, no doubt months or years before it happened. What is involved in this operation. Let me start with few problems they faced in this proverbial scenario, remember it’s just a start:

    One example: you claim the TV crews who were live streaming events on Manhattan were showing carefully doctored material. The airplane and perhaps much more was faked! Right away we have a problem, because this material they were showing must have been doctored and prepared before September 11. It takes time to create such material so it was probably done weeks or months before the attack. Sept 11. was by all accounts bright and lovely early autumn day in New York. How did the people who made the videos account for this? How did they know it wasn’t raining with dark overclouds? Or windy?

    We have more technological problems, how could they create videos beforehand showing none existent airplanes hit the towers and leaving gaping holes in the walls – perfectly matching all the photographs taken after the fact? If there were no airplanes the holes in the walls were made how? How did they create the dent’s in the cladding from the none existent airplanes – seen clearly in many photos?

    Another problem is, how can you get TV stations to air faked material during and after such horrible attack on the U.S? Each TV station has plenty of staff in the know, including techs, how can you get them to play along and keep quiet when thousands of their fellow Americans were killed in this heinous act? Is this plausible?

    Yet another problem the planners of the attack faced is of course air traffic control, both military and civilian, how do you get them to play along when you are murdering fellow Americans, perhaps friends, relatives, ex coworkers etc? I don’t know the details of the theory you subscribe to but we obviously have the problem with the airlines as well, what happened to their airplanes and the passengers. Here we have a host of problems depending on what version of the theory we are considering.

    The first “explosion” in the North Tower came out of the blue and no one was paying attention. It’s possible to imagine the PTB had some wiggle room there. But with the North Tower smoking for several minutes – all eyes were on it, and plenty of cameras as well. How did the perpetrators of the attack manage to fool everyone who was looking and deal with the video footage posted on the web following the attack? Did they have total control over the web and just deleted original footage and replaced it with doctored fake material, and then silenced everyone who posted the originals?

    If you think about it you are attributing god-like powers to the perpetrators of the attack on 9-11.

    The ball isn’t in your court, because there is no ball here to play with. Just nonsense.

  192. @PhysicistDave

    ‘…You are an easy-going guy who would prefer just to block all the liars like Truth Vigilante rather than come our and call them what they are…’

    It’s all relative, I suppose. In the extra-Unz Review world, I’m generally not regarded as easy going.

    Around here? It appears to be a different story.

    In any case, you have to take a utilitarian view of these things. Don’t you think there must be better uses for your time than jousting with Truth Vigilante? I doubt if anyone even reads those exchanges other than you and ‘Truth.’

    ‘Truth’ spews a lot of crap; you become infuriated. I, for one, gather that as I scan over it. Think anyone is reading them more carefully?

    What, then, is the point? I mean, there are people you could have more useful exchanges with.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  193. @PhysicistDave

    ‘…We can debate what fraction of both groups are liars. But a significant fraction certainly and provably are.’

    And the majority almost necessarily are not. If they were, the various faiths would collapse of their own weight. For whatever reason, most involved with religions either believe, need to believe, or at least need to tell themselves they believe.

    Hell, maybe they’re right. It’s possible. In any case, it’s a different matter than me telling you that I am striving to avoid killing civilians when I just announced food distribution points and then targeted those who showed up.

    There are erroneous beliefs, and there are deliberate attempts to deceive. Even among our Zionists, perhaps one reason I cannot get too angry with Fran Taubman is that I think she really does believe her own bullshit. JackD et al, on the other hand, make statements that they must know are false and/or misleading. They make them intending to deceive and mislead me.

    There is a distinction.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  194. @Chebyshev

    ‘Did the Afghan government even know where bin Laden was or have the ability to go capture him? It took an elite Navy SEAL unit to eventually go and kill him almost a decade later.’

    There was something screwy about all that. I’m not sure just what the truth was — but I don’t find the official story all that credible.

  195. Ron Unz says:
    @niceland

    The ball isn’t in your court, because there is no ball here to play with. Just nonsense.

    Thanks for those two absolutely excellent comments. I was taking a look at this thread and as usual saw all that ridiculous nonsense, both about Silverstein’s supposedly damning quote and the No Planes Hypothesis. Naturally, I was very irritated, but didn’t think I had the time or energy to try to refute them. I’d forgotten those long responses but will now try to keep them in mind for the future.

    Those sorts of illogical absurdities are exactly the reason an intelligent, sensible individual such as PhysicistDave dismisses and rejects the entire 9/11 Truth movement.

    Unfortunately, the biggest problem with 9/11 Truth has always been many of the 9/11 Truthers.

    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  196. Ron Unz says:
    @PhysicistDave

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    Actually, that’s the point. There’s an absolute mountain of powerful evidence regarding both the JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks, though admittedly much of it is obscured by the more foolish or implausible theories that conspiracy-activists have overlaid on top of it.

    The reason you’re not aware of the evidence is that our MSM has entirely avoided presenting it in any reasonable fashion. I certainly can’t blame you, since until about a dozen years ago I was entirely in your situation and had exactly your framework of assumptions.

    Let me just cite a single JFK item I was revisiting earlier today, something probably unknown to well over 99% of JFK assassination activists.

    Prof. John Newman spent 20 years in Military Intelligence, even once working for my old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan. After retiring from the military, Newman became a history professor and he’s subsequently spent decades using his Intelligence skills to exhaustively collate and analyze declassified government documents from the 1960s, publishing a series of books describing his conclusions.

    In one of them, entitled Oswald and the CIA, he pieced together certain crucial elements of the JFK conspiracy and cover-up and even determined the identity of the key CIA figure involved. That turned out to be James Angleton, the very controversial longtime chief of Counter-Intelligence. Many other JFK researchers had also suspected Angleton on entirely different grounds, but Newman’s work dramatically strengthened that likelihood.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-and-the-covid-cover-up/

    Thus, many, many very knowledgeable and intelligent individuals have spent decades gathering exactly the “extraordinary evidence” you request. But since the MSM has never mentioned it, you’re simply unaware it exists.

    Meanwhile, the JFK Assassination field is naturally overrun with every sort of conspiracy-crank, crackpot, and lunatic you can imagine, which serves to totally obscure the very high-quality research produced by someone like Prof. Newman.

    If you’re actually interested in the subject, I’d recommend my own 2018 article as a good starting point:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-i-what-happened/

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  197. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote to me:

    In any case, you have to take a utilitarian view of these things. Don’t you think there must be better uses for your time than jousting with Truth Vigilante? I doubt if anyone even reads those exchanges other than you and ‘Truth.’

    ‘Truth’ spews a lot of crap; you become infuriated.

    Me? Infuriated?

    Nah — I’m enjoying it!

    You seem not to believe that I really am using these guys as lab specimens.

    But I am.

    After I finish my book on General Relativity, I really am considering writing a book on the social and historical ramifications of human psychopathology.

    And, as I keep saying, I have never in my life seen this level of concentration of psychotics in one single place.

    Absolutely priceless! A true Mother Lode of human psychopathology.

    You don’t share my interest in this? Cool.

    You probably do not share my interest in General Relativity, either.

    But I truly am fascinated by this subject and always have been, since I was a young kid.

    I have always been a true connoisseur of cults, going back to my days in grade school.

    Different people just have different interests, eh?

    Perhaps you are interested in craft beers and collegiate football, neither of which holds the slightest interest for me.

  198. @PhysicistDave

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    Logically, I find that unconvincing. It presupposes that our initial assumptions are probably correct.

    Is that really the case? Wouldn’t your first impressions be that the world is flat, that the sun circles the earth, that a rocket couldn’t fly in a vacuum, and no doubt more?

    So why should ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’? What makes ‘ordinary claims’ more likely to be true? After all, as it has turned out, they’re often not.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  199. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    If I have the sequence of events right, the situation immediately after 9/11 was that Osama bin Laden had taken refuge in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan took the position that we hadn’t proven he was responsible for the attacks — so they weren’t going to turn him over.

    Obviously, if that ploy was to work, Osama bin Laden would have had to deny any involvement in the attacks.

    I’m still very skeptical. The whole purpose of a terrorist attack to to demonstrate that a small organization can inflict serious damage upon a powerful country, and not taking any credit for the attack defeats that purpose.

    There’s absolutely no evidence that Osama had anything to do with 9/11, but even leaving him aside, surely you’d exactly some other leader to have proudly taken credit for the largest, most successful terrorist attack in the history of the world.

    Can you think of any large terrorist attack in America for which credit wasn’t claimed? Terrorist attacks without such claims look suspiciously like false flags of some type. Obviously, I’m not talking about a lunatic or two shooting up a school, but an organized terrorist campaign.

    All the terrorist suicide bombings in Israel during the Second Intifada were claimed by the groups responsible that generally released video statements of the martyrs involved.

    If you read Bergman’s very authoritative history of the Mossad, he says that during the 1980s Ariel Sharon organized a huge wave of terrorist bombings in Beirut, inflicting enormous destruction and killing many thousands I think. So he also naturally established a completely fake Palestinian terrorist group to claim credit for those attacks.

    Anyway, even if you yourself believe that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, isn’t it extremely suspicious that none of the MSM ever mentioned that he’d denied any involvement in the attacks? Supposedly, the FBI never accused Bin Laden of being involved in 9/11 because they had absolutely no evidence to support that claim. The whole thing was merely a concoction of the Neocons and their MSM allies.

    And what about that point I’d made upthread, that investigative journalists have supposedly discovered that during the months the 19 Arab hijackers were living in Florida, waiting for their suicide mission, most of them spent all their time drinking, drugging, whoring, and carousing. Do they really sound like suicidal Islamic Fundamentalists to you? Don’t they sound a lot more like random Arabs, hired off the street for some attack?

  200. Sparkon says:
    @niceland

    The ball isn’t in your court, because there is no ball here to play with. Just nonsense.

    Your reading comprehension is none too good. I said the ball was in Dave’s court, but perhaps it’s an English language idiom you don’t understand. Apparently Ron Unz doesn’t understand it either.

    It means I’ve issued a challenge to “PhysicistDave,” who obviously has neither the self-respect nor integrity to admit he was wrong about 9/11 Truthers calling out TV, just as he’s wrong about 9/11.

    Someone gathered 50 videos showing the airplane hit the south tower.

    Did you know that NIST had those videos for nine years? Did you know it is not very difficult to create fake videos from as many points as you like with CGI. Did you know we’ve been over all this before numerous times here at UR?

    Did you notice that I’m not Jon Revusky?

    Videos are easy to fake, but even 50 fake videos do not add up to a single shred of authentic crash wreckage.

    But you got a gold box and praise from Unz, so there’s that.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  201. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote to me:

    [Dave] ‘…We can debate what fraction of both groups are liars. But a significant fraction certainly and provably are.’

    [Colin] And the majority almost necessarily are not. If they were, the various faiths would collapse of their own weight.

    Which is what has happened to Christianity in Europe and what is now happening in the United States.

    I won’t again repost my favorite quote from Vonnegut that I posted above: if you didn’t read it, you might use ctrl-F to find it.

    But that quote is my central point. The tl;dr version, in Vonnegut’s words:

    “Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter. Friends agreed with friends, in order to express friendliness. Enemies disagreed with enemies, in order to express enmity.”

    For most human beings, beliefs are badges of group identity.

    When I was a kid, my parents insisted that I would go to Hell unless I gave assent to their crack-pot religious views — the literal truth of the Bible, the Resurrection of Jesus, and all the rest.

    Decades later, when I spoke to them as adults, they both admitted, independently (they were then divorced), that they knew the Virgin Birth did not really occur.

    So, why when I was a kid did they threaten me with eternal Hellfire if I did not assent to the beliefs of the church they attended. Because beliefs were badges of group identity.

    And I was refusing to conform to the group, refusing to demonstrate my fealty by assenting to beliefs that were clearly false.

    Of course, naively earnest child that I was, I didn’t get it. I thought I should simply try to figure out what was really true.

    For many years, I honestly wondered why most of the guys in my Sunday-School class, many of whom were actually quite bright, did assent to these crack-pot beliefs.

    Believe it or not, it was only decades later that I finally realized that most of those guys didn’t really care whether the beliefs were true or not: everyone wanted you to say you believed it, and so it was just easier to go along to get along.

    I think that is dishonest. You probably don’t.

    You raised the utilitarian issue. Well, I am not a utilitarian: I do not think that truth requires a utilitarian justification.

    But, if you want to consider utilitarian issues, in fact it is this human willingness to espouse beliefs that are obvious nonsense, simply to show loyalty to the group, that contributes to most of the truly horrendous crimes of the last century.

    Including the ongoing genocide in Gaza to which you allude.

    Again, quoting from Vonnegut:

    “And then Earthlings discovered tools. Suddenly agreeing with friends could be a form of suicide or worse. But agreements went on, not for the sake of common sense or decency or self-preservation, but for friendliness.

    “Earthlings went on being friendly, when they should have been thinking instead. And even when they built computers to do some thinking for them, they designed them not so much for wisdom as for friendliness. So they were doomed. Homicidal beggars could ride.”

    The old boy had a point, didn’t he?

    I am inclined to think that, in the long run, pretty much the only thing that matters for the long-term future of humanity is simply telling the truth.

    “Live not by lies.”

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Wild Man
  202. @Ron Unz

    Greetings, Mr. Unz,

    I remember the news at the time reporting that Bin Laden denied involvement in the attacks. (It was reported quietly, but it was reported.) Here’s an example dated September 17, 2001…

    Bin Laden says he wasn’t behind attacks

    I always found it odd that people didn’t know of his denial. It’s like no one was paying attention.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  203. Ron Unz says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Don’t you think that maybe some media outlet not controlled by the Deep State — say al-Jazeera or rt.com or The Grayzone or Tucker — might have published that evidence if it really existed?

    Without getting into particulars, most individuals and media outlets have zones of comfort outside of which they’re very reluctant to publicly stray.

    For example, I’ve personally friendly with some reasonably prominent mainstream academics and journalists who’ve privately told me they’re absolutely 100% certain of a JFK conspiracy and 9/11 Truth and have been for decades, but they’d never dare say a word publicly lest their credibility and careers be destroyed. Back a couple of years ago, a prominent national figure—whose name you would certainly know very well—came to Palo Alto to have dinner with me and told me that after looking into things, he’d become absolutely sure that the Mossad had killed JFK. He was even discussing it with some close friends in his circle. But he would never say anything publicly in a million years.

    Let’s use a far less controversial analogy, namely the Nord Stream pipeline attacks. After Seymour Hersh’s expose, I think almost everyone sensible knows that the Biden people had the pipelines destroyed. But before Hersh came out with all the details, almost 100% of the MSM promoted the most ridiculous nonsense, claiming that the Russians had destroyed their own pipelines.

    Prof. Jeffrey Sachs mentioned that when he talked to a very senior journalist he’s been friendly with for 40 years, the fellow told him that “everyone” knew America had destroyed the pipelines—who else could have done it? But meanwhile, his elite newspaper and all the others kept on blaming the Russians.

    Let me take the analogy a step further. After Hersh’s expose, our Intelligence agencies came out with a different and equally ridiculous cover-story, claiming that the destruction of the $30 billion pipelines—the largest act of industrial terrorism in the history of the world—had been carried out by a handful of shadowy Ukrainian activists operating from a rented sailboat. Hersh said that when he first heard that story, he was sure it was just a joke, given that anyone with technical knowledge of diving issues would know totally impossible it was.

    But when Hersh was interviewed on Chinese TV and ridiculed that absurd cover story, the puzzled Chinese host pointed out that it actually sounded very similar to the official 9/11 story, so why did Hersh think it was so ridiculous. Hersh has never looked into 9/11, so he’d never really considered that point and didn’t know what to say.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/standing-upright-amid-a-sea-of-lies/

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  204. Chebyshev says:
    @Ron Unz

    The whole purpose of a terrorist attack to to demonstrate that a small organization can inflict serious damage upon a powerful country, and not taking any credit for the attack defeats that purpose.

    If bin Laden orchestrated 9/11, then he would’ve wanted credit for himself and for his organization for what he would’ve thought was a good deed. Also, according to the Wikipedia page for the Afghanistan War, the standard narrative is that bin Laden sought to provoke a war between the U.S. and Afghanistan, but if that’s true, then it makes zero sense that he denied responsibility for the attacks, because as it says in the article, the reason for the war was bin Laden’s involvement in the attacks.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021)#September_11_attacks

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  205. @Sparkon

    Sparkon wrote to me:

    Will you now acknowledge, Physicist Dave, that you’ve been proven wrong?

    Nope.

    I pointed out that the 911 Truth movement was a cult whose members are reluctant to denounce all the other cult members as the pathological liars they all are.

    I wrote:

    Yes, that is what Sceintology and Young Earth Creationism and Mormonism and fundamentalism and, yes, the 911 Truthers are: groups whose beliefs are badges of group identity.

    Anyone here want to prove me wrong?

    Show me all the 911 Truthers willing to denounce Truth Vigilante for the obvious pathological liar that he is.

    Is there even one 911 Truther here willing to do that? Even one?

    I asked to see “911 Truthers willing to denounce Truth Vigilante.”

    I am glad that you are one.

    Where are all the others?

    And I was specifically addressing Truth Vigilante’s bizarre and obviously false libel of me. That is open and shut — I do not see that you have yet denounced him for doing that — perhaps you now will?

    Do you think most of the other 911 Truthers here will?

    That is my point.

    Yeah, I have seen you guys going after each other hammer and tongs, which is quite common in terms of internal spats within cults. But you tend to band together against outsiders who point out the truth about the cult as a whole – again, typical of cults.

    One of the things I have noticed is that a lot of the 911 Truthers here who are willing to go after each other seem to be more reluctant to go after Truth Vigilante. Perhaps because he is such a vicious liar.

    Sparkon also wrote:

    You’ve written a lot of rather boastful words here, but not a single word in reply to my 1,300 word comment #154, above, where I began
    There were no hijacked jetliners that crashed anywhere on September 11, 2001.

    I actually do have a life — I have other things to do!

    As I have said many, many times, I have never taken on the responsibility to refute every single claim made by you 911 Truthers. I could spend every minute of every day for the rest of my life trying to do so, and it would just be a waste of time — you guys are a cult.

    And, as a life-long connoisseur of cults, I know how cults work: presenting evidence simply does not matter.

    Let’s be clear: you guys want to convince me and people like me.

    But I lack the desire to convince you.

    I most assuredly do not want someone like Truth Vigilante on my side! He claims, after all, to be an admirer of Hitler. How would it help me in any way to have him on my side on anything at all?

    I got involved in this discussion because, last summer, Ron specifically asked my opinion about Gaffney’s crack-pot nuclear-explosion claims. I replied out of respect for Ron. Prior to last summer, I had really not paid much attention to 911 Truthers at all.

    But, then, after Ron solicited my opinion, I became intrigued, as a student of psychopathology, by the level of psychosis exhibited by the 911 Truthers here: as I have said, you guys on this site are the richest vein of psychopathology, a veritable Mother Lode, I have ever seen!

    Since you ask about your lengthy post above:

    Look: there are two sets of arguments made by you 911 Truthers:

    A) Specific claims relating to physics, which is my own area of expertise, such as the nuclear-explosion nonsense, the idiotic claim by Truth Vigilante et al. that gravity-driven collapse violates Newton’s Third Law, the claim that the airplanes were holograms, etc.

    B) Claims such as you made above of a stupendously large conspiracy involving fake “live” television broadcasts, claims that the passenger lists of the four flights were all fakes, etc.

    The type of claims I mentioned under “A” I know for certain to be false: I actually know the underlying principles of physics. None of the 911 Truthers here do. They are wrong.

    As to the type “B” sort of claims that you made in your post above…

    Occam’s razor.

    One of my college friends, Dr.Bryan Jack, died when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

    Is Bryan still alive and hiding out somewhere? Sorry, I knew him and I don’t believe it.

    Did they grab Bryan before he boarded the plane and then kill him and all the other purported passengers?

    More complicated, a lot more complicated, than the official story.

    And the supposed fake TV broadcasts?

    On a sunny weekday morning, there are always thousands of tourists wandering around that section of Manhattan Island: on several separate occasions I have been among them, over five decades. Those tourists often were gawking upward at the Twin Towers: again, I have been among those doing the gawking.

    If the planes did not in fact hit the Twin Towers, thousands of tourists would be able to testify to that fact.

    How then have all those tourists been silenced?

    Ron Unz has pointed out various loose ends that he thinks are important — bin Laden initially denying responsibility, etc.

    There are always loose ends.

    Have you ever heard a dog barking in the middle of the night? Did you always run out to investigate immediately?

    If you didn’t, it was a “loos end” — you never knew for sure why the dog barked.

    Hey — maybe it was aliens landing in your neighbor’s yard! Maybe your neighbors were picked up and given the famous alien rectal exam and then had their memories wiped so that they cannot recall it!

    Or just maybe the dog just saw a squirrel or a cat or the moon came out from behind a cloud and the dog decided to yowl… or whatever.

    Which is more likely?

    Occam’s razor.

    You guys take little unexplained loose ends — which always exist in any event involving human beings — but then you refuse to consider all the possible, simple, mundane explanations for those little loose ends.

    In summary, here is the situation:

    I. There is a huge amount of open lying and outright idiocy on the part of 911 Truthers, and most of you are unwilling to denounce and ostracize the liars, con artists, and outright fools — admittedly, that would mean getting rid of most members of your movement!

    II. A number of claims have been made that violate very basic principles of physics — the nuclear-explosion nonsense, the idiocy about Newton’s Third Law, the planes-as-holograms claim, etc. — that alienate anyone who is scientifically literate.

    III. As there always are in the course of human events, there are various unexplained loose ends. But guys like you in your post above, rather than looking for obvious plausible explanations of those loose ends (e.g., bin Laden lied in initially denying involvement) invent enormously convoluted, hugely implausible, and clearly unnecessary explanations to “explain” those loose ends. About as big a violation of Occam’s razor as I have ever seen!

    IV. And, most amazingly, when guys like me or Colin or niceland point out any of the above, we are told we must be lying, we can’t possibly believe what we say, we would believe if only we delved in deeper, etc.

    And it is point IV which is the surest sign of a cult: you guys just cannot believe that sensible people consider points I, II, and III to be the actual reasons we do not accept your claims.

    Can you yourself grasp this?

    No, I guess you can’t, because, if you could, you would start to be skeptical of the claims of the cult.

    And, in a cult, beliefs are badges of group identity. To understand what I am saying here would mean that you were giving up your sense of self that involves your being a 911 Truther.

    And that, I imagine, you cannot do.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  206. @Ron Unz

    Ron Unz wrote to me:

    [Dave] “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    [Ron Unz] Actually, that’s the point. There’s an absolute mountain of powerful evidence regarding both the JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks, though admittedly much of it is obscured by the more foolish or implausible theories that conspiracy-activists have overlaid on top of it.

    Ron, the problem is that whenever I ask any 9/11 Truther for their best evidence — including, I am afraid you (yes, I know it would probably be unfair to label you an actual member of their movement) — the evidence just does not hold up.

    For example, in this thread, you have made a big deal of the MSM failing to report that bin Laden initially denied involvement.

    But, as Adam Smith pointed out above, they did report it — and I myself do in fact remember those media reports. Because of that, for quite a while, I was skeptical that al Qaeda did it: I still think it may have been a cell only nominally connected to al Qaeda — underground movements often work that way.

    And you have asked why bin Laden might initially have lied.

    And the answer is that there are lots of plausible answers to that question, some that have been offered here, that are more in accord with Occam’s razor than crack-pot theories about nuclear explosions or planes-as-holograms or that gravity-driven collapse violates Newton’s Third Law.

    For example, when I pointed out that perhaps al Qaeda was sufficiently decentralized that bin Laden actually did not know about the attack in advance, I was told that the exploit was far too complex to have been planned by nineteen guys.

    Why? Some guys took a few flying lessons, and then took advantage of loose security and some primitive weapons to hijack some planes.

    Anyone who remembers the spate of hijackings back in the ’70s knows that guys a lot less sophisticated than these guys pulled off similar hijackings! (Remember D. B. Cooper?)

    And, again, my understanding is that al Qaeda is indeed decentralized.

    Or perhaps for his own reasons, bin Laden just plain lied. People do that, you know, often for inscrutable reasons, especially murderers.

    Occam’s razor.

    Similarly, you stated above:

    I’ll just mention one item. The hijackers were allegedly fanatic Islamicists who were followers of Bin Laden, and they’d lived in Florida for something like six months before the attacks. Yet when an investigative journalist went down there and talked with the locals, he found the hijackers had all been heavily involved in drinking alcohol, using drugs, eating pork, and spending time in strip-joints or with prostitutes. That’s hardly typical behavior for fanatic Islamic fundamentalists.

    Your lack of experience with fervent religious believers is really showing here! When it comes to religious believers, I am afraid that you are a bit like an anthropologist who relies on reports from tourists instead of doing actual fieldwork.

    I grew up among people who claimed to believe that every word in the Bible was the Word of God. But Jesus said to turn the other cheek, to give all you had to the poor, etc.

    And everyone in the church my family attended would have viewed anyone who actually behaved that way not simply as bonkers but as grossly irresponsible.

    And the church strongly disapproved of smoking and drinking: you want to know how many of the congregants did drink or smoke anyway?

    Human beings are hypocrites. Sad but true. And the 9/11 terrorists probably thought that martyrdom would make up for a bit of illicit partying!

    You also stated above:

    It also seems *extremely* suspicious that all their eyewitness testimony was left out of the official NIST report and was only later discovered through FOIA filings.

    But it is the easiest thing in the world to explain. Maybe someone was just lazy. Maybe someone just forgot — these are government bureaucrats, you know!

    Or, frankly, if I had written the report, I would have thought that stating that one individual heard sharp, loud noises that sounded similar to an explosion was actually better than talking about 150 people.

    NIST admitted the loud, sharp sound occurred. One witness was enough, if they agreed that witness reported honestly. Mentioning 150 witnesses would just muddy the waters: a critic could say, “How do you know it was 150 and not 153? 150 sounds like a suspiciously rounded number!”

    Which of these is the correct answer? I don’t know and I don’t need to know — all of them are more plausible than some grand conspiracy theory!

    I hope you read my reply to Sparkon above: I do not want to waste space by reposting everything I said there, but I will repeat one basic point.

    I assume that you have, at one point or another in your life, heard a dog barking outside in the middle of the night? And that on at least one occasion you did not actually go outside to investigate the cause of the barking?

    When you woke up the next morning, you were faced with an unexplained event from that night before.

    So, what did you think about that unexplained event?

    It is logically possible that the dog barked because aliens landed in your neighbors’ yard, kidnapped your neighbors and subjected them to the famed alien rectal exam, and then wiped the neighbors’ memories and returned them to their home — all before dawn.

    Logically possible, isn’t it?

    Or maybe the dog just saw a cat or was chasing a squirrel up a tree or just decided to yowl when it saw the moon rise.

    Did you ever seriously consider the alien kidnapping hypothesis?

    Occam’s razor.

    You raised the Nord Stream pipeline attack. We have a highly respected, very experienced investigative reporter, Sy Hersh, who claims to have solid sources that prove the US did it.

    I’d like to see independent confirmation, hear from the sources, etc.: even seasoned investigative reporters can be conned or mistaken.

    But Sy Hersh is probably right: “motive, means, and opportunity” are all there. It makes sense.

    Occam’s razor.

    But when you look at 9/11, quite the opposite is true.

    It is just one proven liar, con artist, and utter fool after another — Gaffney, Truth Vigilante, Rurik, and so many others.

    Maybe buried beneath all the horse shit, there actually is a pony in the living room.

    But probably not.

    Occam’s razor.

    Do I think the US government has been completely transparent about 9/11, about what they knew in advance, etc.?

    Is the US government ever completely transparent about anything?

    But that does not suggest that any particular conspiracy theory is actually true.

    Based on past experience, my guess is that they are merely hiding incompetence, stupidity, inefficiency, etc.

    One should never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

    But it would not surprise me if some officials in the Saudi government were involved.

    Mossad? I don’t think they are that reckless… but maybe.

    The US Deep State? Bureaucrats tend to be cautious types, and if that got out they would be executed.

    I doubt it.

    As to JFK… I am actually friends with a person who was an assistant film editor on the Oliver Stone movie. As you know, Stone thinks LBJ did it. My friend and I both think that LBJ was far too cautious and conniving a politicians to take a risk like that: in Pareto’s terms, he was a fox, not a lion.

    The problem of course is that there are way too many suspects — the Mafia, Castro, Mossad, LBJ, etc.

    Who knows?

    As to your acquaintances who claim to know the truth… well, even responsible people in positions of authority can be a bit goofy, especially if they know they will not be held to public account.

    Consider, after all, the people we have running the country now!

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  207. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote to me:

    [Dave] “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    [Colin] Logically, I find that unconvincing. It presupposes that our initial assumptions are probably correct.

    Is that really the case? Wouldn’t your first impressions be that the world is flat, that the sun circles the earth, that a rocket couldn’t fly in a vacuum, and no doubt more?

    Yes, and it did indeed require extraordinary evidence to prove the Earth was round (e.g., Eratosthenes’ famous observation), that the Sun revolved around the Earth, etc.

    Colin also asked:

    So why should ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’? What makes ‘ordinary claims’ more likely to be true? After all, as it has turned out, they’re often not.

    But usually they are.

    There are an infinite number of crack-pot claims and theories, quite a few that people actually do propose.

    Almost all false.

    Occam’s razor.

    Once in a while a bizarre theory turns out to be true — evolution, continental drift, etc.

    And those theories did indeed require extraordinary evidence before people were convinced.

    Which is, after all, why people like Darwin are famous: he did provide the extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary claims.

    Unlike our friends here who cannot provide evidence for their extraordinary claims.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  208. @PhysicistDave

    After I provide comprehensive evidence that there is no proof that a single one of the 19 Muslims that were alleged to have hijacked aircraft on 9/11 boarded any of those four aircraft, Fizzy-cyst Dovid comes back with:

    Well, that would be something if you had actual evidence for that!

    My goodness, if ever there was a case of ‘You can lead a malevolent Jew to water, but you can’t make him drink it’, this is a textbook example.
    You see, Fizzy Dov just ignores anything that conflicts with the ZOG approved narrative. (eg: like the Newtonian Laws of Motion).

  209. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wrong writes:

    someone like Truth Vigilante as more incapable of distinguishing between what he would like to be true and what is true ……. in the heat of the fray he just starts slinging whatever abuse comes to hand

    Oh dear, it seems I’ve hurt Mr Wrong’s feelings.

    Whether it be on the 9/11 False Flag or any other topic that I’ve commented on extensively in the UR threads, you can be sure that I’ve done exhaustive research on it before I post anything.
    But the 9/11 False Flag stands preeminent above all.
    There was a period of several years there, where I lived and breathed 9/11, spending a disproportionate amount of my waking hours exploring that issue (as the missus will testify, in light of the friction that it generated in our relationship).
    I have a vested interest in seeing the 9/11 crime resolved and the ZOG miscreants apprehended/prosecuted/and then executed (not necessarily in that order – as the trial can always be conducted posthumously).
    One day, when this matter is done and dusted and we’ve witnessed the demise of ZOG, I may even share what this ‘vested interest’ is with the UR readership.

    That’s not to say that I didn’t invest 1000’s of hours of additional research into 9/11 subsequent to that.
    Everything I’ve posted on this False Flag is backed up with a deluge of evidence (you need only scroll my archival history in the UR threads related to 9/11 to ascertain that).
    I names names, provide sources, provide the histories of those sources and demonstrate that they have long history of unimpeachable integrity. (As opposed to some others in the 9/11 threads who are relying on the output of ZOG affiliated disinfo peddlers like ‘Ace Baker’ and ‘Simon Shack-of-shit’, who came out of nowhere, have NO history of integrity etc).
    I specify precisely the technology involved, the aircraft types employed – NONE OF THEM were Boeing commercial aircraft, and that they were remotely flown drones with NO ONE on board).

    But Colin Wrong has a preconceived notion of how 9/11 played out (courtesy of info obtained from the New York Times and the 9/11 Commission Report edited by that traitor Philip Zelikow), and nothing is going to sway him into changing his mind.

    Mr Wrong, you’re the equivalent of a nag that is well past its use-by date, after a disastrous career in horse racing.
    You’re of no use to anyone. You should be sent to the glue factory at once.

  210. @Tiptoethrutulips

    > And, “My wife made an appointment with a doctor for me, unknown to me, until that very morning,

    George Elser placed a bomb near a platform where Hitler was supposed to speak. Hitler learned of a fog forecast and decided to cut his speech from two hours to one. 13 minutes after Hitler had left, Elser’s bomb exploded and killed 8 people, with 62 injured. Does that mean that Elser and Hitler were in on a conspiracy together? Or is it more likely that Hitler was just saved through blind luck?

  211. @PhysicistDave

    ‘…Believe it or not, it was only decades later that I finally realized that most of those guys didn’t really care whether the beliefs were true or not: everyone wanted you to say you believed it, and so it was just easier to go along to get along.

    I think that is dishonest. You probably don’t…’

    It’s dishonest. It’s just that there are degrees and species of dishonesty — as Vonnegut also said.

    In my puppy years, I went through a (brief) phase of telling people exactly how I was doing when they asked how I was doing. It may be honest, but it’s not very practical.

    Then there are lies people need to believe. Lies they haven’t critically thought about: a lot of people do that with their professed lack of prejudice against blacks, for example. Lies that are convenient and probably harmless enough: did you check the water pressure after you installed the water heater? ‘Yes.’ Lies of omission. Once I got out of jury duty on a case of assault on a police officer: I claimed I’d had negative experiences with the police and was biased against them. That was true enough — but I neglected to mention the accused looked like he belonged in prison anyway. Was that lying?

    Then there are lies, intended to deceive.

    There’s a wide world of lies; some truly evil, others merely mutually convenient fictions. You go out and have dinner; it’s pretty good, on the whole. The waitress asks how your meal was; think twice before you actually go into the various shortcomings.

    Is that evil? Not precisely.

    Thomas Aquinas goes into the morality of lying. One example he uses is that your brother flees through the room you’re in. The man chasing him comes in with a knife: ‘did your brother pass through here?’

    Obviously, the moral course of action is to lie. Indeed, if one is dealing with coercive authority — the state, for example — it becomes debatable as to whether it is wrong to lie or not. Suppose I’ve put up a fence on my property, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s a fine fence, and not a problem for anyone in any way.

    But it’s not to code. A building inspector sees the fence. (Here, note that if it was there when you bought the property, it usually can stay as it is — but if you built it, it’ll be a violation.)

    ‘Did you build that fence?’

    I’ll say ‘no.’ If you want to submit to the authority of the state, you go ahead and say, ‘yes.

  212. @Adam Smith

    It’s good to see your input here Adam, but Fizzy-cyst Dovid will just duck and weave, and likely not respond to you at all.
    He can’t respond to your queries with a plausible explanation, so he’ll just run and hide under a rock.

    That’s the sort of person he his. He’ll say and do anything to ingratiate himself with his ADL/B’nai B’rith benefactors.
    Earlier in this thread, Dr Kevin Barrett and Ron Unz himself pointed out a small handful (of the hundreds of anomalies) in the official 9/11 narrative.
    Fizzy-cyst Dovid then scurried off like a cockroach every time, knowing he was unable to put out a counter argument.
    He won’t challenge them – because he’s intellectually and morally bankrupt and knows that Barrett and Unz will wipe the floor with him.

  213. @Ron Unz

    ‘…Prof. Jeffrey Sachs mentioned that when he talked to a very senior journalist he’s been friendly with for 40 years, the fellow told him that “everyone” knew America had destroyed the pipelines—who else could have done it? But meanwhile, his elite newspaper and all the others kept on blaming the Russians…’

    I knew some perfectly intelligent people who did the same. To me, ‘Russia did it’ was nonsensical: why would the Russians blow up the pipeline — and their major lever of coercion against Germany?

    Yet these people insisted on the plausibility of the official story. They weren’t lying; they needed to believe. It was too radically upsetting to their view of the world to accept that the Western powers had variously either done it themselves or kept silent even though they knew who had done it.

    It is a bit like Physicist Dave’s Fundamentalists who need to believe the Bible is literal truth. It’s not lying precisely; it’s that the alternative is too upsetting.

  214. @Chebyshev

    It took an elite Navy SEAL unit to eventually go and kill him [Osama Bin Laden] almost a decade later.

    Chubby-shev, you’re a smart lad/lass and have posted numerous worthwhile comments that I recall reading. Yet you make an uninformed comment like that above.

    FACT: OBL died of renal failure in Dec. 2001 (3 months after 9/11). No Navy Seal Team killed him*.

    (*Although Barack Obama, under orders from his ZOG controllers, DID kill the Navy Seal Team that was allegedly killing OBL in 2011 in Abbottabad Pakistan – because the Seal Team could no longer stomach the deception, and it was weighing on their conscience.
    They were going to come clean and tell the truth of what happened.
    Well, ZOG was not going to tolerate that – so they were ALL killed. I’ll fill you in on that in a subsequent comment).

    You urgently need to read the following article written by Paul Craig Roberts titled ‘Obama Did Not Kill Osama bin Laden: The American People Live In a World of False Narratives’:

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-did-not-kill-osama-bin-laden/5752466

    SUMMARY: Don’t be like Colin Wrong. I rarely see Mr Wrong participating in the UR threads on 9/11 or on the Holohoax.
    Yet, amazingly, he has the audacity to claim he knows better than those who are infinitely better informed on these matters than he us.

    At the end of the day, people like Colin Wrong are just EXTREMELY LAZY.
    They won’t put in the hard yards to do the painstaking research on any issue, but that doesn’t prevent them from pontificating on anything and everything.

    • Replies: @Chebyshev
  215. Wild Man says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I have read your current exchange thread with Colin Wright with interest. I agree that seeking ‘closer to the truth’ perspectives is the key (key to the human success that we have indeed experienced, …. and therefore key to the future prospects of humanity, as well).

    I was faced with the same issue as you as a child and into my youth: The deep belief system, that informs as to everyday human behavior, tends to hearken from the various churches of that 1960’s North American culture. And my family (parents and their colleagues and their parents) were very devout Roman Catholic, involving themselves in various volunteer efforts within the church life, despite their otherwise extremely busy lives (except my maternal grandfather was nonpracticing Methodist background, if I recall correctly). But the difference was that in the very boisterous household I grew up in (5 children), …. my parents did not shame me for the concerns and questions I raised. My parents wanted children that would not be afraid to think for themselves, when the chips were down. Pretty much everything they did, was to eventuate just that, for all their 5 children. What happened was, …. once I began to voice these questions as a child, …. my mother wanted to know more, as to why I would think these things. I really can’t say enough about the overflowing kindness my mother showed me (with my Dad’s support too) that way. That was the beginning of a new feature of the relationship I had with my gracious Mom, …. she was respecting me as an intellectual/spiritual colleague (and she too had that bent, and a good mind, like myself), even by the time I was 12, that led to a life-long philosophical/theological discussion, ….. that never ever ended until the days she passed almost 4 year ago now (i.e. – she was more than just a mother to me, …. if that is even possible, …. mothers are just so important for any child, just a mothers).

    Of course you are spot-on with respect to your assessment that: “For most human beings, beliefs are badges of group identity.” Yes humans need personal identities, in order to navigate the social world, as the social world is made up of competing group identities (this group identity dynamic is most probably a function of the language impetus). Of course that goes for you too (no one can escape this extremely deep human social dynamic). You do agree with this point of logic – no? Assuming so, thus, … one would then think, that you would see, that the prescription then, is ontological humility. Note that by my description of this human attitude of ontological humility, it is clear that much more rigor is required, with respect to your seeming claims that human heart-centrism is a pathological condition (i.e. – in terms of the future prospects of humanity, … your seeming claim is that this attribute will be our downfall). If you do indeed ‘believe’ that human heart-centrism is a pathological condition in that sense, you will probably seek to excise it. Impossible I say. Because: You possess ‘beliefs’ Dave. This is logical.

    What I found out amidst the life-long philosophical/theological discussions I conducted with my mother, is that the church leadership (among all Christian denominations actually, … I later learned by way of going to different church denominations and partaking, an a quite long-ongoing experiment) are not on par, with their congregations, with respect to normalized ontological humility (though ontological humility is not overtly sponsored in the culture, … it is an undercurrent acting on each individual’s particular psyche, either more or less, nevertheless). Church leadership attracts deficients (i.e. -deficients in the ‘psychopathic’ way, as is a concept category that intrigues you, as you say).

    This psychopathology thing is most interesting. There are varying degrees. We must all heed, to see it in ourselves (and not just others), so as to guard against that slippery slope. Then one can understand.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  216. @Chebyshev

    > why did Biden and Austin cite them? They’re not in the pocket of Hamas.

    But they’re not in the pocket of Netanyahu either. In fact, there’re indications that US officials would like to engineer some kind of Color Revolution in Israel against Netanyahu and Likud. That itself may provide a motive for them to simply accept whatever figures Hamas produces.

    While the war in Gaza has obviously led to many ugly scenes, it simply is not possible at this stage to be sure of overall casualty figures. The Tablet is definitely right on that much. That doesn’t mean that anyone should be supporting Netanyahu until casualty figures are verified. But there is a possibility that some of those who eagerly adopted the highest estimates for political motives may get on egg on their faces eventually.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @Colin Wright
  217. geokat62 says:
    @Patrick McNally

    But they’re not in the pocket of Netanyahu either. In fact, there’re indications that US officials would like to engineer some kind of Color Revolution in Israel against Netanyahu and Likud.

    You forgot to insert two important words, Paddy O’Shlomowitz:

    But they’re not in the pocket of Netanyahu either. In fact, there’re indications that US Jewish Supremacist officials would like to engineer some kind of Color Revolution in Israel against Netanyahu and Likud.

  218. @PhysicistDave

    Occam’s razor.

    FFS, how many times does the malevolent Jew Dovid Miller mention Oscar’s Razor in that comment and others before it?
    Anyone that has to reference something equivalent to an old wives tale (like Occam’s Shaver), is an imbecile.
    Sure, Oscar’s Shaver has a reasonable success rate (perhaps as much as 40%) in predicting what is or isn’t feasible in simplistic situations, like the one below:

    Little Johnny’s mother comes home early from work and sees a broken vase in the living room.
    She’s asks her sons (Big Freddie and little Johnny) what happened. Here’s how the conversation went:

    Little Johnny: A miniaturised alien spaceship flew through the open window and knocked over the vase. I tried to protect it mother, and stood in its way. But it zoomed past me at Warp Speed (almost as fast as Trump’s vaxx rollout).
    Big Freddie: No it didn’t. Johnny was kicking his football around inside the house and knocked over the vase.

    As you can see UR readers, that’s one of those simplistic situations where Oscar’s Shaver can be applied. Meanwhile, imagine asking the residents of Hiroshima what had happened to the city in the immediate aftermath of the A-bomb being dropped.
    If one of the residents (perhaps some academic with knowledge about nuclear fission), had said it was an Atomic Bomb, he would’ve been mocked and ridiculed. That’s because the term ‘A-bomb’ had not entered the vernacular.

    If Dovid Miller was around he would’ve starting shouting Oscars Shaver, Oscars Shaver!!!
    He would say that the simplest explanation is the most likely. ie: that the God’s were displeased with us and thus Hiroshima was struck with one almighty lightning bolt (which would explain the bright flash*).
    (*We all know from personal experience that said bright flashes that completely illuminate the sky for miles in very direction, ONLY occur when lightning strikes).

    SUMMARY: The 9/11 False Flag was a NO EXPENSE SPARED extremely elaborate crime that utilised the whole gamut of technology available to the Anglo Zionist empire.

    Anyone who shouts out Oscar’s Shaver in relation to ANY PURPOSELY COMPLEX and ELABORATE ZOG ORCHESTRATED CRIME, is a disinfo peddler.

    In the words of Chistopher Bollyn, the premier 9/11 researcher on the planet (other than USMC Lt-Col. Field McConnell):

    The 9/11 False Flag is like a Russian Matryoshka doll. In that it was a crime, within a crime, within a crime.

    It was designed that way on purpose. So that people in future would say: ‘No way they would do that. It could have been done a myriad of other ways that were cheaper/less complicated/used common place technology.
    Of course that’s true. And they could have killed JFK by just putting a toxin in his toothpaste, or getting the White House chef to put a substance in JFK’s evening meal that gave him a fast acting cancer, as they did to Hugo Chavez and Yacob Rubinstein.

    But that was never going to be enough for ZOG. In the case of the JFK coup d’etat and the 9/11 incident, ZOG wanted to make a statement, they wanted to create the maximum traumatisation of the American public, as it would create an atmosphere where it would be much easier to pass the Patriot Act and launch wars of aggression to further ZOG’s agenda.
    And they most assuredly did just that.

  219. Ron Unz says:
    @Adam Smith

    I remember the news at the time reporting that Bin Laden denied involvement in the attacks. (It was reported quietly, but it was reported.) Here’s an example dated September 17, 2001…

    Sure, I certainly didn’t mean that not a single MSM outlet anywhere in the West reported Bin Laden’s denial of responsibility. But I carefully read the NYT, WSJ, and a couple of other major newspapers every day, and don’t recall seeing anything about it, nor was it significantly covered in any of my magazines or other media sources. Perhaps you can find a one sentence somewhere on p. A29, but that’s not what I meant. I didn’t watch much television, but I doubt it got any noticeable coverage there either. But wouldn’t you reasonably regard Osama’s disavowal as an important story, worth substantial coverage?

    Applying a more meaningful metric, I’d bet that 99.9% of the American public remained just as unaware of it as myself for the next decade.

    Here’s another example of what I mean. In the aftermath of the 9/11 Attacks, Bin Laden became one of the most infamous individuals in the world and was massively demonized as the 9/11 mastermind to the entire American public, with virtually everyone (including me) believing that.

    Yet since the Neocons soon decided to foment an invasion of Iraq, over the next year or two their media allies gradually began presenting Saddam Hussein as the figure responsible for 9/11, even though no government official ever made that absurd claim and there was never the slightest shred of evidence. I considered the whole thing totally ridiculous at the time, but supposedly all the TV shows began showing Saddam’s picture next to those of the burning WTC powers, and that simple implication was enough to convince most of the American public. By the time we attacked Iraq, something like 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had been responsible for the 9/11 Attacks, and even years later, 70% of Republicans continued to hold that belief.

    Under those circumstances, I considered most Americans to be total idiots, so I was then shocked to discover I’d apparently been just as “idiotic” myself with regard to Osama.

    If you control the headlines and the front-pages, it really doesn’t matter what sort of disclaimers or retractions are eventually published on p. A29. I’ll bet that a substantial fraction of Americans who follow the Israel/Gaza conflict still believe that Hamas beheaded forty Israeli babies.

  220. @Chebyshev

    OK Chubbyshev, as promised I will fill you in on what happened to Seal Team 6, who were allegedly the ones that killed OBL in 2011.

    When they died, the parents of one of the Seal team members (ie: Aaron Carson Vaughn) decided to travel to the ‘Go-To’ man in the U.S military. By that I mean the premier expert in the world on the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines MH370, the 9/11 Flase Flag and much, MUCH more.
    The following article titled ‘ …. Parents of SEAL Team Six soldier killed in action call for President Obama’s resignation …. ‘ will interest many of you:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2740184/You-not-job-Parents-SEAL-Team-Six-soldier-killed-action-call-President-Obama-s-resignation.html

    I refer of course to USMC Lt-Col. (ret) Field McConnell. He is the man that whistle blowers in the U.S military/government/Intel agencies go to with info that expose ZOG crimes.
    They go to him because he is man of unimpeachable integrity, he’s a man that can’t be bought – they KNOW they can trust him.
    And so it was with Billy and Karen Vaughn when they went to visit Field McConnell in 2014 to ask how their son really died.

    Please watch the 9 mins or so of the following video below from 2:01:10-2:10:00 and learn what actually happened to the Seal team that were alleged to have killed OBL in 2011:



    Video Link

    SUMMARY: I strongly recommend that UR readers take the time to watch the whole (almost) 3 hours of that video. McConnell talks about 9/11, the use of BUAP technology to electronically commandeer the four real planes with real passengers and crew on 9/11 (none of which crashed that day), the MH370 incident, Pat Tillman and much more besides.

    If we lived in a just world, Lt-Col. Field McConnell would receive a ticker tape parade (Charles Lindbergh style) in every city and state of the U.S, for his courage and service to his country.
    Instead he was incarcerated/tortured and punished by ZOG for his insolence.

    A truly great American he was/still is.

  221. @niceland

    Well, what is your point, then? That truth varies according to someone’s point of view? Yes, indeed – just ask those concentration camp victims and those nutty Holocaust Revisionist Truthers who say – water is wet, 2+2 is 4, and “Nazis” didn’t actually make human soap/bologna; they didn’t have orders to exterminate every Jew in Europe; nor can 6 million Jews get killed, repeatedly, throughout history, with no forensic evidence of same.

    The Truthers would have us believe that this was Silverstein giving the order to proceed with the controlled demolition of Building 7, but this makes no sense at all in context.

    Ok. What did Ol’ Silvertongue actually say? –

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

    In the midst of the frenzy of the most significant event/terror attack in NYC/America ever, the “commander” takes the time to call Silverstein? And, Silverstein doesn’t take note of Commander’s name? The Fire Chief was Joseph Pfeifer; the assistant chief was Frank Fellini. To my knowledge, neither of these men confirmed they were the caller. But, why would Larry be called with regard to Building 7? –

    PORT AUTHORITY TO LEASE WORLD TRADE CENTER TO SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES, INC. AND WESTFIELD AMERICA, INC.
    Date: Apr 26, 2001
    Press Release Number: 68
    […]
    Silverstein Properties, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc. have agreed to a net lease transaction for a term of 99 years, worth an estimated $3.2 billion on a present value basis. The net lease covers four buildings at the World Trade Center, including the Twin Towers and the retail Mall…..

    The buildings included in the net lease agreement are Number One and Two World Trade Center (the Twin Towers), Four and Five World Trade Center (two nine-story office buildings) and approximately 400,000 square feet of retail space. Numbers Three (the WTC Marriott Hotel), Six (the U.S. Customs House) and Seven World Trade Center (a 47-story office building) are already under lease.

    Wikipedia entry for Larry Silverstein
    […]
    World Trade Center
    Main article: World Trade Center (1973-2001)
    […]
    In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties, made a $3.22 billion bid to lease-purchase the World Trade Center. 16) He was outbid by $30 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew in March, giving Silverstein 14 days to negotiate a new bid….
    The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m?) of retail space.
    Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal. (21) The agreement gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed. (22)
    The end.

    So, why was Larry called when he was neither the owner/lease holder/property manager of Building 7, and since when did the NYFD delve into the realm of building demolition, and since when did they seek advice from real estate developers regarding department protocols?

    The very idea that Mr. Silverstein’s undisputed “pull it” comment does not/should not raise suspicion, considering that ONLY Silverstein properties, or the buildings (7) for which he seems to have held responsibility/interest, although rather inexplicably, collapsed wholly and unprecedented in history in both manner and cause, is ridiculous on its face, and rather than slinging about insulting accusations of epistemic contextualism, perhaps the slingers should reflect on the term cognitive dissonance as it applies to those who oppose the average Truther.

    First of all, the quote comes from an interview Silverstein was doing for a PBS documentary. It was him talking about an event that occurred several years in the past.

    Several years? The PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, originally aired on September 10, 2002. It follows then that his recorded pull it statement was made less than one year after the Commander called Larry.

    First, we would have to assume that Building 7 was already prewired for demolition

    Yes, that would be a correct assumption as everyone is generally aware that a 47 story building can’t be wired for demolition in a few hours by firefighters.

    We would have to assume that both Larry Silverstein and the Fire Commander knew this and were in on the plot to demolish the building, since that is supposedly what they were talking about.

    Who claims the Fire Department was in on the fix? Do we know the identity of Fire Commander?

    It’s not supposedly; it’s actually – “And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

    We would have to assume that the Fire Commander, even though he intended to blow up the building, for some reason allowed his men in and around the building to fight the fires that were burning there, where they might be blown up

    There’s no need to make assumptions about the safety of firefighters in Building 7, which collapsed at 5:20 pm –

    The New York Times, November 29, 2001
    “By 11:30am, the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from WTC 7 for safety reasons.”

    NIST –
    […]
    4.4.2 Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)
    Published: November 20, 2008

    [MORE]

    Emergency Response
    Faced with a disaster of an unprecedented nature, the involvement of the emergency management personnel with regard to WTC 7 was limited. Nonetheless, no lives were lost as a result of the collapse of WTC 7.
 The loss of numerous firefighters, company officers, and chief officers in the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 led to a changing command structure for the rest of the morning, as new command posts were established and several different chief officers took command and relinquished command of operations at the WTC site.
    Due to the focus on rescuing people trapped in the debris field, providing aid to the injured, and the loss of water in the hydrant system, FDNY was not able to consider the possibility of fighting the fires in WTC 7 until approximately 1:00 p.m. At approximately 2:30 p.m., FDNY gave the order to forego firefighting activity and for personnel to withdraw to a safe distance from the building.
    Con Edison shut off all power to the substation under WTC 7 at 4:33 p.m.
    The end.

    Then we would have to assume that the masterminds of 9/11, having no clear plan as to when they wanted Building 7 to come down, left this critical decision strangely in the hands of Larry Silverstein and the Fire Commander.

    At this point, I would say these assumptions were made by someone who knows less than me, if that’s possible, on the many anomalies/impossibilities of this entire event, but the masterminds certainly pulled off the 6 million Holocausted without concerns for anomalies/impossibilities, so why not keep going?

    There was obviously a clear plan. Who says Silverstein and The Unknown Fire Commander were the masterminds? Who says that? Did I say that? What is obvious is they had foreknowledge of the event, and they certainly knew which buildings would be literally turned to dust. Of course, the extent of the collateral damage could not be known, but was certainly expected/inevitable.

    We have to assume that either Silverstein or the Commander had access to the controls to initiate the demolition, or were in communication with the people who did have such access

    Who the hell is we, and Who is making these asinine assumptions? Who was the Commander? Silverstein would be told as little as possible, and rightly so, considering his pull it gaffe.

    And finally, to crown it all, we have to assume that, after going through all this elaborate maskirovka to pull off the crime of the century, Larry Silverstein decides to just casually admit to it all on national television.

    Yes, finally – why would Silvertongue reveal all? Well, he didn’t exactly reveal all, did he? It seems, to me anyway, he veered off course, perhaps due to pressure. After all, he had a most fortunate series of events prior to and after 911. Both he and his children narrowly missed the carnage; he fortuitously insured his buildings for terrorism coverage; he no longer had to deal with that pesky asbestos remediation…..did he offer an explanation for his pull it statement? I believe he said he was referring to the firefighters within the building – to pull them out. Let’s assume that’s correct (it is) – as documented above, and see below, the building was evacuated after the impact at Tower 1, and there was insufficient water for firefighting in an unoccupied building, therefore there were no firefighters to pull out. Who assumes that firefighters and first responders are referred to as it? Again, Who assumes that mysterious, unknown Fire Commanders ask real estate developers for advice or policy approval?

    Continuation of NIST

    WTC 7 had the following active fire protection systems: fire alarms, smoke and heat detectors, manual pull stations, smoke control systems, and automatic sprinklers. Each was designed, constructed, and apparently maintained consistent with applicable building codes and standards.
    The standpipe and automatic sprinkler systems were divided into three zones. As prescribed by the NYCBC, each zone had a primary and secondary water supply.
    The primary water supply for fire protection for the high zone (Floors 40 through 47) and mid-level zone (Floors 21 through 39) was from two water storage tanks on the 46″ floor.
 The secondary supply was pumped from the city water main.
    The primary water supply for fire protection for the low zone, floors 1 through 20, was a direct connection to the city water mains. The secondary supply was from an automatic fire pump, which was connected to the city water main as well.
    Since the city water main had been compromised as a result of the collapses of the two towers, there was no water supply to control the fires on the 7″ through 13 floors. By contrast, the early fires on the 22d, 29th, and 30th floors may have been limited by the sprinkler system on the upper floors, whose primary water supply was from the storage tanks on the 46th floor.
    The architectural drawings indicated that there were fire-rated walls between tenant spaces on the same floor and between tenant spaces and the building core. Spaces housing mechanical equipment, power transformers, emergency power generators, and other such equipment were enclosed in fire-rated partitions.

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    ES.1.
    WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING 7 (WTC 7)

    WTC 7 was a 47 story office building located immediately to the north of the main WTC Complex. It had been built on top of an existing Consolidated Edison of New York electric power substation, which was located on land owned by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. On September 11, 2001, WTC 7 endured fires for almost seven hours, from the time of the collapse of the north WTC tower (WTC 1) at 10:28:22 a.m. until 5:20:52 p.m., when it collapsed. This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building’ primarily due to fires.
    WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. It was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an airplane. The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from those in the towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously. Instead, the fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.
    These other buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires.

    ES.3.
    PRINCIPAL FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION
    The fires in WTC 7 were ignited as a result of the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was approximately 110 m (350 ft) to the south. The debris also caused structural damage to the southwest exterior of WTC 7, primarily between Floors 7 to 17. The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors; however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of the building collapse. These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings. Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents fires. Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented. However, the collapse of WTC 7 highlights the importance of designing fire-resistant structures for situations where sprinklers are not present, do not function (e.g., due to disconnected or impaired water supply), or are overwhelmed.
    Eventually, the fires reached the northeast region of the building. The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 involved the initiation of the buckling of a critical interior column in that vicinity…..

    The decision not to continue evaluating the building and not to fight the fires was made hours before the building collapsed, so no emergency responders were in or near the building when the collapse occurred.

    The design of WTC 7 was generally consistent with the New York City Building Code of 1968 (NYCBC), with which, by PANYNJ policy, it was to comply. The installed thicknesses of the thermal insulation was consistent with the fire rating required by the NYCBC. The stairwells were narrower than those required by the NYCBC, but, combined with the elevators, were adequate for a timely evacuation on September 11, 2001, since the number of building occupants was only about half that expected during normal business hours.
    […]
    Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours. The debris damaged the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams, only in the vicinity of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1. This was near the west side of the south face of the building and was far removed from the buckled column that initiated the collapse. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.

    The subjects of the NIST recommendations are as follows:

    H. Enhancement of the performance and redundancy of active fire protection systems to accommodate higher risk buildings.

    I. Establishment and implementation of codes and protocols for ensuring effective and uninterrupted operation of the command and control system for large-scale building emergencies.
    
J. Requirement that building owners to retain building documents over the entire life of the building.
    K. Inclusion of all appropriate technical professionals in the building design team.
    L Development and implementation of continuing education curricula for training building
    professionals in each others’ skills and practices.
    M. Development and delivery of training materials in the use of computational fire dynamics and thermostructural analysis tools.
    The end.

    FEMA

    4 WTC 4, 5, and 6

    4.1 Design and Construction Features
    WTC 4, 5, and 6 are eight- and nine-story steel-framed office buildings, located on the north and east sides of the WTC Plaza…..
    Because of their close proximity to WTC 1 and WTC 2, all three buildings were subjected to severe debris impact damage when the towers collapsed, as well as the fires that developed from the debris. Most of WTC 4 collapsed when impacted by the exterior column debris from WTC 2; the remaining section had a complete burnout. WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC 1 that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings. All three buildings also were able to resist progressive collapse, in spite of the extensive local collapses that occurred.

    Wikipedia entry for Collapse of the World Trade Center – Building 7 collapse

    Bldg 7 – Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.
    The end.

    I’m not certain that the NIST had any remaining evidence with which to draw their probable conclusions, as unlike the other buildings, excluding Towers 1 & 2, there was nothing left but gravel and dust, and frankly, recommendations by NIST H-M are about as vanilla as it gets – how about assuming they were scrambling to make a lengthy report seem less meaningless than it actually was; how about assuming they believed they could fool most people with impressive blurbage, akin to epistemic contextualism, why don’t you?

    Building 7 was up to code, and the fire protection device, the sprinkler system, was operational initially, so there was no raging inferno within this building.

    In any case, (they) left out the most crucial aspect of their sham investigation regarding Bldg 7 and LuckyLarry – the ol’ Silvertongue is Jewish; he’s a New Jerusalem Jew; he’s heavily involved in Jewish organizations; I’m certain I read somewhere that he’s a dual citizen of Israel, and he’s a close friend of BiBi, with whom he converses weekly, and let’s assume I am correct, and let’s also assume that because he is Jewish, he will not be held to account for his admission/gaffe, nor will any media in America press him on same, and once again, Jewry made millions in profits on the deaths of American Gentiles.

    • Replies: @niceland
  222. Ron Unz says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Ron, the problem is that whenever I ask any 9/11 Truther for their best evidence — including, I am afraid you (yes, I know it would probably be unfair to label you an actual member of their movement) — the evidence just does not hold up.

    Well, here’s one of the paragraphs I’ve repeated in several 9/11 articles:

    With so many gaping holes in the official story of the events of seventeen years ago, each of us is free to choose to focus on those we personally consider most persuasive, and I have several of my own. Danish Chemistry professor Niels Harrit was one of the scientists who analyzed the debris of the destroyed buildings and detected the residual presence of nano-thermite, a military-grade explosive compound, and I found him quite credible during his hour-long interview on Red Ice Radio. The notion that an undamaged hijacker passport was found on an NYC street after the massive, fiery destruction of the skyscrapers is totally absurd, as was the claim that the top hijacker conveniently lost his luggage at one of the airports and it was found to contain a large mass of incriminating information. The testimonies of the dozens of firefighters who heard explosions just before the collapse of the buildings seems totally inexplicable under the official account. The sudden total collapse of Building Seven, never hit by any jetliners is also extremely implausible.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/remembering-the-9-11-truth-movement/#the-9-11-attacks-what-happened

    As I’ve said, there are probably something like 100 different items of very strong 9/11 evidence, and each of us is free to select those that seem most persuasive while perhaps dismissing some others. But none of those minor disputes matter since they all point in the same direction.

    I think the problem is that you’ve never spent any significant time looking into 9/11 and therefore are completely unaware of the enormous quantity of evidence. That was exactly my own situation until about a decade ago.

    It’s as if someone had never taken an introductory physics course and was trying to refute modern physics using very general arguments. It wouldn’t work.

    I grew up among people who claimed to believe that every word in the Bible was the Word of God. But Jesus said to turn the other cheek, to give all you had to the poor, etc…Human beings are hypocrites. Sad but true. And the 9/11 terrorists probably thought that martyrdom would make up for a bit of illicit partying!

    I really tend to doubt that your personal experience with ordinary Evangelical Christians in your community is applicable to fanatic Islamic Fundamentalists preparing for a suicide mission. I’ve never heard of such latter individuals drinking, drugging, and whoring. Perhaps you can find some actual evidence that they often do such a thing.

    NIST admitted the loud, sharp sound occurred. One witness was enough, if they agreed that witness reported honestly. Mentioning 150 witnesses would just muddy the waters: a critic could say, “How do you know it was 150 and not 153? 150 sounds like a suspiciously rounded number!”

    That’s a very unconvincing argument. If one witness heard a loud noise, nobody would find that convincing of anything. But if 150+ trained, professional firefighters and rescue workers, many of them former military or experienced with dangerous situations, say they heard a series of explosions just before the building collapsed, that’s a very different situation. And that was only discovered by FOIA applications.

    As to JFK… I am actually friends with a person who was an assistant film editor on the Oliver Stone movie. As you know, Stone thinks LBJ did it. My friend and I both think that LBJ was far too cautious and conniving a politicians to take a risk like that: in Pareto’s terms, he was a fox, not a lion.

    That’s interesting. When I finally began looking into the JFK assassination, LBJ seemed a very obvious suspect to me and I was surprised that 95% of all the JFK researchers totally ignored that possibility. Oliver Stone’s famous film never provided a hint that LBJ was involved, so I’d never known that Stone suspected LBJ. I only first watched his film about a dozen years ago.

    Are you aware that JFK was about to dump LBJ from the reelection ticket and orchestrate a media campaign to destroy him and probably send him to prison for his massive corruption in Texas? Are you aware that prompted by JFK, Life Magazine had supposedly sent a large team of investigators to Texas to dig into LBJ’s scandals and had reserved a huge block of space in a forthcoming issue for their LBJ expose? That exact block of space was then filled with the coverage of JFK’s assassination.

    Are you aware that photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts supposedly indicate that LBJ ducked down in his limosine just before the first shots were fired in Dallas?

    I’d hardly regard myself as any sort of great JFK expert, but these seem like very telling pieces of evidence, and if you don’t investigate the issue, you’ll obviously never become aware of them.

    Are you aware that RFK and numerous other top government officials very soon became convinced that JFK had died in a conspiracy, but with LBJ controlling the government and Hoover, a Kennedy enemy, controlling the FBI, there was nothing they could do about it and they had no proof.

    Are you aware that the official 1968 coroner’s report on RFK revealed that he’d been shot from behind at point-blank range, while everyone agreed that Sirhan was standing 5-7 feet in front of him? Are you aware that acoustical recordings prove that a dozen shots were fired although Sirhan’s gun only held eight rounds?

    David Talbot’s book Brothers provided all that shocking evidence, of which I’d always been completely unaware. A top mainstream academic presidential historian writing in the NYT found it just as convincing as I did.

    That’s what I mean by specific elements of evidence rather than very general arguments.

    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  223. @Ron Unz

    Thanks for those two absolutely excellent comments.

    So, you detected no inaccuracies in his comments about someone else’s comments, then?

    Silverstein’s quote is rather curious, and so very specific to demolition, or the ridding of something, in general, that it can’t be explained away. Silverstein is on camera, several years later, refusing to explain how Fire Chief Nigro refuted having made a phone call to him on 911, and further, the reporter asking him for clarifications is tossed from the public event, and Larry accuses said reporter of making a scene.

    If you ask the average person how many towers fell on 911, almost everyone says two. There is a specific reason Building 7 is mostly framed as collateral damage, despite the fact that of the three buildings, it’s collapse and disintegration was most remarkable and precedent setting, as no hurling objects breached the upper floors and no jet fuel was responsible for somehow turning a modern building to dust and hot lava.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  224. @PhysicistDave

    ‘…Unlike our friends here who cannot provide evidence for their extraordinary claims.’

    Yes — but just to pursue this admittedly arcane point…

    Surely ordinary claims require evidence as well? I can state I own a piece of property, and that is an ordinary claim — but if the matter is of importance, you can reasonably demand ‘extraordinary’ evidence to support that claim.

    To take a more mundane example, for a good century it was claimed that the Tsars incited pogroms — a fairly ordinary claim, really. After all, discrimination and persecution are common.

    But no definitive evidence was ever offered to support this claim.

    …and it’s turned out that far from encouraging pogroms, the Tsars did everything they could to suppress them.

    The formula ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ seems to me to fail in that it implies that ordinary claims don’t.

    Really? How well does ‘ordinary’ common sense accord with Einsteinian physics, for example?

    I’d say that if I have a ‘common sense’ proposition — that the earth is flat, that the Tsars incited the pogroms, that Hitler wanted to conquer the world, whatever — and evidence comes to light that undermines it, it doesn’t have to be ‘extraordinary’ evidence before I may question it.

    After all, ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ are both relative and subjective. Surely whatever should lead to me questioning the one should lead to me questioning the other. One thing a study of history can lead to is an awareness of how much people are prisoners of their perspective; that in fact ‘ordinary’ really can be no more than a cultural construct.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  225. @Chebyshev

    Shortly after 911 occurred, the FBI found things such as al Haznawi’s car at Logan airport
    which had a copy of the Last Night Document:

    https://www.flight93friends.org/learning-center/crime-scene-investigation/the-last-night-document

    https://www.flight93friends.org/pdf/learning-center/crime-scene-investigation/BS01101T_LastNight_Logan_Translation.pdf

    Things like this would have been left behind as a way of tipping the FBI off about who was responsible, while at the same time Osama could deny in Afghanistan that he had any involvement.

  226. bjondo says:

    Apparently the media didn’t accept UBL’s denial,
    many still report ALQ and Mr. Laden as the perps.

    5ds

  227. Ron Unz says:
    @Tiptoethrutulips

    If you ask the average person how many towers fell on 911, almost everyone says two. There is a specific reason Building 7 is mostly framed as collateral damage, despite the fact that of the three buildings, it’s collapse and disintegration was most remarkable and precedent setting, as no hurling objects breached the upper floors and no jet fuel was responsible for somehow turning a modern building to dust and hot lava.

    Exactly. The collapse of Building 7 is an extremely powerful piece of evidence, totally excluded from all MSM accounts, and it’s also very possible that Silverstein may have somehow been indirectly involved in the 9/11 conspiracy.

    But that’s precisely why it’s so important to avoid tainting that very strong evidence with the very weak evidence of Silverstein’s casual remarks made in an interview long after the attacks. If you mix strong arguments with weak ones, you severely undercut the former, making it easy for them to be dismissed.

    Unfortunately, I’ve already gotten much more involved in this discussion than I’d intended and I’ll need to now focus on my own current work.

  228. @Patrick McNally

    ‘…But there is a possibility that some of those who eagerly adopted the highest estimates for political motives may get on egg on their faces eventually.’

    They very likely will; death tolls usually are exaggerated.

    But so what? Will the moral complexion of the situation change if it turns out the Jews managed to murder ‘only’ fifteen thousand civilians? Do the facts that they sent out messages announcing fake food distribution points and then shelled those who showed up, repeatedly made false claims and supported them with bogus evidence, openly reveled in the slaughter, etc change?

    If I can show that the Germans ‘only’ killed 3.5 million Jews, does the Holocaust become okay? Is it even less of a crime?

    After all, when it comes to criminal culpability, it’s the thought that counts. If I’m at the wheel and my car runs into a crowd, the question isn’t whether I killed two, or killed four — it’s whether I decided I hate white people or just had a senior moment. We can see what Israel is — whether it turns out the final death toll is fifteen thousand or fifty thousand.

    They’ve made it clear.

  229. @Ron Unz

    ‘…I’ve never heard of such latter individuals drinking, drugging, and whoring. Perhaps you can find some actual evidence that they often do such a thing…’

    I wouldn’t be too sure. You might be right — or you might be wrong. People are funny that way.

    It’s like the old Southern joke about Baptists. If you do invite them to go fishing, always invite two. If you just invite one, he’ll drink all your beer.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  230. Wild Man says:

    “Yet since the Neocons soon decided to foment an invasion of Iraq, over the next year or two their media allies gradually began presenting Saddam Hussein as the figure responsible for 9/11, even though no government official ever made that absurd claim and there was never the slightest shred of evidence. I considered the whole thing totally ridiculous at the time, but supposedly all the TV shows began showing Saddam’s picture next to those of the burning WTC powers, and that simple implication was enough to convince most of the American public. By the time we attacked Iraq, something like 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had been responsible for the 9/11 Attacks, and even years later, 70% of Republicans continued to hold that belief.”

    In Alberta, during the convos at the lunch room table at work and such, …. it was probably the other way around, …. 70% quite worried that the Americans are behaving like they are nuts in the middle east over that switcheroo to Saddam Hussein (with his supposed ‘weapons-of mass-destruction’ charade as sponsored by Colin Powell, which was another bizarre feature of the official American narrative that gave us all great pause in Alberta, around this emerging crypsis of American warmongering efforts)… thank God that is way over there type-thing was the 70% sentiment, ….. yet the American media control, in the end, tends to color the sentiment in Canada anyways, as the years pass, …. people don’t want to remember that we already knew, that circa more than 20 years ago now, the Americans were nuts, geopolitically, during the Bush 2 presidency, …. because they don’t want to see (and then have to deal with) the underlying pattern here. It is JQ duplicity, in the main, that pulls strings, to support this wacky American international interventionist policy in the middle east. However the Asian Muslims who were also present in that Alberta work environment, were quite cavalier in regards to spelling that ‘underlying’ part out for us, at said lunch room table at work, ….. and it turns out their assessment (which they already started harping on about, in 1991 after the first gulf war featuring Kuwait, …. as I happen to know was quite the talking point among Asian-Muslim imams in western Canada, at that time ) were spot-on, all along.

    It appears that my Muslim colleagues of even more than 30 years ago now, are pretty much the opposite of ‘total idiots’. Nice people too, that won’t seek to rub that in your face, now. Yet they do know what is what around the JQ. I notice plenty of people try to spit on that (denigrate Muslims as know-nothing idiots that can’t see straight on Israel and Jewdom if their lives depended on it). People that were present at that lunch room table of 20 years ago now, saw it like the Alberta 70% of that time, and yet now think the Palestinians are obviously sub-human behaviorally. That is pathetic and ‘total-idiot-mode’, … my many such Caucasian, or Christian, western Canadian colleagues, to my mind.

  231. Sparkon says:
    @PhysicistDave

    You’ve written a lot of rather boastful words here, but not a single word in reply to my 1,300 word comment #154, above, where I began

    There were no hijacked jetliners that crashed anywhere on September 11, 2001.

    I actually do have a life — I have other things to do!

    As I have said many, many times, I have never taken on the responsibility to refute every single claim made by you 911 Truthers. I could spend every minute of every day for the rest of my life trying to do so, and it would just be a waste of time — you guys are a cult.

    Well, you had time enough to scribble 1300 more words here without addressing anything I wrote in my 1300 world comment, which, unlike yours, was well written, well composed, with sound logic, and based entirely on facts.

    So, until you do that, I’ll limit myself to a few replies.

    II. A number of claims have been made that violate very basic principles of physics — the nuclear-explosion nonsense, the idiocy about Newton’s Third Law, the planes-as-holograms claim, etc. — that alienate anyone who is scientifically literate.

    What idiocy about Newton’s Third Law? The idea that a 150 ton jetliner could crash into a 500,000 ton building, and just keep going, with no reaction from either building or airplane violates not only Newton’s 3rd, but every law of physics known to man.

    You seem not to know much about this whole topic, but I’ve argued strenuously here against the nukes in basement advocates from day one, so educate yourself before you try to pin that crap on me. Same with the hologram nonsense, but the fake videos are obvious to anyone with any kind of background in computer graphics, which I have, in spades, while you seem to be void in that suit, like Ron Unz.

    The biggest idiots are those who believe two mostly aluminum airliners plunged through the steel facades of the Twin Towers, as if they had been made of air, and then completely disappeared within the skyscrapers, leaving only their cartoon-cutout silhouettes in the Towers’ facades, but not a scrap of legitimate aircraft wreckage.

    Those same idiots believe that four jetliners crashed on 9/11 and left not a single scrap of airplane crash wreckage that could be verified by a part number or serial number, unlike every other airplane crash known to man.

    That’s some physics alright, Dave, but do feel free to explain it.

    If the planes did not in fact hit the Twin Towers, thousands of tourists would be able to testify to that fact.

    You’ve got that bass-ackwards. If planes did hit the Twin Towers, there should be thousands of accounts in the public record from eyewitnesses who saw the planes. Instead, we’ve got a relative handful of accounts from people who claim to have seen a plane.

    Did you know that the first two eyewitness at the WTC interviewed by CNN indicated they saw and heard an explosion in WTC 2, but saw no plane?

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was in the PATH train, and there was a huge explosion sound; everyone came out. A large section of the building had blown out around the 80th floor.

    [WNYW reporter Jim] RYAN: Was it hit by something, or was it something inside.

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was inside.

    […]

    [CNN anchor Carol] LIN: Jeanne, we are continuing to look at pictures of this devastating scene, according to Sean Murtagh, vice president of finance, who witnessed what he described as a twin-engine plane, possibly a 737. e was almost absolutely sure it was a large passenger jet that went into that.

    Jeanne, you are saying you didn’t see anything initially. You didn’t see a plane approach the building?

    YURMAN: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange.

    http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html

    A guy who lived right across the street was filming at the time of the second attack, and neither saw nor recorded any plane, just an explosion. A photographer standing right below the towers and looking at it, saw an explosion in WTC 2, but no plane.

    It is a myth that thousands of people actually saw a plane. Surrounded by tall buildings few people in New York’s business district actually had a decent view of the WTC towers. Few people reported actually hearing and seeing planes. Most testimonies of those who did are inconsistent with that of a wide-body commercial airliner hitting a building at 800 feet altitude, full throttle. Meanwhile, it was a simple matter for the TV networks to keep the eyewitnesses who didn’t see a plane off the air.

    Most of ’em, anyway, once the cover-up started.

    Finally, you closed

    And that, I imagine, you cannot do.

    You imagine a lot of things, which results in unnecessary creation of fanciful constructs that have no bearing on the topic of 9/11, speaking of Occam’s Razor. Rather than setting up strawmen, or trying to attribute to me what others may have said, just address what I wrote in my comment #154 so you can be sure you’re getting it straight from me.

    To make it crystal clear for you, I’m not “you guys.”

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  232. tanabear says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Ron, the problem is that whenever I ask any 9/11 Truther for their best evidence — including, I am afraid you (yes, I know it would probably be unfair to label you an actual member of their movement) — the evidence just does not hold up.

    The official story of 9/11 has it that 3 buildings (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7) collapsed due to fires. This would have been the first time in history that steel-framed high-rises collapsed for this reason. This is even admitted by NIST who was tasked with the official investigation into the collapse of these buildings. “The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.” It would seem then that the burden of proof should fall on those who accept the official story, not those who question it.

    But if you want the best and incontrovertible evidence you can read the white paper by engineer Tony Szamboti.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/twenty-five-points.pdf

    In summation:
    World Trade Tower 7:
    COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED
    VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 BETRAY NIST’S COMPUTER MODEL
    World Trade Tower 1 & 2:
    PRE-COLLAPSE STEEL TEMPERATURES ARE EXAGGERATED
    INITIATION OF COLLAPSE – “INWARD BOWING” WAS INDUCED ARTIFICIALLY
    NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR HORIZONTAL PROPAGATION OF COLLAPSE
    NO JOLT – CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION OF COLLAPSE WAS IGNORED
    NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS
    MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS
    UNRESOLVED

    I think one basic issue for 9/11 Truth skeptics is that they simply don’t know what the official explanations are for the collapse of all 3 towers on 9/11. If someone does not know the official explanations, then they won’t understand AE911Truth’s arguments against them.

  233. @Colin Wright

    If I can show that the Germans ‘only’ killed 3.5 million Jews, does the Holocaust become okay? Is it even less of a crime?

    But we have records from the likes of the ICRC (International Committe Red Cross) that less than 300,000 Jews died* in ALL of those work camps (which were falsely labelled as extermination camps) in ALL German occupied territories during WWII.

    (*Notice how I wrote ‘died’ as opposed to ‘murdered by the Germans. That’s because the overwhelming bulk of these Jews were NOT murdered. They died were as a result of the 1942/43 typhus epidemics and from malnutrition in the final months of the war, as the German food transport/logistics network was bombed/strafed to a standstill.
    German civilians in the cities were themselves starving as precious little food got through to them).

    Yes, many thousands of Jews may well have been killed by the Germans on the Eastern front. But these were partisans involved in guerilla activities working to disrupt supply transports and such.
    Under the rules of war, such non-uniformed partisans were indeed allowed to be executed.

    Once again Colin Wrong, you’ve demonstrated that you know next to nothing about the Holohoax.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  234. @Patrick McNally

    Hello, BolshevikPretzel…..

    Does that mean that Elser and Hitler were in on a conspiracy together?

    No.

    Or is it more likely that Hitler was just saved through blind luck?

    Based on your synopsis, I would say it was luck.

    So, the Silvertongue, busy magnate that he is/was, gets badgered into keeping a dermatologist appointment by his wife, who didn’t bother to ask him his schedule before making the appointment, and because he has light hair and skin, he must keep this appointment, inconvenient as it was, and his two children, who also work in the Tower, are both running a bit late that day, and by blind luck, the Silvertongue family is spared, and eventually they become quite a bit more flush with cash as a result of the 911 tragedy, from which they were luckily all spared. As luck would have it, double indemnity for terror attacks saved Silverstein’s turkey-bacon.

    Occam’s Broom.

    I have light hair and skin, and I live where the sun shines bright nearly everyday, and I wear flip-flops in winter, and I’ve never once been to a dermatologist. I guess I’m just lucky. I wonder how much time LuckyLarry spends in the sun? In shorts and flip-flops?

    Occam’s Broom.

  235. @Colin Wright

    After all, when it comes to criminal culpability, it’s the thought that counts.

    Colleen! Silly goose….if your intended murder victim survives, you get hit with an attempted murder charge. In western jurisprudence, what you think of doing, or want to do, or try to do, is not punished/sanctioned equally with what you actually do.

    However – the boys at LeBron’s Blackety-Black Basketball Academy, who can’t pass 8th grade basic skills tests, can stomp a 17 year old White boy to death on their basketball court and walk out of criminal court with sentences of less than two years, having been charged with manslaughter, yet convicted of Aggravated Assault, which seems to be yet another Jewish value – less White People is good for the Jews. So, I think Talmudic Jurisprudence is creeping in to America along with all that lovely diversity, and just in time.

    But take care, Colleen, as thought crimes are making their way into western nation legislation because it seems that the in-toleration of certain thoughts is a Jewish value, and I wonder if that has anything whatsoever to do with the prominence of non-western (European blooded) people acquiring the levers of power in western nations?

    Occam’s Broom. Or, Occam’s Razor?

  236. geokat62 says:

  237. Chebyshev says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Chubby-shev, you’re a smart lad/lass and have posted numerous worthwhile comments that I recall reading…You urgently need to read the following article written by Paul Craig Roberts titled ‘Obama Did Not Kill Osama bin Laden: The American People Live In a World of False Narratives’:

    Thanks for the nice words and the article recommendation. It does sound like bin Laden died in 2001. Could the stress of being falsely accused of 9/11 have caused organ damage and a stroke?

    The story of bin Laden’s killing in Pakistan in 2011 does also sound incompatible with the story told by the witness who was at the scene. Were the people in the helicopter that blew up actually SEALS, or were they Afghan troops sacrificed for the sake of the official story?

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  238. tanabear says:
    @Wild Man

    Are you Canadian? I’m in Alberta.

    No, US.

    What do you think can be done? Personally, …. I think if someone important, linked-up the common thread among all the false-narrative promulgation of many stripes, …. it might work.

    The problem most people have in coming to terms with 9/11 isn’t the evidence, but the implications of the evidence. Most people can easily accept that demolition charges can take down buildings, but they can’t accept this fact on 9/11 due what it might imply. Notice the arguments that 9/11 Truth skeptics always use, “Why would our government do this; How did they keep it secret; Someone would have talked?” But they won’t argue that the 2.25 second free-fall collapse of WTC7 is perfectly consistent with NIST’s computer models of its collapse.

    I once had a conversation with co-workers about 9/11 and no one knew what I meant by a false-flag attack. The idea of a false-flag attack was something that never occurred to them and they were completely unaware that this is tradecraft of governments and intelligence agencies. If you have no concept of a false-flag attack you will obviously be oblivious to 9/11 Truth.

    Joseph Conrad’s novel, The Secret Agent, was published in 1907. The story is about a secret agent working for a foreign country (Russia) and his attempt to frame a terrorist bombing on anarchist groups working in Britain. Wikipedia writes of the novel, “Because of its terrorism theme, it was one of the three works of literature most cited in the American media two weeks after the September 11 attacks.” The fact that The Secret Agent is about a false-flag terrorist attack is not mentioned.

  239. geokat62 says:

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Wild Man
  240. niceland says:
    @Tiptoethrutulips

    Well, what is your point, then?

    It seems to me what Larry is talking about is plain and simple. He is telling the fire chief to pull the operation. To quit trying to save the building and pull his crew out of danger. Here is the transcript you provided:

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

    Tell me – what does it mean to ‘pull it’ in this context? Why would you think it means to blow down the building? I am not native English speaker so I can’t be sure. I asked Google what ‘pull it’ means and found plenty of examples, but none related to taking down a building with explosions or otherwise

    I remember when I first came across this theory, I didn’t understand what was the problem with Larry’s words. It was only when I discovered “pull it” is allegedly a lingo used in the demolition business, and means to blow up (or down) a building. – I figured out what they meant. I found it totally ridiculous and still do.

    Before 9-11 would anyone reading the above transcript think Larry is suggesting to blow up the building? If not this later added explanation as to the meaning of ‘pull it’ is what this is all about. I know hardly anything about Larry but find it unlikely he is using slang from demolition crews in this interview – in a way kind of circular reasoning. And it’s totally crazy to think he is admitting he had anything to do with the collapse of the building.

    If I understand correctly when this interview occurred Larry was just starting his long legal battle with insurance companies later resulting in billions paid to him. Would a guy in such position admit to blowing down one of his own buildings thereby destroying his legal case, not to mention other things.

    What is really interesting about all of this is how on earth this nonsense went viral among 9-11 skeptics. That’s my opinion.

  241. @niceland

    He is telling the fire chief to pull the operation.

    What operation?

    On what authority and due to what qualifications? Larry Silverstein was neither the leaseholder nor the building manager of Tower 7, nor had he any authority/official capacity with regard to NYC or the Federal government.

    Who called him? Why has no one stepped up to say – “I called him.”?

    To quit trying to save the building and pull his crew out of danger.

    It seems you may have neglected to read the information I posted, which was gleaned directly from FEMA and the agency assigned to the official investigation. There was no available water for fire extinguishing, as the water main was broken when the towers imploded. There were no serious attempts to save building 7, and the occupants were evacuated after the impact at Tower 1 at 8:46 a.m.

    I will assume you are familiar with the official definition of to pull – a secondary meaning, to pull it, or pull, generally means to “remove” something – Recent headlines – “These popular medicines might be pulled from shelves….The FDA can decide not to pull the items from shelves, however this is incredibly rare in a unanimous panel decision….” “Almost 60 dairy products, pulled from shelves at H-E-B, Trader Joe’s….”

    In demolition vernacular – I tried to find some demolition verbiage prior to 2001, but could not do so in a cursory manner, but there’s this –

    The NY Times printed a headline on June 17, 2013, that reads, “Tricky Ways to Pull Down a Skyscraper.”

    Watch a few examples of implosive building demolitions on video, and here are relevant terms –

    Implosive Method – is a type of demolition technique that uses explosives to destroy the structural supports of the building and make it collapse. It is best used to dismantle a building or structure with significant height; the two ways to do this are:

    Falling like a tree…

    Falling into its own footprint (the building is imploded, and made to collapse on itself).

    Before 9-11 would anyone reading the above transcript think Larry is suggesting to blow up the building?

    Yes, absolutely. What else can it possibly mean? The building can’t be saved (from fire) – just pull it! What then happened? It collapsed into its own footprint in the exact manner as the other two – a free fall within less than a minute.

    Regarding his lame excuse about meaning to pull the firefighters out – we do not refer to people, certainly multiple people, as “it.” He would have said, “Get your guys out of there; let it burn.”

    If I understand correctly when this interview occurred Larry was just starting his long legal battle with insurance companies later resulting in billions paid to him. Would a guy in such position admit to blowing down one of his own buildings thereby destroying his legal case, not to mention other things.

    You are not incorrect to wonder thusly, and I can only speculate that he was posturing for some future controversy with the demise of Building 7, which was an absolute anomaly without crashing aircraft to muddy the waters. However, his pull it gaffe was made sometime between September, 2001 and September, 2002. He filed his lawsuit in May, 2003. So, there was no case to jeopardize in 2002. An insurance claim of that magnitude would take years to resolve, litigation notwithstanding, and Silverstein went to law school and worked in the real estate business his entire life; I will assume he was certain he had his bases covered. And, as it turns out, he did, because as far as I’m concerned, he admitted/alluded to the demolition of Building 7. If a serious investigation had been made, whether by the Feds or the claim handlers/lawyers, Silverstein would have been compelled to reveal the name of the fire commander, and said fire commander would’ve been deposed.

    • Replies: @niceland
  242. @niceland

    Are you an Icelander?

    • Agree: niceland
    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  243. @tanabear

    Tanabear, you’re a smart cookie. You know that the official NIST/USG/ZOG dictated narrative of how the WTC buildings collapsed on 9/11 is B.S – like everyone else that doesn’t have a Talmudic axe to grind also knows.

    But Fizzy-cyst Dovid has one almighty ADL/B’nai B’rith axe to grind, hence the reason he dismissed the explanation I posted in a Tony Szamboti video earlier on.
    You see Tana, Fizzy-cyst Dovid dismissed Szamboti on the grounds that he graduated from a lesser university than his own Sanford and Son alma mater.

    Dovid Miller says that the junk science taught at Sanford and Son is the benchmark.
    Of course, as I explained to Doofus Dovid, it matters not what academic institution Szamboti graduated from, seeing as he’s the spokesman for AE911Truth, an organisation with countless thousands of professionals and academics, most of which are infinitely more knowledgeable than he is in relation to the events pertaining to 9/11.

  244. @Tiptoethrutulips

    Are you an Icelander?

    I doubt that the individual using the handle ‘Nicelamb’ is an Icelander.
    I’ve caught him out on numerous occasions peddling falsehoods (invariably supporting the official ZOG agenda) in relation to the Covid Psyop, on 9/11 and other matters.

    If I was a betting man I’d guess that he is an IDF Unit 8200 operative working out of his cubicle in the Negev Desert, such is the level of deceit and misdirection coming from him.
    He’s certainly not in the league of Fizzy-cyst Dovid when it comes to depraved conscience-free dishonesty.
    Then again that was always going to be an extremely low bar to stoop beneath, seeing as Fizzy Dov is among the most mendacious individuals you’re ever likely to cross paths with.

    • Replies: @niceland
    , @Ron Unz
  245. @Chebyshev

    Were the people in the helicopter that blew up actually SEALS, or were they Afghan troops sacrificed for the sake of the official story?

    Are you referring to the helicopter that blew up in Afghanistan, that contained the members of Seal Team 6 that were about to blow the whistle on the fake 2011 killing of OBL?
    If so, scroll up to my comment # 221 and make sure you watch the full 9 mins I specified, where USMC Lt-Col. Field McConnell tells you what you’ll never hear from the ZOG owned western MSM.

    UR readers, I cannot begin to stress how important the entirety of that video I posted in comment # 221 is.
    It had previously been on You Tube, but the Talmudists-that-be took it down, along with Field McConnell’s websites/You Tube channel that contained a treasure trove of information.
    A ton of other Field McConnell related videos and peripheral stuff has also been purged from the internet (stuff that I could easily access a decade or more ago) – because this man has been sooooo damaging to ZOG (possibly more so than any other single individual on the planet).

    Many of you will learn more about the reality of the world we live from that video (on those issues McConnell’s speaks about), than you have accumulated in your entire lives.
    Be sure to copy said video and store somewhere securely – before it too disappears.

  246. @geokat62

    Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

  247. niceland says:
    @Tiptoethrutulips

    You ask: What operation?

    According to Larry’s story the fire chief called him; “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire”

    So according to this, there was some kind of operation, either going on, or being planned to contain the fire.

    Larry goes on: “and I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.

    Why did he mention the terrible loss of life? He is indicating the decision to “pull it” was to prevent more loss of life. Telling the chief – just get your men out of there, out of harms way.

    Imagine he told the fire chief: We had such terrible loss of life – demolish the building! How would that make sense?

    It’s possible Larry is simply making this story up, or he didn’t remember correctly or whatever. What’s the moral of the story – so to speak? Good old Larry is telling the reporter he was worried about the fire-crew and told them to walk away as the owner of the building in question. It may be true or not. In any case he isn’t saying what you claim.

    In my opinion this is just nonsense from start to finish. And actually I have noticed many hard skeptics about the official narrative of 9-11 agree. If you don’t that’s fine and we can disagree about this.

    And yes, I am indeed Icelander.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  248. niceland says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    I doubt that the individual using the handle ‘Nicelamb’ is an Icelander.

    You are on record here as pathological liar.

    Auðvitað “efast” þú um að ég sé Íslendingur. Allir sem eru ekki sammála ruglinu og bullinu sem kemur frá þér eru samkvæmt þér einhverskonar málaliðar Zíónista eða viðlíka afla af dularfullum toga. Þetta er auðvitað ómerkileg umræðutaktík af þinni hálfu sem enginn með fulla fimm getur tekið mark á.

    Vandamálið við þig er að þú ert lygari af lægstu sort eins og ítrekað hefur verið bent á hér á þessari umræðu. Þú slærð fram fullyrðingum sem þú getur ómögulega vitað eins og ekkert sé og leiðréttir ekkert og dregur ekkert til baka sem er öllum ljóst að eru ósannindi, fals og prettir.

    Google translate can’t handle this text. Find someone who is fluent in Icelandic to translate it for you. Ask him or her if I am Icelander.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  249. @Sparkon

    Sparkon wrote to me:

    What idiocy about Newton’s Third Law? The idea that a 150 ton jetliner could crash into a 500,000 ton building, and just keep going, with no reaction from either building or airplane violates not only Newton’s 3rd, but every law of physics known to man.

    Nope.

    I was referring to Truth Vigilante’s claim that the observed collapse, and Zdeněk Bažant’s explanation of that collapse, violate the Third Law.

    Truth Vigilante thereby illustrates that he never legitimately earned a psssing degree in any physics class (perhaps a “charity pass”).

    Of course, the same does apply to your statement that I just quoted.

    Sparkon also wrote to me:

    Same with the hologram nonsense, but the fake videos are obvious to anyone with any kind of background in computer graphics, which I have, in spades, while you seem to be void in that suit, like Ron Unz.

    You are positing a conspiracy of a size that simply defies common sense.

    Hundreds of passengers died in the four planes, including, as I said, an old college friend of mine, Dr.Bryan Jack.

    Yes, CGI could make the images. But to suppose that those images could be slipped into on-air broadcasts, that hundreds of passenger could somehow be dealt with in a deceptive way, and all the rest…

    Sorry, but such claims are indeed the sign of insanity.

    Sparkon also wrote to me:

    You imagine a lot of things, which results in unnecessary creation of fanciful constructs that have no bearing on the topic of 9/11, speaking of Occam’s Razor. Rather than setting up strawmen, or trying to attribute to me what others may have said, just address what I wrote in my comment #154 so you can be sure you’re getting it straight from me.

    Not a snowball’s chance in Hell that I will seriously address your deranged claims.

    My reply, which you so disliked, was explaining in detail why it is obvious that you are mentally deranged.

    And that is abundantly obvious.

    I do not intend to pretend otherwise.

    Let me leave you with one question: are you able to seriously contemplate as a possibility that the official story might indeed be more or less correct? Just for a moment?

    I have indeed considered your and your friends’ claims: they are, quite literally, insane.

    But I do not think you can even consider that as a serious possibility.

    Now can you?

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  250. @niceland

    Google translate can’t handle this text.

    Only fools use the Google search engine.

    We know for a FACT that Google is a tool of the ZOG extablishment. So whether it be on the Covid Psyop, the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax, the 9/11 False Flag or whatever, Google uses algorithms to elevate articles/websites/videos etc that promote the fraud and cover for ZOG’s crimes.

    Those articles/websites/videos etc that expose ZOG malfeasance are relegated well down (on page 57 perhaps ?) of the search, or purged altogether.
    By putting those links right at the end of the queue, ZOG owned Google can still say that said info is not censored, while at the same time being aware that very few people will scroll through dozens and dozens of pages to get what they’re looking for.

    I exclusively use the search engine Yandex.com and would recommend others do likewise if they want something much nearer to the truth.

    Meanwhile, if by chance you are actually from Iceland, there’s always some rotten apples in every orchard. You’re more than likely some unscrupulous POS like this thief that embezzled lots of money from Wikileaks:

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/icelandic-hacker-says-guilty-stealing-money-wikileaks-200012571.html

    From the article:

    An Icelandic computer hacker and former associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange unexpectedly pleaded guilty on Wednesday to embezzling 30 million Icelandic crowns ($240,000) from the organisation.

    Known as ‘Siggi the Hacker’, Thordar­s­son has previously said that he turned an informant for the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2011 ….

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it turned out that you are ‘Siggi the Hacker’. It is clear from your commentary history that you are beholden to some three letter agency of the U.S Security Surveillance state, such is your never ending apologia for the crimes of ZOG.

  251. @tanabear

    tanabear wrote to me:

    The official story of 9/11 has it that 3 buildings (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7) collapsed due to fires. This would have been the first time in history that steel-framed high-rises collapsed for this reason.

    It would also be the first time in history that skyscrapers were brought down by nuclear bombs under the skyscraper (without the telltale signs of nuclear explosions) or that somehow holograms were so good they looked like planes, or whatever your own preferred kooky explanation is.

    The “first time in history” argument does not work.

    No matter how you cut it, this was a very unusual event.

    What has to be evaluated is the technical explanation that is the official narrative vs. the fake technical explanations given by 911 Truthers.

    I am able to do that.

    None of the 911 Truthers here is able to.

    To use the technical term, when it comes to STEM, you are all what is known technically as “imbeciles.” And you just jeep proving it.

    Again and again.

    And I addressed the Szamboti con artist in a previous comment (see here): he has no credibility.

    At all.

    Look: you don’t want to be treated as a filthy, lying little con artist?

    Then unequivocally and unreservedly denounce Truth Vigilante for the lies I documented above that he has so brazenly told.

    After you do that, I will think about taking you seriously.

    If you can not bring yourself to do that… then I and all sane people here will know that you are nothing but a sniveling little cult member completely lacking in integrity or any respect for the truth.

    Which is, I think, the case.

    • Replies: @tanabear
  252. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote to me:

    [Dave] ‘…Unlike our friends here who cannot provide evidence for their extraordinary claims.’

    [Colin] Yes — but just to pursue this admittedly arcane point…

    What??? You want me to take out time from my evening relaxation, pointing out the mental disability of most of the commenters here? Haven’t I explained that some guys watch college football or have a glass of wine to relax, but since I don’t drink alcohol or watch any football except for the SuperBowl, I relax by exposing the insane commenters here? Everybody’s entitled to a little R&R, doncha think?

    Well, anyway, Colin wrote:

    Surely ordinary claims require evidence as well? I can state I own a piece of property, and that is an ordinary claim — but if the matter is of importance, you can reasonably demand ‘extraordinary’ evidence to support that claim.

    Well… since you seem to be a (relatively) sane and honest person, I would tend to take your word if you claimed to own a piece of land out in the country.

    If you claimed you had been kidnapped by space aliens… despite my esteem for you, I fear I would want some evidence.

    Sure, the stakes matter: if I were buying real estate from you, I’d want the normal title search done.

    But in the case of the space aliens, I would not believe you without very, very convincing evidence, even if no money were involved at all.

    Colin also wrote:

    The formula ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ seems to me to fail in that it implies that ordinary claims don’t.

    Really? How well does ‘ordinary’ common sense accord with Einsteinian physics, for example?

    Common sense does not accord at all well with Einsteinian physics.

    Indeed, on April 1, 1967., as a junior-high-school student, I myself found the error in Special Relativity!

    I emblazoned that date in my mind because I knew it was a date that would go down in history (no, I did not find it ironic that it was April Fools’ Day!).

    I was of course wrong, but my point is that I started out very, very skeptical and was not willing to believe Einstein’s claims without extraordinary evidence. And, yes, I was aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and, no, I did not consider that sufficient evidence. Which indeed it is not: Michelson-Morley can be explained (this was what I had figured out for myself) by the hypothesis that the speed of light depends on the speed of the source.

    As it turned out, I was not of course the first person to think of this. I pursued this further and eventually found out that, yes, there is extraordinary evidence to confirm the extraordinary claims made by Einstein.

    But, yes, I did indeed start out skeptical until I found the extraordinary evidence.

    Colin also wrote:

    I’d say that if I have a ‘common sense’ proposition — that the earth is flat, that the Tsars incited the pogroms, that Hitler wanted to conquer the world, whatever — and evidence comes to light that undermines it, it doesn’t have to be ‘extraordinary’ evidence before I may question it.

    The claim that the Tsar did not start the pogroms or that Hitler did not intend to conquer the world are not extraordinary claims. So, they do not require extraordinary evidence. Neither the affirmative nor the negative in those cases constitute extraordinary claims.

    But our friends’ claims here that a nuclear explosion brought down the Twin Towers (without the telltale signs of a nuclear explosion) or that the planes were holograms or that there was this unimaginably huge conspiracy that secreted the passengers, inserted CGI into the live broadcasts, and all the rest… those are indeed extraordinarily extraordinary claims.

    For which their “evidence” is things along the lines of “I can’t really believe _______” on subjects about which they have no expertise at all.

    Ron Unz’s belief that the US government is hiding something is, of course, not per se extraordinary at all, since the government hides things all the time.

    By the way, the claim that the Earth is round is not an extraordinary claim today, when we see satellite pictures all the time (or, I supposed, we could say the very fact of the satellite pictures is indeed extraordinary evidence!), but it would have been an extraordinary claim to make to early Neolithic farmers. The only evidence I could think of to give them would been the Earth’s shadow on the Moon during an eclipse… and an eclipse itself is extraordinary, isn’t it?

    And personally I don’t think I would have bought the Earth’s shadow on the Moon argument anyway — always seemed a bit shaky to me. Starting with the fact that you would have to show that that was actually what caused a lunar eclipse.

    Extraordinary claims really do require extraordinary evidence.

    Dave

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  253. @Wild Man

    Wild Man wrote to me:

    Of course you are spot-on with respect to your assessment that: “For most human beings, beliefs are badges of group identity.” Yes humans need personal identities, in order to navigate the social world, as the social world is made up of competing group identities (this group identity dynamic is most probably a function of the language impetus). Of course that goes for you too (no one can escape this extremely deep human social dynamic). You do agree with this point of logic – no?

    No.

    There were three main reasons I rejected Christianity:

    A) Jesus said to give all you had to the poor, etc., and I noticed that none of the adults in the church really believed it — as I said, it was not simply that they were hypocrites but rather that they thought (correctly, in my opinion, then and now) that anyone who would do that was bonkers. This puzzled me — why didn’t they just come out and say they didn’t believe it? Of course, I eventually found out that the reason was that the beliefs were really just badges of group identity.

    B) The church practiced baptism by total immersion, and I felt the preacher was such a doofus that he might accidentally let me drown if I let him baptize me!

    C) Most importantly, no, I do not seem to have the desire most humans have to prove my loyalty to a group, especially not by giving assent to beliefs that seem to be a bit dicey. On the contrary, I have always had the inclination to question the beliefs of the group, to look for contradictions, to seek out countervailing evidence. This of course is what scientists are supposed to do, but I do not know of any religion that encourages it!

    So, for one reason or another, I do indeed seem to “escape this extremely deep human social dynamic.”

    My family will tell you, rather ruefully, that I seem to have been that way from birth.

    Have you heard the famous story related by Matthew Arnold about Percy Bysshe Shelley (see here)? It goes:

    NOWADAYS all things appear in print sooner or later; but I have heard from a lady who knew Mrs. Shelley a story of her which, so far as I know, has not appeared in print hitherto. Mrs. Shelley was choosing a school for her son, and asked the advice of this lady, who gave for advice — to use her own words to me — ‘just the sort of banality, you know, one does come out with: Oh, send him somewhere where they will teach him to think for himself!’ I have had far too long a training as a school inspector to presume to call an utterance of this kind a banality; however, it is not on this advice that I now wish to lay stress, but upon Mrs. Shelley’s reply to it. Mrs. Shelley answered: “Teach him to think for himself? Oh, my God, teach him rather to think like other people!”

    Matthew Arnold, Essays in Criticism (1888), pp. 205-6.

    I can assure you that my parents would empathize with Mrs. Shelley!

    Although I know for a fact that most people are not like me and Percy Bysshe, I frankly find that fact to be exceedingly odd.

    Why on Earth are humans so disinclined to make use of the mind with which they are endowed?

    Here is my theory of history in a tl;dr form:

    Civilization is built on lies: this has been true for more than five thousand years of all the major institutions of civilizations — obviously, government and religion but also educational systems, the judicial system, the medical cartel, the legal profession, and so on.

    And so the job of any human being with an ounce of integrity must be to end civilization by chipping away at the lies.

    And so this is my quest, to follow that star of truth, to strive against the lies.

    Can I destroy civilization all by myself?

    No, of course not.

    But I am one of millions — we are legion.

    And, as the quote from Vonnegut suggests, in an age of nuclear weapons, perhaps we really had better work on extirpating the lies that make society possible lest we find the alternative to be the extinction of our species.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
  254. Wild Man says:
    @geokat62

    Hahahaha. That is pretty funny. A kike-pot calling the kettle black. The kike pulls all sorts of clown-world attributions about the world from his pot (that is probably what the Jewish ‘hat’ is for, …. too much dreck will begin to drip down and smootch over the face, otherwise, … not a good look, so can’t let that happen). Is this therefore the pot to piss in? Oh my, …. that is what this kike wants, no? His invitation is featured by way of his problem/solution dynamic. He makes clown-world problems with great zeal and dedication, so that when people get squeamish about living in clown-world, and begin to say something derogatory about that, … he can go: ‘oh, poor poor pitiful me, … everybody hates me nobody likes me, I am going to make the world eat some worms’.

    Sorry, …. but if one knows anything at all about Cluster-B-type psycho-pathology of the fem-mode, …. it seems as if the psychological designation was made, precisely, for people like this kike. It is just so obvious. The Cluster-B thing, … I am not just making this up, …. I am dead serious. It’s just so fucking bizarre. Look, …. we can all go about our merry lives with a small preponderance of Cluster-B type action among individuals in our midst, … but if this low level rises above a certain still-very-minority threshold, …. watch out then, …. the wheels will come off the culture then, on the way to a massive train-wreck. As such, the pro-social thing to do, is to point out that the pot is blacker than black, and pissing in it (as invited) is not the solution. So what is the solution, then?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  255. Ron Unz says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    I doubt that the individual using the handle ‘Nicelamb’ is an Icelander.
    I’ve caught him out on numerous occasions peddling falsehoods (invariably supporting the official ZOG agenda) in relation to the Covid Psyop, on 9/11 and other matters.

    If I was a betting man I’d guess that he is an IDF Unit 8200 operative working out of his cubicle in the Negev Desert, such is the level of deceit and misdirection coming from him.

    LOL.

    Niceland has been one of the sharpest commenters on this website for many years, since long before you showed up and began endlessly ranting about “ZOG” and vaxxing in a foolish manner.

    I’ve even occasionally been in touch with him via email, as I’ve mentioned in one or two of my articles.

    I’d say I’m at least 99% certain he’s an Icelander, just as he claims to be, much like I’m 99% certain that Dave Miller is who he claims to be.

    Your ridiculous behavior exemplifies exactly what I meant when I said that the biggest problem with the 9/11 Truth movement is so many of the 9/11 Truthers…

    • Agree: Poupon Marx
    • Thanks: niceland
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  256. Ron Unz says:
    @niceland

    I remember when I first came across this theory, I didn’t understand what was the problem with Larry’s words. It was only when I discovered “pull it” is allegedly a lingo used in the demolition business, and means to blow up (or down) a building. – I figured out what they meant. I found it totally ridiculous and still do…What is really interesting about all of this is how on earth this nonsense went viral among 9-11 skeptics.

    That’s a very interesting point.

    When I first started looking into 9/11 issues about a dozen years ago, I also noticed lots of the activists were focusing on those words by Silverstein. The whole thing seemed so totally ridiculous that I didn’t pay any attention to it and just assumed it was a typical example of the ridiculous beliefs of so many 9/11 Truthers.

    But you’re right that it’s actually interesting why such an extremely weak argument became so popular in those circles.

    For example, I’ll bet it’s gotten more than 100x the attention as the late Prof. Graeme MacQueen’s very important FOIA evidence that over 150 professional firefighters and rescue workers reported hearing a series of explosions just before the building collapsed:

    So very widespread focus on an extremely weak argument has prevented discussion of an extremely strong argument. This raises reasonable suspicions that the 9/11 Truthers may have been manipulated by Cass Sustein-type “cognitive infiltrators.”

    In one of his books, the late Michael Collins Piper emphasized that conspiracy-activists tended to be a very excitable and gullible lot, easily manipulated in that way, and I’d discussed the whole issue in one of my articles:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/alex-jones-cass-sunstein-and-cognitive-infiltration/

    • Thanks: Poupon Marx
  257. geokat62 says:
    @Wild Man

    So what is the solution, then?

    Maurice Samuel stated the issue more plainly than anyone else:

    We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you do will meet our needs and demands. We will destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build. (p. 155, You Gentiles)

    They say they need a world of their own, I say by all means. Let them build their God-world on Mars.

  258. Sparkon says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I have indeed considered your and your friends’ claims: they are, quite literally, insane.

    Look, you babbling turkey, I am neither friggin’ Truth Vigilante nor any of your friggen’ strawmen.

    All you did was dodge my point about physics to go off on another of your tangents.

    You are positing a conspiracy of a size that simply defies common sense.
    Hundreds of passengers died in the four planes, including, as I said, an old college friend of mine, Dr.Bryan Jack.
    Yes, CGI could make the images. But to suppose that those images could be slipped into on-air broadcasts, that hundreds of passenger could somehow be dealt with in a deceptive way, and all the rest…

    Sorry, but such claims are indeed the sign of insanity.

    [pretentious padding deleted]

    I don’t think discussing common sense or sanity with you is likely to be a fruitful endeavor, so let’s try math.

    There are no bodies from any of the reputed 9/11 passengers, just as there is no legitimate crash wreckage from any of the claimed 9/11 airplane crashes.

    0+0=0.

    No passenger bodies, and no airplane wreckage adds up to no crashed airplanes, and by extension, no bodies and no wreckage adds up to a false flag operation on 9/11.

    I don’t know if commenter Onebornfree is still active at UR, but he is well versed on what videos were aired lived on 9/11. There were only two or three live feeds, as I recall, but please don’t quote me on it. Additionally, one of the live video feeds from a circling helicopter had no visible airplane on first airing, but an airplane appeared in later broadcasts of that video. Commenter Iris can fill in details on that. I’m on a narrow pipe right now, slow connection, and can’t do much double-checking, so I’m relying on my memory.

    The Hezarkhani video was broadcast late in the day (in some time zones) by CNN on Sept. 11, 2001. Similarly, the infamous “nose out” video was aired later in the day on 9/11 by Fox. Either of those videos can certainly raise goosebumps on first viewing, but as we have seen, video analysts have torn them apart as obvious CGI, and of course the preposterous “nose out” video is straight from Hollywood.

    You can’t or won’t see it because your eyes are wide shut even as your mouth is wide open.

    Sparkon also wrote to me:

    You imagine a lot of things … just address what I wrote in my comment #154 so you can be sure you’re getting it straight from me.

    Not a snowball’s chance in Hell that I will seriously address your deranged claims.

    My reply, which you so disliked, was explaining in detail why it is obvious that you are mentally deranged.

    Again, the pot calls the teacup black.

    As far as I know, I coined that expression, a play on a popular idiom, and it has proven to be a worthwhile specie here at UR, an apt token for shameless hypocrites like thyself.

    In pompous fashion, and giving cheesy excuses, you have again weaseled out of addressing my comment #154, simply because you can’t, and that makes it pretty clear to me you’re another one of the idiots around here who thinks airliners can fly through skyscrapers without crumpling, shattering, or even slowing down, as if both were made of air.

    Airplanes, Airbuildings, Airheads…

    It does sort of add up if you think of it that way, and it’s Hollywood Physics all the way through.

  259. @bjondo

    ‘…Raimondo not someone Yid would claim.
    Lot I could no longer find.

    Will go with false memory for now…’

    It gets to be like surmising from the behavior that the ‘youths’ were black.

    These days, they really do selectively obscure who is Jewish — by what criteria I don’t know. If they’re reasonably prominent, scanning search results will usually turn up the Peoria Jewish Association or whatever kvelling about how hometown boy makes good — but it’s a pain in the ass to look.

    …and too often, people just assume — which plays hell with their credibility when dude turns out to not be Jewish. The other day, someone had Beria down as Jewish. No, he wasn’t.

  260. @Ron Unz

    ‘But you’re right that it’s actually interesting why such an extremely weak argument became so popular in those circles.’

    It could be seen as a perverse example of Saint Anselm’s justification for applying reason to theology.

    His contemporaries criticized his attempts to prove God’s existence as demonstrating a lack of piety; if you truly believed, you wouldn’t need to prove to yourself that God existed.

    Saint Anselm justified his ratiocinations as ‘faith seeking understanding.’

    These people have faith. They concoct the best arguments they can to buttress that faith.

    …one of the more dismal aspects of the modern world is the way the conspiracy theory has replaced religious faith. People need to perceive an unseen hand — and they do. If there is no God, it must be the Trilateral Commission.

    If that is an improvement, it’s not much of one.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @muh muh
  261. @Sparkon

    ‘…In pompous fashion, and giving cheesy excuses, you have again weaseled out of addressing my comment #154, simply because you can’t, and that makes it pretty clear to me you’re another one of the idiots around here who thinks airliners can fly through skyscrapers without crumpling, shattering, or even slowing down, as if both were made of air…’

    This probably won’t help, but every time I see this argument, I recall a photo I saw in a book when I was a child.

    It showed a straw that had been driven through a six-inch thick tree trunk by a tornado. It was sticking out both sides.

    The Germans experimented with a weapon that would fire pulses of compressed air at extremely high speed. They got something that would punch a hole in an inch-thick board at one hundred meters or something. The installation needed to generate the pulse was massive, so it wasn’t really a practical weapon, but…

    Airliner punching through both sides of a building? I don’t know enough to rule it out.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  262. @niceland

    So according to this, there was some kind of operation

    Yes, indeed; that would be the duly specified Operation of suppressing/preventing fires and search/rescue, and likely Emergency Medical Services (paramedics), but not demolition services, nor seeking advice/permission from real estate developers during operations.

    Most fire departments for larger cities also have fire and arson investigators who examine the debris and collect physical evidence to determine the cause of fire/explosions. I know there were many firefighters who reported several anomalies with regard to the debris – molten steel – but, if I’m not mistaken, the debris was removed from the site and shipped overseas without an evaluation, so this protocol was neglected for some unknown reason.

    Why did he mention the terrible loss of life?

    What does that have to do with anything?

    Because, he’s not a complete idiot? Because he wants to appear concerned about innocent people, and perhaps he was concerned. Why is this statement significant considering what had occurred?

    What is significant is that the “caller” has not come forward, to my knowledge, and Silverstein scurries off whenever he’s confronted over his story, which doesn’t happen too often, as those who do ask are hauled off by security goons.

    He is indicating the decision to “pull it” was to prevent more loss of life. Telling the chief – just get your men out of there, out of harms way.

    Pull it = get your men out of there? Really?

    Get your men out of there = get your men out of there.

    Larry Silverstein = call me for orders with regard to building 7.

    Larry Silverstein = did I hear you correctly? There’s no available water, and everyone, including rescue/fire crews, were evacuated and/or cleared from the grounds hours ago? OK, then get your guys out of there and don’t bother with extinguishing the fire = pull it!

    I am truly baffled that Larry’s unbelievable series of fortunate events with regard to the entire WTC debacle and the subsequent cash cow, which was a result of his fortuitous insurance rider, coupled with his pull it gaffe, is handily dismissed as a wacky conspiracy theory by those who actually believe that some sophisticated group, other than a few bacon-eating, stripper-watching, pissed-off Muslims, actually did conspire to attack the US in order to facilitate major foreign and domestic government policies. If they believe the buildings were assisted in their implosion, how can they possibly discount the use of a common demolition term by the WTC leaseholder/beneficiary with regard to the collapse of building 7?

    [MORE]

    Imagine he told the fire chief: We had such terrible loss of life – demolish the building!

    Imagining is not necessary, my Nice Icelander, as what you wrote above is essentially what he said that he said. No one has corroborated this phone call, and the question is – why did he make such a statement?

    So, if a lawyer wants to question a witness, he/she will depose the witness. Depose is a term commonly used in legal jargon.

    In a restaurant, if a particular menu item is no longer available, they 86 it; restaurant jargon.

    In construction/demolition, pull it is the term for tearing down or removing, and it is also commonly used –

    YardLink (UK construction supply) website info –

    Why Is Demolition Important?
    Building demolition is important as once a building has reached the end of it’s ‘design life’, it is no longer structurally safe. As a result, the building will need to be demolished and reconstructed to make it structurally sound again. This involves pulling down the old building to make space for a new one.

    Total Demolition
    Total demolition involves pulling down an entire building or site. This usually happens when a building is no longer serving an area to make room for something more practical.

    So before grabbing your excavator and pulling down a structure, make sure you have read and understood the above post. This will equip you with all of the knowledge you need before engaging in this type of project.

    Wikipedia – Demolition

    […] The building is pulled down either manually or mechanically using large hydraulic equipment…

    Demolition – Manual

    The demolition project manager/supervisor will determine where undermining is necessary so that a building is pulled in the desired manner and direction.
    

    safeworkaustralia.gov

    DEMOLITION WORK
    Code of Practice
    JULY 2012

    4.3 Securing the work area

    Planning for exclusion zones should take into consideration:
    […]

    the deliberate collapse or pulling over of buildings or structures.

    engineeringforchange.org

    SMALL STRUCTURE DEMOLITION MANUAL
    PROJECT NEPAL

    July 2015
    Prepared in Conjunction with Engineers Without Borders

    [page 17]

    6.2 General Demolition Procedures

    [page 19]

    Weakening
    […]

    The Pull

    * Get ready to pull down the building section.
    * Double check to make sure the area is clear of tools, people and animals.
    […]
    * Pull.
    […]
    * Refrain from cheering when the building falls. This is someone’s home and they probably are not excited to be losing their home.

    [Page 21]

    One-Story school building stone & mud mortar load bearing wall, wood lintels and top stone course, steel trusses, steel purlins & metal roof deck

    1. Brace all unstable walls and brace walls with one brace located at each truss or main wall supporting member at a minimum.
    2. Shore all unstable roof trusses and sections…
    […]
    15. Pull.
    16. If section does not fall, reinstall supports, and either divide wall into a smaller section or weaken the wall further by hand removing rocks or if this cannot be done safely, knock them out with long poles.
    17. Repeat pull.
    The end.

    So, what is The Pull? Is it really all that obscure or difficult to extrapolate (figure out)?

    Preponderance of Evidence
    Common Sense
    Circumstantial Evidence is still Evidence
    Occam’s Razor
    Occam’s Broom
    The Jews Were the Greatest Criminals of the Twentieth Century (per Ron Unz – (in paraphrase))
    The Jews Began Again in the 21st Century With a Bang
    Larry Silverstein is Jewish, and BiBi is his best buddy

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  263. Wild Man says:
    @Ron Unz

    No, …. the Silverstein meme didn’t gain legs for the reason you say, … not really, … it’s more or less, instead, like this, among those that like that meme:

    ‘I have determined for myself that the official 9/11 narrative is bogus on many fronts. And otherwise, besides all that, Silverstein had just about the oddest insurance set-up for his newly acquired real estate asset requiring asbestos abatement (if I recall the asbestos thing correctly, … just going by memory here). , …. paying twice the normal loss amount?, … and then some few people enriched themselves with large futures positions anomalies and such, due to foreknowledge, …. and alot of Jews didn’t show up for work at that locale on 9/11 (including Silverstein who otherwise had been claiming he was pretty much camped at the site, due to the vast financial interest in this he newly acquired asset, …spending his days visiting all the tenants groups, one by one).’

    So, … yes of course the Silvertein meme, is taken out of context. But everybody that knows anything, already knows. And the shoe otherwise fits. It’s a place holder meme for all I just indicated. So what? People use literary license all the time.

    If the official 9/11 narrative is bogus, I would say that it is pretty much 100% certain then, that Silverstein knows far more than he is letting on around that.

    • Replies: @Wild Man
    , @niceland
  264. bjondo says:
    @niceland

    Considering #7 collapsed after Larry’s command,
    safe to think “pull it” meant demolition “pull it”
    or #7 empathetic with 1 @ 2 with a suicide pact.

    5ds

  265. Sparkon says:

    Airliner punching through both sides of a building? I don’t know enough to rule it out.

    I do.

    Punching through both sides of the Twin Towers would have required punching through the massive central core, so it seems unlikely you have really given the issue much thought, or that you really know very much at all, for the fragile nosecone of a jetliner gives way to a goose.

    However, you really don’t seem that ignorant, just willing apparently, to make yourself look like an airhead, at least to some of us, so I must conclude that you are instead really an Internet Troll busying yourself here for reasons known only to yourself.

  266. tanabear says:
    @PhysicistDave

    It would also be the first time in history that skyscrapers were brought down by nuclear bombs under the skyscraper (without the telltale signs of nuclear explosions) or that somehow holograms were so good they looked like planes, or whatever your own preferred kooky explanation is. The “first time in history” argument does not work.

    You seem to be conflating two separate things. If I took a plane trip to Paris, France that would be the first time in history such an event had occurred; me going to Paris. Yet there would be nothing surprising about this as people travel to Paris, France every day. If I stood on the roof of my house and leaped into outer space and landed on the moon, that would also be the first time that such an event had also occurred. So both scenarios posit a first-time occurrence, but one is possible and the other is not.

    The issue with the collapse of the towers due to fires isn’t just the first time that such an event had occurred, but that its occurrence would contravene the known laws of physics. Taking down buildings with explosives has historical precedent and fires do not. I don’t believe there was a nuclear blast under the WTC towers, but I wouldn’t deny the fact that a nuclear explosive could destroy a building.

    What has to be evaluated is the technical explanation that is the official narrative vs. the fake technical explanations given by 911 Truthers.

    So are you denying the fact that explosives/cutter charges can bring down buildings?

    We know that the official explanation is a complete and utter fraud for the simple reason that there isn’t a single scientific experiment that supports any aspect of the official story. If someone asked, “Give me your method for demolishing a skyscraper with fire?”, could you do it? No. Could anyone at NIST? No. Could any engineer in the world? No.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  267. @Sparkon

    ‘…However, you really don’t seem that ignorant, just willing apparently, to make yourself look like an airhead, at least to some of us, so I must conclude that you are instead really an Internet Troll busying yourself here for reasons known only to yourself.’

    You’re probably not this obnoxious in person.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  268. @PhysicistDave

    ‘…Well… since you seem to be a (relatively) sane and honest person, I would tend to take your word if you claimed to own a piece of land out in the country.

    If you claimed you had been kidnapped by space aliens… despite my esteem for you, I fear I would want some evidence…’

    Sigh…nobody is ever going to believe me about the space aliens.

    How about seeing Obama across a room?

    Anyway, you and Ron are really getting into it with the 9/11 Truthers. From my point of view, both factions are supporting Israel’s interests — and that’s regrettable.

  269. Sparkon says:
    @Colin Wright

    This is what you wrote, slick:

    Airliner punching through both sides of a building? I don’t know enough to rule it out.

    If you don’t know enough, why not keep your yap shut instead of displaying your stupidity for all to see?

    Why not? To try to muddy the waters, that’s why not.

    That makes you a troll, in my book.

    If that’s obnoxious, tough toenails.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  270. @Ron Unz

    ‘I’m still very skeptical. The whole purpose of a terrorist attack to to demonstrate that a small organization can inflict serious damage upon a powerful country, and not taking any credit for the attack defeats that purpose..’.

    Not necessarily. It’s a bit like if you accuse me of having sex with your wife, and I state, ‘I’m not having sex with your wife.’

    It can disable you, leave you incapable of proceeding to the next step: to wit, punching me in the nose.

    At the time, it was fairly obvious that this was Afghanistan’s intent — and perforce, Osama bin Laden had to play along. After all (just as there are in Judaism) there are arguments in Islam justifying such conduct. Christians have made them as well. I have.

    Lying can sometimes be not merely the expedient thing to do, but morally, the right thing to do.

    …Physicist Dave notwithstanding.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  271. You’re probably not this obnoxious in person.

    And, are you as limp noodle-y in person as you are herein?

    Not necessarily. It’s a bit like if you accuse me of having sex with your wife, and I state, ‘I’m not having sex with your wife.’

    It can disable you, leave you incapable of proceeding to the next step

    What? This makes no sense. Whatsoever.

    Maybe a pickle jar – that you may disable. Maybe.

    Anyway, you and Ron are really getting into it with the 9/11 Truthers. From my point of view, both factions are supporting Israel’s interests — and that’s regrettable.

    Colleen, you get another eye-roll button.

    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
  272. @Sparkon

    Davranışın biraz kaba ve aptalca.

    • Agree: Wielgus
    • LOL: muh muh
    • Replies: @Wielgus
  273. @Ron Unz

    This is also interesting, and I’m sure you are already aware –

    09/11/2001 MSNBC anchor – (Live) Lieutenant, where are you right now?

    “I’m at the corner of Northmoor Street and Greenwich Street.”

    MSNBC – can you confirm it was number seven that just went in?

    “Yes, sir.”

    MSNBC – and you were, you guys knew this was coming all day?

    “we had heard reports that the building was unstable, and that eventually needed to come down on its own, or it would be taken.”

    Peace, War and 9/11 [A final message from] Graeme MacQueen – “Now, one of the odd things was that, I think, by that time it had become clear to us that the BBC reported the collapse of world trade seven over 20 minutes before it actually came down…….so, this led to a lot of controversy. And, I decided to write another article, which was again based on eyewitness testimony…and I found that there were about 60 people in the fire department of New York, who had talked about the fact that this building was going to come down or likely to come down…. I found that about half of them had made the prediction two hours, or more, in advance, which is a heck of a prediction, really, since the building didn’t appear, to most observers, to be that badly damaged…. The great, great majority of them said it’s coming down because we’ve been told it’s coming down. And they were typically told by superior officers, who then claimed in many cases to have been told by an engineer on the site.”

    Mr. Nice Icelander, if you’re reading –

    In Peace, War and 9/11, Dr. MacQueen explains how the Anthrax aspect of the 911 false flag unraveled, as the delivery method of the spores through smoke/vapor was a technology only available in America, therefore the narrative changed from the guilty Muslims to the lone mad-scientist, Bruce Ivins, who found himself under Jim Traficant’s tractor, so to speak.

    I suggest/speculate some aspect of the means of the demise of Building 7 unraveled; perhaps it was intended to sustain more damage, or to appear significantly damaged, to explain away the collapse, but it remained largely intact as the day progressed, ergo the information circulating about “it’s got to come down, one way or another,” and in all the confusion, people on the scene weren’t in a position to evaluate the circumstances. Obviously, the manner in which it collapsed was suspicious, and I also suspect/speculate that the narrative for 7 was not yet reformulated until much later, when much of the proverbial dust had settled, and the “masterminds” were anxious to see which way the wind was blowing, which somewhat explains the utterance of “pull it” before the new story was settled upon.

    I don’t necessarily believe Silverstein was in on the plot, but clearly he knew something. I will speculate, again, and suggest that every criminal event of magnitude must have many worker ants who know nothing or a fraction of the plot; in Larry’s case, it’s likely he was told that there were rumors of a terror event happening that day, but it was not confirmed, etc., but take precautions….who knows, but I have spent over twenty years reviewing evidence for criminal/civil litigation, and there are patterns to be observed.

    Peace, War and 9/11 is available on the internet.

    Dr. MacQueen seems an honest, honorable, dedicated and forthright man, who dedicated his life to searching for answers/solutions to what ails us, and with all due respect to Dr. MacQueen, and to Mr. Unz, I believe MacQueen, based on listening to several hours of his talks/lectures, would agree with me regarding the true meaning of Silverstein’s comment.

    Rest in peace, Graeme MacQueen, and many thanks for your courage.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  274. @Sparkon

    Sparkie writes (in response to the asinine claim that the plane that struck WTC2 appeared to be punching a hole right through to the other side of he building):

    Punching through both sides of the Twin Towers would have required punching through the massive central core

    Now, this has been addressed MANY times in the UR 9/11 threads in the past, but each time Sparkie and the CGI/hologrammers choose to ignore it because it eviscerates their poorly thought through narrative.
    I suggest you watch the following video titled : Christopher Bollyn: The Dual-Deception of 9/11 and the Fraudulent War on Terror (you need only watch the few minutes, from recollection, from about 1:18:00 – 1:21:00):

    The reason I say that you should watch those few minutes ‘from recollection’, is that the video no longer appears in my country (Australia), because it reveals TOO MUCH TRUTH about what actually happened in that day. Obviously powerful Jews in my country have seen to it that this video is no longer kosher down under.
    When I click onto that link, I get this message showing on my screen:

    This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s policy on hate speech.
    Learn more about combating hate speech in your country.

    Hopefully dear UR reader, it will show up in the country you’re located in. If not, look for it in BitChute or Rumble (last time I looked it was still there).
    Now, bear in mind, that presentation was not from some know-nothing kook who’s peddling junk science (like Fizzy-cyst Dovid). It’s from CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN who, alongside USMC Lt-Col (ret) Field McConnell, are the two preeminent 9/11 researchers on the planet – they lead the pack by a COUNTRY MILE.
    There is no one remotely as knowledgeable as these two about this ZOG orchestrated False Flag.
    They know more than the rest because they are known truth-tellers and thus there exists a NETWORK OF WHITE HATS in the U.S government/military/Intel agencies that are feeding them info about 9/11 that the rest of us are not privy to.

    SUMMARY: No one with a brain is claiming that the nose of the plane that struck WTC2 is coming out the other side. Only the brain dead CGI/hologrammers are saying that.

    We know that a missile* punched those nice round holes in the C, D and E rings of the Pentagon on 9/11. (Said missile was launched from the Raytheon owned and operated ex-Navy A-3 Skywarrior aircraft, a fraction of a second before impacting with the Pentagon).

    Well, the drone military spec 767’s that impacted with the WTC1 and WTC2 were modified and enabled with FORWARD FIRING ORDNANCE.
    They each fired a bunker buster missile a fraction of a second before striking each building, thus enabling smooth entry of the aircraft into the cavity thus created.

    What the CGI misfits saw coming out the other side was the MASS OF DEBRIS being cleared by the DU missile that would have also made a nice round puncture, just as that other missile did in the case of the Pentagon.

    Bollyn CLEARLY mentions the glowing WHITE HOT EMBER that comes out the other side at a MUCH GREATER VELOCITY than the other debris.
    This is a classic signature trait of a DU (Depleted Uranium) warhead.

    So Sparkie, please try and keep up. It gets tiring that I have to repeat this evidence from one of the premier 9/11 researchers on the planet. When Bollyn or McConnell tell you something, you can take it to the bank.
    Not so for those ZOG affiliated clowns like ‘Ace Baker’ and that other non entity Simon Shack-of-shit, who are obviously being paid to to misdirect.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  275. Wild Man says:
    @Wild Man

    This difference of opinion here, as to how to see this Silverstein character, is interesting. Think it through, though. If the official 9/11 narrative is bogus on many fronts, …. Silverstein would have to be in the know just by way of many practicalities (hands-on owner who had just conducted an extensive due diligence involving many high-level engineering firms inspection of all building systems, prior to purchase, … you can bet your bottom dollar that Silvertein read all those reports, … he paid good money for them, … he would have known all the arcane details about the site, the architecture, potential structural weaknesses that could be exploited, central plant, etc. etc. etc.) , … but besides those practical details as to why he would have been in the know, if the official narrative is indeed bogus, …. there is also the additional wow factor to consider: … Lucky Larry sure did get triple-lucky that day (for newly acquired real estate, – gets paid twice for the loss, avoids the cost of asbestos abatement work cooked into the purchase price books, and as well, just by happenstance he lives when others die, when odds say, by his long hours spent at site, he should have been a goner), … and making much hay by way of epic tragedy. Mmmm.

    If one can wrap their mind around seeing this guy, as a guy in the know who enriched himself by way of personal-calculations around the fore-knowledge, … well then, … is that not the same guy (the same type of persona) that is going to just have to find a way to laugh in your face, and rub it in, … just can’t help himself, a guy like that, I would imagine, needs to relish the moments that he recalls with glee, in his mind, when he did just that. If so, this then is akin to Silverstein doing a psychopathic-jerk-off at our expense (and we gotta pretend we don’t see him jerking off). So yeah, … that is a damn ugly picture, and so it is really hard to believe that that is what’s on. Confusing. But there it is. Looks like Silverstein actually is that guy.

  276. niceland says:
    @Wild Man

    So, … yes of course the Silvertein meme, is taken out of context. But everybody that knows anything, already knows. And the shoe otherwise fits. It’s a place holder meme for all I just indicated. So what? People use literary license all the time.

    Of course it’s taken out of context.

    I guess you are correct if the idea is to have comfortable discussion among ‘truthers’ who already ‘know’ and ain’t worried about ‘minor details’ (like reason or logic) Perhaps many of them know Larry wasn’t actually saying he gave the order to demolish wtc7 but they don’t care because he is obviously involved in the conspiracy and guilty anyways indicated by the very strange insurance case that followed 9-11. Like you said the “shoe otherwise fit”. Perhaps it works like that in the ‘truthers’ minds.

    However, if you want to change the minds of people who don’t ‘know’ it’s totally different story. For them there is no shoe that fits or anything else. What they see is really bad argument, and if they spend some time thinking about it they realize how incredibly stupid the idea is that Larry Silverstein admitted to giving the order to demolish wtc7 on record. It’s outlandish on all levels.

    The problem for the ‘truthers’ here is the 9-11 discussion has plenty of similarly bad arguments and plain nonsense. This destroys it’s credibility. Why would any normal person pay attention to the ramblings of 9-11 ‘truthers’ after coming across few of those? The ‘pull it’ interview story, nukes that were used to pulverize the towers, no airplanes and so forth. Nope, the just walk away and shake their heads thinking it’s all a bunch of nonsense. This is the problem with mixing weak arguments with stronger. It’s like poisoning the well like Mr. Unz has frequently pointed out.

  277. Wild Man says:
    @niceland

    “What they see is really bad argument, and if they spend some time thinking about it they realize how incredibly stupid the idea is that Larry Silverstein admitted to giving the order to demolish wtc7 on record. It’s outlandish on all levels.”

    Yes, … outlandish on many levels, … that’s the point. See my comment #276. I see clown world all around me and you don’t, I guess. Silverstein is clown-meister extraordinaire, to my mind. I wish it wasn’t so. How else to (logically) see it though?

    There seems to be a general lack of using police defective heuristics, here. Not sure why. That is the correct heuristic, for the tasks at hand here, at UR.

  278. Wild Man says:
    @niceland

    Further to my first rely comment (still in moderation), … maybe I can add one other way of looking at it, so as to help make my point with you: If you agree that the 9/11 official narrative is bogus on many fronts, and agree that in terms of practicalities, of all people, Silverstein would be key to help eventuate the success of such a ploy (never mind the wow factor of surprising personal enrichment that is very hard to believe is just happenstance within the given short time frame of Silverstein prior involvement at that locale, – even without the practicalities angle), then that means that Silverstein was lying through his smiling teeth, generally, throughout the whole interview in question. So then why did the crafty liar have to go and say something so downright bizarre (given that he would have known that it would be very bizarre to say this was about ‘pulling it’, in the context of his foreknowledge, … but that furthermore, lying like that by way of ‘through smiling teeth-style’, would be known to said liar, to be a somewhat credible excuse for the bizarre statements, as instead naive)?

    It’s like this: If Silverstein was generally lying in that interview, …. then everything he said is psychological breadcrumbs (because his motive, as a liar, as is all liars’ motive, is to manipulate to mislead). That is what police detectives do. They follow those apparent psychological breadcrumbs when faced with a liar known to be presently spouting a lying narrative. Of course same said police detectives are also generally well aware of the patho-psychological profiles typical of lying perps, and so know about the weird psychological peccadilloes, as I indicated in the earlier comments (these perps tend to feel personal power by way of their lying gig, generally, and get off on that, and there are tells).

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  279. tanabear says:
    @niceland

    Larry Silverstein said the following in regards to Building 7:

    “I remember getting a call from the 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.”

    What Larry Silverstein actually meant here is not decisive as we already know based off the engineering and physical evidence that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. However, it can be useful to dig into this statement and parse what is being said. The final sentence, “And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” This sounds like cause and effect, we made the decision to pull then the building collapsed.

    What did others say about it:

    INDRA SINGH EMT: “…by noon or one o’clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down.

    HOST: “Did they actually use the word “brought down” and who was it that was telling you this?”

    SINGH: “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down‘ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility…”

    Fox News journalist Jeffrey Shapiro wrote the following:

    Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/shame-on-jesse-ventura

    David Restuccio FDNY being interview by Brian Williams:

    We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that it would be best if it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”
    https://digwithin.net/2015/02/09/brian-williams/

    You have to understand that the ‘pull it‘ comment became popular in 9/11 Truth circles in the very early days before architects and engineers had stepped into the debate. So naturally keyboard warriors without access to physic toolkits or engineering degrees are going to latch on to whatever they can find. However, to dismiss the importance of this comment out of hand, especially when you look at the statements made by others, is misguided.

    The problem for the ‘truthers’ here is the 9-11 discussion has plenty of similarly bad arguments and plain nonsense. This destroys it’s credibility.

    Yes, but anybody wanting to become informed about 9/11 should not start by reading comments made by random people on the internet. You would want to start with the books written by David Ray Griffin and the technical articles at http://www.ae911truth.org and the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
  280. @niceland

    Silverstein did not give the order to demolish building 7; it was obviously already wired, and the intent was likely to pull it down along with the other two, or shortly afterwards, but something went awry. I seriously doubt Larry was the shot caller.

    There was no phone call. It is NOT POSSIBLE that Larry Silverstein spoke to Fire Commander, “gave orders/advice/instructions on the demise of building 7,” and then neglected to catch the Commander’s name. No one has come forward to corroborate his story. There was no phone call.

    Why won’t you answer my question regarding The Pull? Please explain to me the meaning of The Pull as written within the text of SMALL STRUCTURE DEMOLITION MANUAL PROJECT NEPAL, July 2015 – Prepared in Conjunction with Engineers Without Borders, as posted previously, if you would be so kind. I believed you were genuinely puzzled over the term, which is why I found the relevant source material for your perusal.

    Why would any normal person pay attention to the ramblings of 9-11 ‘truthers’ after coming across few of those? The ‘pull it’ interview story, nukes that were used to pulverize the towers, no airplanes and so forth. Nope, the just walk away and shake their heads thinking it’s all a bunch of nonsense

    Well, the planners of the WTC event certainly believed that most normal people would set aside any initial misgivings/suspicions, and believe the government’s explanation, as most normal people can’t conceive of such a crime, in such enormous scope, being committed by America against Americans. America knows not its government, nor its complicit/captured media.

    There’s a saying in America – the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those crack-pot, pseudo-historians, David Irving and Arthur Butz, said the truth about WW2 was much different from the official story, and if one tries to prove them wrong, they can’t, yet most normal people wouldn’t even bother, as most normal people don’t believe in crack-pot conspiracy theories.

    Larry Silverstein was no crack-pot, by the way.

  281. muh muh says:
    @Colin Wright

    Most of humankind needs faith in something that transcends their otherwise ultimately ephemeral and meaningless existence. One may call it an inevitable product of social evolution. Whatever the case, it seems most members of our species are rather destined to that end.

    I don’t see that conspiracy theory has necessarily supplanted religious faith, though I get the bullet points in the overlapping section of the Venn diagram. I’m not sold on the Freudian perspective of religious faith as mental illness, particularly given contemporary psychology’s reevaluation of religious conviction on mental health, which posits noteworthy potential benefit.

    I also see nothing necessarily harmful with standing beyond the boundaries of faith, though I question it from a purely pragmatic angle, given that trust is an aspect of our condition without which we cannot survive and faith is but an iteration of trust providing the ultimate defense against the despair of uncertainty as to why we exist in the first place.

    Of course, lack of ontological certitude is not depressing to some. To most, however, that burden is unbearable.

    • Replies: @aesop
    , @Patrick McNally
  282. @niceland

    Nicelamb writes:

    Why would any normal person pay attention to the ramblings of 9-11 ‘truthers’ after coming across few of those?
    The ‘pull it’ interview story, nukes that were used to pulverize the towers, no airplanes and so forth.

    Picture this: The ZOG perpetrators of the 9/11 False Flag have much riding on not being discovered for having orchestrated this heinous crime.
    So, do they just sit back and relax, counting their trillions of ill gotten gains?
    OR do they use their vast resources in the media, the Hollywood movie industry special effects industry and elsewhere, to conjure up all manner of ALTERNATIVE THEORIES about how 9/11 transpired (just as they did with the JFK coup d’etat to deflect attention away from the actual culprit), and in the process creating some very slick video productions (some of which appear superficially plausible at first glance)?

    What I write above is not for your benefit Mr Nicelamb, it is for the benefit of other UR readers.
    It is CLEAR to anyone that has followed your commentary, they you have NO INTENTION of seeking out the truth. You are here in the capacity as an apologist for ZOG malfeasance.
    You have one purpose here, and that is the DECEIVE, DEFLECT and MISDIRECT.

    I’m not in the ‘No Planes’ camp, but I can see that many of those that believe in that hypothesis are sincere individuals (although somewhat stubborn and misguided).
    As for the use of nukes being used in the destruction of WTC1 & 2, there has been been a veritable avalanche of evidence posted in numerous 9/11 threads over the years to support that hypothesis, NONE OF WHICH you’ve disproven*.

    (*In those UR threads where the use of nukes theory has been propagated, on the few occasions that Mr Nicelamb appeared casting doubt on some aspect of this False Flag, Mr Nicelamb was summarily slapped down like the ignoramus that he is.
    He never once furnished anything substantive to cast doubt on those comments made by others who were infinitely more knowledgeable than he is.
    Every time he was mocked and ridiculed, he would run off and go hide back in that hole from whence he came – with his tail between his legs, like a whipped dog).

    Yet, like the clueless clown that you are, you poo poo the nuke hypothesis because it’s not something you can imagine, seeing as ‘nuclear explosion’ means something akin to a multi megaton event that blows up an entire city – as opposed to the utilisation of mini and micro nukes that have a negligible or non existent radiation signature (derived from tactical nukes that have been operational for over 60 years).

    I don’t say what I’m about to say lightly. You, Mr Nicelamb, are clearly not an honest broker.
    Someone has put you up to this, such is the level of blatant disinformation that you’re peddling.
    UR readers, you have been warned.

  283. @Sparkon

    My crazy little buddy Sparkon wrote to me:

    [Dave] I have indeed considered your and your friends’ claims: they are, quite literally, insane.

    [Little buddy] Look, you babbling turkey, I am neither friggin’ Truth Vigilante nor any of your friggen’ strawmen.

    All you did was dodge my point about physics to go off on another of your tangents.

    You have not made any point about physics at all.

    You have merely made the following bald assertion about what happened on 9/11:

    What idiocy about Newton’s Third Law? The idea that a 150 ton jetliner could crash into a 500,000 ton building, and just keep going, with no reaction from either building or airplane violates not only Newton’s 3rd, but every law of physics known to man.

    Which is just silly, in an infantile manner.

    You don’t literally mean it: you don’t literally mean that it violated “every law of physics known to man.” You are certainly not claiming, for example, that it violated the law of Biot-Savart.

    You merely offered a verbal excretion, rather as if you were releasing gas.

    What is really happening here is that you are saying, in effect, “I, Sparkon, cannot really believe that _________.” Fill in the blank.

    Sorry, but that is not how physics works. We work with things called “equations” and “numbers.”

    Show me the detailed equations and numbers that show plausibly in detail that what happened on 9/11 really did not happen, and I might take you seriously.

    But you haven’t, you can’t, and you won’t.

    Your humorous attempt was just:

    I don’t think discussing common sense or sanity with you is likely to be a fruitful endeavor, so let’s try math.

    There are no bodies from any of the reputed 9/11 passengers, just as there is no legitimate crash wreckage from any of the claimed 9/11 airplane crashes.

    0+0=0.

    No reference to the laws of physics there!

    Sparkon also wrote:

    In pompous fashion, and giving cheesy excuses, you have again weaseled out of addressing my comment #154, simply because you can’t, and that makes it pretty clear to me you’re another one of the idiots around here who thinks airliners can fly through skyscrapers without crumpling, shattering, or even slowing down, as if both were made of air.

    I think your comment #154 is truly a sign of true mental insanity. I do not think it requires any other response.

    The situation here is covered by Hume’s argument against miracles. Hume’s argument was that in the case of claims of a miracle there are two possibilities:

    A) An extraordinarily unusual event actually occurred.

    B) One or more human beings is confused or lying, which, alas, is far from unusual at all.

    And then Hume asked, which, on the face of it, is always more likely?

    Similarly, in your case we have two possibilities:

    A) A humongously large and bizarre conspiracy occurred, but no one who was in on it has yet squealed on the conspiracy.

    B) Your interpretation of the physical facts of 9/11 (what you facetiously and obviously hyprerbolically refer to as violating “every law of physics known to man”) is incorrect.

    You are obviously not a physicist: you do not even try to explain in any detail how “every law of physics known to man” was violated by what happened on 9/11. You are not and do not pretend to be an expert on collisions at very high velocities.

    Therefore, option B is quite plausible: you just do not know much about this stuff.

    Option A is highly implausible.

    I therefore conclude that, based on basic laws of probability, option B is probably true.

    QED.

    Sparkon also wrote:

    Again, the pot calls the teacup black.

    As far as I know, I coined that expression, a play on a popular idiom, and it has proven to be a worthwhile specie here at UR, an apt token for shameless hypocrites like thyself.

    Well… do you think I am lying about what I really believe and am therefore a hypocrite?

    That is one surefire sign of a cult: “Everyone would believe as we do if only they knew.”

    The explanation I just went through above in detail is what all sane people grasp intuitively about all of you 9/11 Truther guys.

    I have now read a huge variety of (mutually contradictory) claims from all of you.

    To any sane human being, they are all obvious nonsense: it is patently obvious that it is much more likely that you guys have no idea what you are talking about than it is that what any of you are claiming is true.

    Again, I am not claiming that the US government is being transparent: probably they are not. They rarely are. Perhaps Mossad or the CIA or the Saudi government knew something or even had some sort of involvement.

    Maybe.

    But your making bizarrely grandiose claims that the events of 9/11 violate “every law of physics known to man” is just you being silly.

    Even you do not, after all, really believe that it violates the law of Biot-Savart.

    • Replies: @bjondo
    , @Sparkon
  284. @Wild Man

    Wild Man wrote to niceland:

    Further to my first rely comment (still in moderation), … maybe I can add one other way of looking at it, so as to help make my point with you: If you agree that the 9/11 official narrative is bogus on many fronts…

    Are you really unable to grasp that many of us who have in fact looked in detail at the various mutually contradictory claims of the 911 Truthers do not agree that “the 9/11 official narrative is bogus on many fronts”?

    It was a complex set of events, and, unlike in the case of scientific experiments, we of course cannot replicate the event again and again and again to confirm every single detail of our understanding.

    But, no, I and a lot of other people do not agree that “the 9/11 official narrative is bogus on many fronts.” On the contrary, I think that all of the bizarre, mutually contradictory claims of the 911 Truthers are transparently “bogus on many fronts.”

    Again, I am not denying that the US government has probably held back on some of the information it has: governments tend to do that.

    But the 911 Truther claims against the official narrative are simply signs of typical cultish behavior.

    As Vonnegut said:

    “Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter. Friends agreed with friends, in order to express friendliness. Enemies disagreed with enemies, in order to express enmity.”

    And the 911 Truthers are a textbook example of that: their beliefs are badges of group identity, just as much as Catholics’ belief that the wine and the wafer become transubstantiated into blood and flesh.

    Nothing more going on here.

    Just another cult.

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  285. @tanabear

    tanabear wrote to me:

    The issue with the collapse of the towers due to fires isn’t just the first time that such an event had occurred, but that its occurrence would contravene the known laws of physics.

    No, it doesn’t.

    You guys just keep saying this, as if your constant repetitions make it true.

    I have a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford University — my thesis can be read online. I have confirmed that fact by giving a link to a column I wrote for the campus paper at Stanford when I was a grad student there. I have given links to a couple of my many patents.

    I actually know the law of physics. You and your mentally deranged friends do not.

    You simply hope that, by repeating the mantra that what happened “would contravene the known laws of physics,” you can fool people into believing you.

    You can’t fool me.

    The laws of physics are expressed in equations and numbers. If you were right, you could lay out, in detail and in a way that we physicists could follow, how the laws of physics were violated by what happened on 9/11.

    You haven’t, you can’t, and you won’t.

    Again, you are all used to repeating this mantra that the laws of physics were violated by what happened on 9/11 because you know that the laws of physics seem like esoteric mysteries to most people: who among ordinary people will feel that they know enough about those laws to challenge your false claims?

    Well, I do, and I say your claims are obvious nonsense, as shown by the fact that you never, ever go through the actual analysis — present the equations in a manner that is comprehensible to us physicists — that you would have to do if you were right.

    You are all just pathologically lying psychotics. Members of a bizarrely sick cult.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
    , @tanabear
  286. Wild Man says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Well Ron Unz believes the official 9/11 narrative is bogus on many fronts (as do I). I’m, in good company, it seems.

    In comment #254 you said:

    “Here is my theory of history in a tl;dr form:

    Civilization is built on lies: this has been true for more than five thousand years of all the major institutions of civilizations — obviously, government and religion but also educational systems, the judicial system, the medical cartel, the legal profession, and so on.

    And so the job of any human being with an ounce of integrity must be to end civilization by chipping away at the lies.

    And so this is my quest, to follow that star of truth, to strive against the lies.

    Can I destroy civilization all by myself?

    No, of course not.

    But I am one of millions — we are legion.

    And, as the quote from Vonnegut suggests, in an age of nuclear weapons, perhaps we really had better work on extirpating the lies that make society possible lest we find the alternative to be the extinction of our species. ”

    It is odd that you perceive lying embedded everywhere in the culture (as do I) yet none of that informed the oddities of 9/11, apparently. As such, I tend to strongly mistrust your civilizational-ending prescription, (which is a tad nihilistic – no?). It seems to me that you in particular, have shown yourself as not possessing the arbiter-of-truth chops for that endeavor (and as well, …. a more bold claim, …. neither does anyone else, to my mind). But in your case, … it seems you claim contradictory things at both extremes.

    Not sure if the quip in the link you provided (also in comment #254) about Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Platonic perspective, … features as anything meaningful one way or the other in this context, to you, though, … does it?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  287. @PhysicistDave

    Fizzy-cyst Dovid repeats his tired old line of:

    I have a Ph.D. in physics from Sanford and Son University — my thesis can be read online …. blah, blah …

    What difference does your academic background make if, as you’ve repeatedly demonstrated:

    1) You’re a compulsive LIAR.
    2) You’re willing to prostrate yourself to your Talmudic benefactors for a few shekels of silver.
    3) You’re a proven conscience-free piece-of-excrement that will stoop to falsification and outright scientific chicanery to please your handlers.

    So once again, for the benefit of those UR readers that have not seen the video below, watch the 8 mins of the clip below from 3:12:00 – 3:20:00, as it explains the ACTUAL NEWTONIAN LAWS OF MOTION that cannot be violated.
    It emphatically exposes the official USG/NIST explanation for what happened to the WTC towers on 9/11, as being fraudulent:

    UR readers will recall how Fizzy-cyst Dovid keeps bleating about the findings of the unscrupulous academic Zdenek Bazant, who claims his analysis can substantiate the NIST report.
    But Bazant himself admits that:

    He used a ONE DIMENSIONAL MODEL to come to those conclusions.

    Simply put, Bazant’s report is WORTHLESS, and anyone that uses it as a reference (like Fizzy-cyst Dovid) is equally worthless.

    SUMMARY: Fizzy-cyst Dovid claims he’s a graduate of Stanford university.
    But he’s brought the reputation of that institution into disrepute with his JUNK SCIENCE, hence the reason that he’s now widely referred to as an alumnus of Sanford and Son Community College.

  288. aesop says:
    @muh muh

    Most of humankind needs faith in something that transcends their otherwise ultimately ephemeral and meaningless existence.

    No.

    One may call it an inevitable product of social evolution.

    Yes, this is an evolutionary well justified paranoia about “hidden agents”.

    If you suspect a rattle in the bushes is an enemy tribesman there is not much harm if you are wrong, if you are right you WIN BIG!

    This is why In Gods We Trust…

    • Replies: @muh muh
  289. Sparkon says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    SUMMARY: No one with a brain […] They each fired a bunker buster missile a fraction of a second before striking each building, thus enabling smooth entry of the aircraft into the cavity thus created […] just as that other missile did in the case of the Pentagon.

    All nonsense. You’re claiming that a bunker buster blew a hole in the facade of the WTC that allowed the whole plane to slip into WTC 2 while creating narrow passages for the wings out to the wingtips?

    You can’t possibly be that stupid, but of course you have an established track record as a shameless liar who has made numerous false accusations against me at UR, just like the lying sack of shit that you are, while making a mockery of the worth “truth.”

    Too bad those so-called experts of yours didn’t bother double-checking all the evidence before flapping their jaws.

    Notice please there is no sign of anything like an airplane firing a missile into the WTC in the Hezarkhani video, or still frame, either one, nor in any of the 9/11 videos. Let’s Roll forum founder Phil Jayhan and other amateurs thought a specular highlight on the nose of the CGI image of UA175 was a missile being fired.

    But get this, in subsequent images of that same area on WTC 2, there is no sign of any hole or damage to the facade of WTC 2 where the “nose out” object seemed to emerge, looking for all the world like the nose of a jetliner as it popped out, while casting a long, sharp, neat shadow on the rear facade of WTC.

    Only CGI could have done that.

    No damage. No hole. No drone. No aircraft wreckage. No hijacked aircraft on 9/11.

    Thus we can be sure the the “nose out” sequence was created with CGI. Conceivably it was a mistake, or plausibly it was just all Hollywood.

    I recall when I first saw this infamous “nose out” video, possibly late on 9/11, and the Fox announcer exclaimed

    “It went right through it!”

    Sure it did, in the land of fantasy and make-believe.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  290. tanabear says:
    @PhysicistDave

    The laws of physics are expressed in equations and numbers. If you were right, you could lay out, in detail and in a way that we physicists could follow, how the laws of physics were violated by what happened on 9/11.

    Maybe so, but they are manifest in real world interactions. The experimental method is the arbiter of competing scientific hypothesis, not numbers and equations. If the official story did not violate the laws of physics, then real world experiments could be done to prove the official story. This has not been done in over two decades. You can put all the numbers and equations on a piece of paper you want, but you can never replicate Bazant’s crush-down crush-up hypothesis in a real-world experiment.

    Lead NIST investigator, Shyam Sunder said this upon the release of their Final Draft report on WTC7:

    A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.… What the analysis shows…is that same time it took for the structural model to come down…is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.

    This is before NIST admitted to a 2.25 second free-fall in their Final report released in November 2008. So is a free-fall collapse possible with structural resistance?

    If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    Richard Feynman

  291. @Sparkon

    All nonsense. You’re claiming that a bunker buster blew a hole in the facade of the WTC that allowed the whole plane to slip into WTC 2 while creating narrow passages for the wings out to the wingtips?

    The two leading 9/11 researchers on the planet (USMC Lt-Col Field McConnell and Christopher Bollyn), are in lockstep agreement that the drones that impacted with the WTC towers were equipped with forward firing ordnance and fired a missile a fraction of second before impact.
    They know this because they have a network of white hat informants (in the USG/Military/Intel agencies) that have forwarded this information to them. As further proof, underbody appendages (for this forward firing ordnance) are visible in photos of the 767 drone, taken a fraction of a second before impact with WTC2.

    [MORE]

    We KNOW therefore, that this was NOT a commericial 767, since they all have a flat underbelly.
    Only military spec 767’s are known to have these underbody fittings. ie: like this E-10 MC2A military spec version of the 767 pictured below:

    Meanwhile, you Sparkie are a non entity. No one gives a rat’s arse what you think. The sources you rely on for your ‘evidence’ are clearly ZOG assets. They came out of the woodwork, they have no history of integrity. (In fact they have NO HISTORY whatsoever).
    Yet you’ve swallowed the crap they’re peddling about CGI like a schoolboy.

    Obviously the missile that was fired was meant to ensure that the fragile fuselage of the plane would enter the cavity created.
    Personally, I think it was a case of overkill. Even without the missile being fired, the aircraft had more than enough Kinetic Energy to easily puncture the facade of each building.
    But, evidently the perpetrators wanted to ensure an effortless ingress of the fuselage of the plane into the building.

    Meanwhile, the wings of a 767 drone aircraft are very robustly constructed indeed, and travelling at near to that of a speeding bullet (and thus possessing enormous kinetic energy), would easily have been able to sever the quarter inch* thick structural steel of the external facade of the WTC as found on those upper floors.

    (*Yes UR readers, the steel structural members in the exoskeleton of the WTC towers in the upper floors were only a QUARTER INCH thick. After all, they only needed to support part of the weight of a handful of floors above them – the inner core columns around the elevator shafts were doing the bulk of the load bearing and would thus have been more robust than those found in the exoskeleton).

    Also, as I’ve explained in previous 9/11 UR threads (which you chose to ignore), the near indestructible engines of a 767, composed of the highest grades of steel and titanium, project outward in FRONT of the leading edge of the wings and would be the first to impact with the face of the WTC towers (refer to the photo below):

    https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/i?id=6df9ea5585820885e675d4b3f0a7f249f35f32d6-4343452-images-thumbs&n=13

    So, once the engines punctured through the the WTC facade, the wings would easily follow through the shattered porous facade of the building.

    Admittedly, if the plane had impacted down low with the building (say on the 10th floor, where the structural steel members were far thicker and more robust, seeing as it had to support 100 floors above it), that would have been a different matter altogether. But the planes didn’t impact there.
    They impacted high above where the structural steel was wafer thin.

    Sparkie goes on to write:

    You can’t possibly be that stupid, but of course you have an established track record as a shameless liar who has made numerous false accusations against me ….

    For those UR readers not familar with the history I have with Sparkie, he admitted that during and AFTER the Covid Psyop, that he continued to wear a face mask because Tony Fauci assured him they protected against Covid.

    I told Sparkie during the Covid Psyop that there were scores of studies that proved face masks offer NO PROTECTION from an airborne virus that can be measured in microns.
    Then, after the Gold Standard in studies was released (the Cochrane Report), that empahtically demonstrated that face masks are USELESS, Sparkie ignored it and still wears a mask when:

    1) Eating
    2) Showering
    3) Fornicating.

    You see, Sparkie is that stubborn and stupid that no amount of verifiable proof will convince him of anything once he’s made up his mind and is willing to take a particular hypothesis with him to the grave.
    (I dare say, Sparkie is probably masked up at this very moment as he’s reading this comment of mine).

    You see, once a virtual signalling twit, always a virtual signalling twit.

  292. bjondo says:
    @PhysicistDave

    I’m neither scientist nor philosopher

    but

    hasn’t Mr Hume missed a beat?

    The situation here is covered by Hume’s argument against miracles. Hume’s argument was that in the case of claims of a miracle there are two possibilities:

    A) An extraordinarily unusual event actually occurred.

    B) One or more human beings is confused or lying, which, alas, is far from unusual at all

    A1) The extraordinarily unusual event actually was a miracle.

    I don’t think an option (even seemingly impossible) can simply be ignored.

    Of course I could be wrong not being a scientist or philosopher or Sherlock Holmes.

    5ds

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  293. muh muh says:
    @aesop

    No.

    The history of human experience vindicates Voltaire’s claim that, ‘If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him.’

    [emphasis added]

    • Replies: @muh muh
  294. Wild Man says:

    The Ismailis Muslims do not have a homeland of their own, and are approximately 12 to 15 million (similar to Jewry in population size). The Ismailis have been a political force in Canada too. But here is a Canadian Jewish Zionist member of parliament, … noting that 95% of his fellow Canadian Jews are also Zionist:

    One group wants it all, and the other group is much more measured. The more measured group indeed does fit in with the overall Canadian gestalt, much better. The more measured group indeed does have some very sophisticated views, as to what is what around Jewry (as was outlined for me, by Ismailis for instance, more than 30 years ago now), for them to behave differently, norms-wise, like this.

    This MP dude is freaked because there has been more than 30 years of Muslim counter-Zionist-ideology/argument offered, in Canada by now, …. and as that very grassroots thing was happening (only at the lunch room table at work places all over this great land, for Godsakes), he was asleep at the globalist fatherswheelhouse, I suppose, … and didn’t see what was right before his eyes, for a long long time now. The people (of Canada), generally,want the bloodshed in Gaza to stop. HouseFather is trying to stand in the way of that.

    Of course, as well, there are also plenty of people in Canada that believe that ‘hard men make good times’ and want to sign-up for that, Palestinian-bashing-wise, because it makes them feel good to ‘aspire to kill in the name of glory’, …. but the ‘glory’ part is globalist spoon-fed and left unexamined by this warrior type, in the main. And then of course, you have the Christian Zionists, who are actually peace-loving, but used as useful idiots, … even though it is true they are useful this way, despite the ‘idiot’ part being a rather low-brow and unwarranted attribution. But the Canadians that generally want the bloodshed in Gaza to stop, are in the majority, despite counter-sentiment being rather large in the two groups I indicated, … substantial but in the minority.

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  295. @Tiptoethrutulips

    The Engine Room, aka Machinery Space is the where almost all of a ship’s machinery and various systems that make the ship operate and function. It is an analogue and parallel of human life groupings in all their compositions and enterprises.

    We could be talking about a machine that has a history, one where it was mishandled, improperly serviced or repaired, in some fashion or another. That makes no never mind in the present and foreseeable future of its reliable function. Machines like proper attention, high quality work and parts.

    JFK, who once raped a young girl in his office, and forced several others into making ham sandwiches and displayed cowardice at leaving Cuban Freedom Fighters on the beaches in Cuba, without air support and cover, as he promised, is dead.

    My machine today has a problem that was created in the past by sub standard execution. Now, I know that it verifiably doesn’t function, and the question is: do I need to go back and gather every conceivable circumstance, dramatis personae, interviews with crew attendended? No, it is not a productive use of time and resources. The ship needs to keep moving and we need to move on to other projects.

    I’m motivated by beauty, aesthetics, Truth, Meaningfulness, and practical concerns and outcomes. Therefore, I don’t really care that much for what is really unverifiable speculation, guessing, supposition, and sorting out information that cannot be connected or made concrete.

    I would rather move on to a solution to the sewage of malaise that The West is mire in. That discussion is concentrated and focused on solutions and alteration. Therefore, I look forward to a General August Pinochet-like figure to electrify the situation and electrocute the principals of our dissolution and destruction. Either put them on vast work farms or dispatch them to the Next World. I’m a forward looking person, all in all.

    The majority of comments are discussions of history beyond relevance to the present, platitudes and generalities, and incremental movements and advocates that will make hardly a dent because they do not address underlying problems. Sometimes you have to do a deep overhaul, instead of a “keep it running” or partial remedy job. Many people do not have the confidence, expertise, attitude, or integrity to undertake a big project, to bet heavy that it will work before the ship has to sail. My specialty was taken over problem ships that were run down, lacking Time Between Overhauls work, and generally sloppily maintained. It took me over 2 and a half years on one ship to properly restore function to the various species in the ER.

    None of the West, its governments, “democracies”, and bases of existence works anymore. We need massive “replacement” with some other components. Only Zero Based work plans can change and perpetuate the Western Governments.

  296. Wild Man says:
    @Wild Man

    Andrew Anglin has an article out yesterday claiming that – “So, The US Government is Trying to Force the Chinese to Sell TikTok to Jews? Interesting. I Wonder Why?”, …. with TikTok trends showing huge huge pro-Palestinian sentiment:

    https://dailystormer.in/so-the-us-government-is-trying-to-force-the-chinese-to-sell-tiktok-to-jews-interesting-i-wonder-why/

    I think it likely that there may be a majority of American people that want the blood shed in Gaza to stop (just like in Canada) though that signal is going to be more obfuscated-around/obscured in America, … the home of the globalist’s hegemonic brute component of the globalist triangulation-strangulation, (faux-west globalists/American hegemonic brute/globalist’s Israeli interests-wise) of western culture and geopolitics.

  297. @Poupon Marx

    ‘…None of the West, its governments, “democracies”, and bases of existence works anymore. We need massive “replacement” with some other components…’

    I feel that way as well — but I can’t help realizing that radical change usually makes matters worse, not better.

    The replacement of the Roman Empire in the West with Germanic tribal monarchies, the Russian revolution, Nazi Germany — was the immediate sequel to any of these really an improvement?

    We’re for it, that’s what I suspect.

    …no matter what we do.

  298. Wild Man says:

    Latest on Netanyahu statements:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/netanyahu-biden-theres-no-way-destroy-hamas-without-rafah-ground-op

    Mmmm. This is going to get the Islamists very very incensed, at some point soon, one would think, …. Netanyahu just keeps tightening the screws of rhetoric, painting the Islamic world as the callous culprits here. It is hard to understand why there hasn’t been a major Palestinian terrorist occurrence (or at least a major uprising) directed at elements, or at least symbols of the Netanyahu regime, within Isreal-proper, by now.

    I am not up on the sentiment of the huge number of Palestinians living in Israel-proper that are Israeli citizens. What is going on there, …., anyone know? I mean, the rest of the world is slowly cottoning on to Netenayhu’s crazy rhetorical game, …. so what gives amongst those Israeli Palestinians, so close to the action, with their ehtnic brethren being made into massive scapegoats (whilst being exterminated) wherever they hear Jews converse in their midst, which I suppose is pret near everywhere?

  299. Wild Man says:

    I dunno, …. just a pie-in-the-sky speculation offered, …. just because the conjecture search space has almost always proved to be vastly under-sized (we come to know within the fullness of time), …. riddle me this:

    sky-is-falling-false-climate-change-narrative => hoarding of primary discretionary energy source (fossil fuels) => control of future blockchain activity (maybe even that is BTC) => in a world now emerging that may spell the end of sovereign money, you then would have ultimate control of money value, if you can perform the blockchain function at lower cost than anyone else. Who controls the energy, will control the money value, which will control absolutely everything else. But would lower-energy-production-cost legacy hydroelectric projects then be hijacked? Possibly, but it will still come down to the shorter time duration to take fossil fuel production up or down, as the governing factor. Possible evidence for such conjecture?: Look for faux-west globalists to begin to change their tune about Alberta oil, as BTC blockchain activity continues to mature. But then on the other hand, … I dunno, … wouldn’t all that invite crazies to go deep into the Alberta forest, and set up huge incinerators to burn up the forest, to make electricity, for the blockchain activity, for the associated crypto currency reward? Won’t small potatoes people with nothing to lose just start burning everything in sight to make money? Wow, … talk about a Kurt Vonnegut moment ( I think I am having one, hahaha!).

    Also, I gotta say, … the way that Thomas Friedman harped on an on about the special qualities of electric power vis-a-vis other forms, back in the early-to-mid 1990’s, as one of the features that was going to set America apart in her quest to continue to dominate without the need for all those silly heat-energy factories which we can send over there to pollute, …. I mean his spiel didn’t make sense, .. it amounted to waxing poetic about some special magical qualities of electric power, that America would dominate. Mmmmmm. And then – hahahaha! (Thomas Friedman, … loved by many, never ever sat right with me).

    I suppose the gulf region is the home of the world’s low-cost fossil fuels. Mmmm. Under this wild speculation of mine – which way would the Sauds go? I mean, … this potential thing I am pointing to would be a racket. Which side has shown a great and creative hand at spinning and executing rackets? I mean – the Sauds had already aligned with the petrodollar scheme back in the 1970’s and this worked for them. The petrodollar scheme already possesses hallmarks of crypsis.

    For crissakes – maybe Thomas Friedman was right? I gotta think about all this, some more (just came to me now). The elephant in the room, of course, is that AI is going to see the matter precisely as I have outlined (that the cost of computational power should be deeply aligned with money valuations, in a direction opposite to the current falling value by way of a Moore’s Law type-thing, if for no other reason, that the human AI sponsors, probably see it this way themselves).

  300. @Poupon Marx

    Mr. Marx, are you trying to butter me up with a Led Zeppelin track? Oh, Robert Plant….my wildly inappropriate, old-enough-to-be-my-father, lover from another era when one could still get away with that stuff – I was born too late; he is older than my father. That man never met a pair of underpants that he agreed with, God love him. (RP, that is)

    Machines like proper attention, high quality work and parts.

    So do men.

    JFK, who once raped a young girl in his office, and forced several others into making ham sandwiches

    I’ve never heard of this story, but his shenanigans with women and booze-y parties were a disappointment to discover. That said, they killed him, so he must have been doing something right, or at least beneficial to America. I’m certain the printing of US money separate from the Federal Reserve was the last straw.

    Now, I know that it verifiably doesn’t function, and the question is: do I need to go back and gather every conceivable circumstance, dramatis personae, interviews with crew attendended?

    Only if you want to understand why the thing malfunctioned, and assess/correct the damage, then perhaps you can prevent it happening again. And, also if you want to know who it was who screwed everything up, so you can deal with them appropriately. Deporting goofs from your machine room can make your life much easier, and then maybe you can better float your boat.

    Therefore, I don’t really care that much for what is really unverifiable speculation, guessing, supposition, and sorting out information that cannot be connected or made concrete.

    Well, speculation, guessing, and suppositions were the genesis of every scientific breakthrough/discovery which has made the western world what it is today. Perhaps Physicist Dave can correct me if that’s inaccurate. Anyway, if we don’t endeavor to sort out what is difficult to understand, connect, or make concrete, then we don’t leave the Stone Age, or figure out how deceleration was wholly absent in three collapsing towers that pulled themselves down without the hand of Moloch or the aid of flying Muslims.

    The western world is a bit of a Frankenstein, isn’t it? But, you know who I will blame for bastardizing it and using every advantage/gift of Europa to her detriment, first and foremost, don’t you? We are to blame as well, but they do kill our canaries quite often, so….

    Therefore, I look forward to a General August Pinochet-like figure to electrify the situation and electrocute the principals of our dissolution and destruction

    Do you really? Yet, you seem to dislike Adolf Hitler. Pinochet persecuted his own people, and he placed his personal prosperity before that of his nation. Of course, he was French, wasn’t he? Are Chileans mostly European? Either way, neither were very warm and fuzzy regarding opposition. which does seem to keep people in line. Pinochet was permitted to live, and America didn’t set upon him, so what does that tell you?

    dispatch them to the Next World

    A Final Solution? The actual solution wasn’t final, which is why it failed.

    .

    We need massive “replacement” with some other components.

    The replacement is ongoing, and continues apace. It is the other components that are the problem.

    I viewed the video of the machine room. What an extraordinary display of ingenuity and advanced mechanics, hydraulics, and engineering. That technology was hard won; one reason it’s necessary to look backwards is to understand how far we’ve come and to stop taking everything our forebears suffered to give us better lives. We are undereducated and ungrateful, in general. And, we are allowing our birthright to be ripped from us. Look what happened to Haiti when they cooked their golden goose. We’re cooking our very own goose. We are our goose.

    I noticed there was no diversity amongst the machine room crew. My kids roll their eyes when I say soon airplanes will be falling out of the sky. I wonder how much BlackGirl Magic is flyin’ over at El Al Israel Airlines?

  301. @tanabear

    The proven imbecile tanabear wrote to me:

    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    Richard Feynman

    I took two years of classes from Richard Feynman, in person, my junior and senior years. At Caltech.

    My freshman and sophomore years, I learned physics from the Feynman Lectures on Physics.

    I know his approach to science better than you do.

    A lot better.

    tanabear also wrote:

    This is before NIST admitted to a 2.25 second free-fall in their Final report released in November 2008. So is a free-fall collapse possible with structural resistance?

    It would help if you would provide a link to claims of this sort that you make: it is hard to respond without knowing what the person actually did say: you 9/11 Truthers lie a lot. An awful lot.

    The structural resistance actually has a rather small effect on the collapse time: it has to do with energy vs. momentum.

    The details are vastly beyond your demonstrated level of understanding.

    It would be a waste of time to try to explain it to you.

    However, if you are willing to pay my consulting fee of $1500.00 per hour, I am willing to consider it.

    Payable in advance.

    It irritates a lot of people here, who are quite willing to pay an auto mechanic or a hairdresser to make use of their expertise, when I point out that we physicists also expect to be paid for our expertise.

    But we do — just like auto mechanics and hairdressers.

    Most of us are occasionally willing to share some of our expertise for free — when we are treated with courtesy and respect.

    That has not been my experience with you.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @tanabear
  302. @Tiptoethrutulips

    Tiptoethrutulips referred to me in responding to Poupon Marx:

    [PM] Therefore, I don’t really care that much for what is really unverifiable speculation, guessing, supposition, and sorting out information that cannot be connected or made concrete.

    [Tip] Well, speculation, guessing, and suppositions were the genesis of every scientific breakthrough/discovery which has made the western world what it is today. Perhaps Physicist Dave can correct me if that’s inaccurate. Anyway, if we don’t endeavor to sort out what is difficult to understand, connect, or make concrete, then we don’t leave the Stone Age, or figure out how deceleration was wholly absent in three collapsing towers that pulled themselves down without the hand of Moloch or the aid of flying Muslims.

    Well… someone once asked Einstein if he carried a notebook with him so that he could write down all his brilliant ideas and make sure he did not forget any! Einstein replied that he did not have so many brilliant ideas that they needed to be carefully noted.

    So, no: wild and crazy speculations are a dime a dozen — that is not how science progresses.

    The key is that any new idea, to be worthy of any consideration whatsoever, has to be consistent with everything we already know.

    And that is very, very hard.

    The problem is that, even in the early days of science, say when Copernicus and Kepler were trying to work out the laws of planetary motion, a lot was already known about the apparent motion of the planets.

    It took enormous — almost superhuman — effort for Kepler to come up with his three laws of planetary motion that fit the existing data.

    And that is the basic problem with all the crack-pot ideas tossed out by all you 911 Truthers.

    We now know a lot more about the laws of physics than Kepler did. And goofy ideas such as the nuclear-explosion nonsense, the planes-were-holograms silliness, the claim that the collapse violated Newton’s Third Law of Motion, etc. are all not just wrong, but hilariously wrong to anyone conversant with actual physics.

    Take the issue you raise: how to ” figure out how deceleration was wholly absent in three collapsing towers.” That has been figured out.

    I was easily able to figure that out on my own using just undergrad physics, before I looked at any of the published studies on this.

    And of course it is also in the published studies.

    Of course, not a single one of you 911 Truthers can understand it: I get it — none of you guys were first in the Division of Math, Physics, and Astronomy in your graduating class at Caltech, with a 4.0, as I was. Nor do any of you have a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford, as I do.

    What is easy for me is basically impossible for you.

    Neither you nor I can do neurosurgery. Neither you nor I can even remove an inflamed appendix.

    We lack the training and expertise.

    Neither of us would pretend to have the knowledge to do that.

    It takes as long or longer to get a Ph.D. in physics than it does to get a medical degree.

    But while no one here would pretend to be a doctor, you all pretend to be able to judge issues in physics that you lack the expertise to judge.

    You see a problem there?

    Again, to return to the issue you raise: in fact, physics says that gravity-driven collapse of the Twin Towers should indeed have proceeded with a roughly constant acceleration (technically, this is the asymptotic behavior).

    Can I explain to you why this is so?

    Well, how long do you think it would take for a neurosurgeon to teach you how to do brain surgery?

    I actually was willing to try to explain this to everyone last summer, but when all of the lies and verbal abuse started being hurled my way, I just said to hell with it.

    Now, if all of the 911 Truthers here will unreservedly and unequivocally denounce Truth Vigilante for his blatant and proven libels that he keeps publishing, I am willing to reconsider.

    I assume that will happen shortly after Hell freezes over.

  303. @bjondo

    bjondo sasked me:

    [bj] hasn’t Mr Hume missed a beat?

    [Dave] The situation here is covered by Hume’s argument against miracles. Hume’s argument was that in the case of claims of a miracle there are two possibilities:

    A) An extraordinarily unusual event actually occurred.

    B) One or more human beings is confused or lying, which, alas, is far from unusual at all

    [bj] A1) The extraordinarily unusual event actually was a miracle.

    Your A1 is option A. Hume was willing to grant that if Jesus really rose from the dead on the third day or turned water into wine or whatever, then, yes, that would have been a miracle.

    Hume’s whole point was that miracles are, pretty much by definition, very rare events.

    People being confused, or intentionally lying, is certainly not a rare event.

    Therefore, in any particular case, the odds are that this specific case is not a miracle but just someone lying or being confused.

    The argument can be formalized using Bayes’ Theorem, but neither Hume nor I thought that is necessary.

    By the way, outside of religion, everyone simply takes the point for granted: if your neighbor borrows your car and he returns it all battered but tells you that an alien spacecraft wrecked it…well, unless he has extraordinary evidence for that bizarre claim, you are going to assume he is either lying or perhaps drunk or high.

    Wouldn’t you?

  304. @PhysicistDave

    ‘…It irritates a lot of people here, who are quite willing to pay an auto mechanic or a hairdresser to make use of their expertise, when I point out that we physicists also expect to be paid for our expertise…’

    The mechanic actually has to fix the damned car. You’re just proposing to explain how to do it.

    I’ll happily explain to you how to change your oil. For free.

    If you want me to actually do it, drive on up here first. Then give me a hundred dollars.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  305. @PhysicistDave

    ‘Neither you nor I can do neurosurgery. Neither you nor I can even remove an inflamed appendix.

    We lack the training and expertise.’

    If I disliked the person enough, I’d have a go.

    After all, how hard can it be?

  306. @Wild Man

    Wild Man wrote to me:

    Well Ron Unz believes the official 9/11 narrative is bogus on many fronts (as do I). I’m, in good company, it seems.

    Well, the only details I have seen Ron state is that he thinks that it was not just the Islamic jihadists who were behind it.

    Could be.

    As I said in the comment you linked to:

    Again, I am not denying that the US government has probably held back on some of the information it has: governments tend to do that.

    What I am addressing is the crack-pot physical claims about 9/11: that there were no planes, the planes were holograms, there was a nuclear (!) explosion, gravity-driven collapse is inconsistent with Newton’s Third Law, etc.

    Those claims, which are the biggies among the 911 Truthers, are obviously and certainly false.

    If Ron believes any of those claims, he is letting himself be conned.

    Wild Man also wrote:

    It is odd that you perceive lying embedded everywhere in the culture (as do I) yet none of that informed the oddities of 9/11, apparently.

    Why?

    I see actual well-known lies in politics, religion, etc. No one really doubts that — lots of the liars have ended up confessing. For that matter, Fauci has confessed that he lied.

    In all of those areas there is evidence of lies.

    But the mere fact that some area is rife with lies does not suggest that some crack-pot alternative to the lies is true. I know for a fact that Christian clergy often lie: several have confessed that to me personally.

    Scientology is an alternative to Christianity. So, does the fact that Christianity is based on lies mean that Scientology must be true?

    No, of course not! There is no evidence at all for Scientology, and, indeed, there is good reason to believe that L. Ron just made it up to make a few bucks.

    Evidence matters.

    I know of absolutely zero evidence — literally none at all — that the official narrative of what happened physically on 9/11 is false.

    When I and others have gone to the trouble to dig into the “evidence” that the 911 Truthers offer, it always turns out to be lies.

    But even if there were evidence that the official narrative were false, that would not be reason to think that any of the nonsensical theories peddled by the 911 Truthers are true.

    Just as the fact that Christianity is a pack of lies is no reason to think that Scientology is true.

    WM also wrote:

    As such, I tend to strongly mistrust your civilizational-ending prescription, (which is a tad nihilistic – no?). It seems to me that you in particular, have shown yourself as not possessing the arbiter-of-truth chops for that endeavor (and as well, …. a more bold claim, …. neither does anyone else, to my mind).

    I do not claim to be the arbiter of truth.

    The real world is the arbiter of truth.

    But, after all, no one denies that politicians and religious leaders often lie: after all, many of them have confessed to it. And Fauci has confessed to lying.

    I am merely saying that we ought to stop tolerating the lying.

    And that if we do stop tolerating the lying, then civilization as we know it will collapse.

    Because civilization as we know it for the last five millennia is built on lies.

    And that will indeed be a very good thing.

    Because in a world with nuclear weapons, the lies are likely to get us all killed.

    WM also wrote:

    Not sure if the quip in the link you provided (also in comment #254) about Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Platonic perspective, … features as anything meaningful one way or the other in this context, to you, though, … does it?

    I said nothing about any Platonic perspective on Shelley’s part, and I do not know or care what he thought on the matter. I merely find Matthew Arnold’s anecdote about Shelley interesting: Arnold did not mention Plato in that anecdote.

    WM also wrote:

    But in your case, … it seems you claim contradictory things at both extremes.

    I have been accused of many things, but rarely of contradicting myself!

    Perhaps this is a result of your insistence on fitting people into idiotic pop-philosophy boxes?

    You have repeatedly insisted that I surely must be either a monist OR a dualist, either a materialist OR an idealist. I am none of those things: your imagination is too limited.

    Indeed, if you got to know more ordinary people, I think you’d find that many of them also are neither a monist nor a dualist, neither a materialist nor an idealist. Go out onto the street and start asking people.

    I think you will find that there are more things in heaven and on earth than are dreamt of in your cramped philosophy!

    And I can assure you that your false dichotomies certainly do not apply to most scientists!

    Humans have no general, systematic, substantive, non-obvious, well-verified knowledge of reality except the knowledge attained through natural science.

    But you have made clear that you are almost completely ignorant of science. Indeed, you keep insisting that all humans just must think in categories that are quite alien to modern science.

    If you want to know what humans understand about reality, perhaps you should devote some serious, hard-core effort to actually learning science?

    Of course, I am pretty sure you would just rather spin your pseudo-philosophical nonsense.

    Takes a lot less effort.

    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  307. tanabear says:
    @PhysicistDave

    My freshman and sophomore years, I learned physics from the Feynman Lectures on Physics.

    I know his approach to science better than you do.

    A lot better.

    So do you believe that the experimental method is the arbiter of competing scientific hypothesis?

    It would help if you would provide a link to claims of this sort that you make: it is hard to respond without knowing what the person actually did say: you 9/11 Truthers lie a lot. An awful lot.

    Link: https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration

    9/11 Truthers assume that another people share the same stock of knowledge that they do, but obviously this isn’t true. NIST released their Final draft report in August 2008. In this report they denied that WTC7 entered free-fall. They were challenged on this by Steven Jones and David Chandler. In their final report issued in November 2008 they admitted that WTC7 entered free-fall for 2.25 seconds differing only slightly from David Chandler’s measurement of 2.5 seconds.

    Shyam Sunder, lead NIST investigator, stated in a press conference for their final Draft report:

    A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it…. What the analysis shows…is that same time it took for the structural model to come down…is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

    In their final report issued in November 2008 they conceded that WTC7 entered free-fall for 2.25 seconds. 2.25 – 2.5 seconds of free-fall is a distance of 80 t0 100 feet. There were 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns. That’s quite a distance to drop without encountering any structural components.

    So how can there be structural resistance and free-fall? Or are you saying that momentum transfer at free-fall acceleration is possible?

    • Replies: @Wild Man
    , @PhysicistDave
  308. @Patrick McNally

    ‘…Does that mean that Elser and Hitler were in on a conspiracy together? Or is it more likely that Hitler was just saved through blind luck?’

    Now you’ve done it. The Hitler conspiracy!

    …actually, it’s always intrigued me that Hitler seems to have been almost unkillable.

    He recounts that in the First World War, moved by an unaccountable impulse, he abruptly got up snd walked away from where he was chatting with two friends. A shell immediately landed, killing them both.

    As a runner, he received his Iron Cross First Class for volunteering to carry a message when two others had just been killed in succession making the attempt. Hitler, of course, made it unscathed.

    Then there’s just the simple fact of surviving four years of trench warfare, including his baptism of fire at First Ypres, where 80% of his regiment became casualties.

    There’s Elser, of course. And then in 1943 a bomb was put on his plane.

    It failed to explode. In 1944, the meeting where Stauffenberg left his bomb was supposed to be held underground; in a confined space such as that, everyone would definitely have been killed by the explosion.

    …but it was a nice day, so the meeting was moved to a hut outside, which didn’t confine the explosion.

    …and the briefcase was in somebody’s way, so they moved it — to the other side of a heavy table leg from Hitler. The table leg largely shielded Hitler from the blast.

    The man really did seem to be impervious to serious harm. In the end, of course, Hitler killed himself — but things could have gotten truly surreal if the Allies had captured him and tried to execute him.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    , @Wielgus
  309. muh muh says:
    @muh muh

    “Most of humankind needs faith in something that transcends their otherwise ultimately ephemeral and meaningless existence.”

    Let’s revise this to:

    “At some point in their lives, most people will feel compelled to attain of value what transcends the ephemeral. The object of their discovery then becomes the source of their reliance, their trust, their faith.”

    Whether one considers this a product of social evolution or not, it remains true.

  310. Wild Man says:
    @tanabear

    Don’t we need the expert people (like Dave) who are adamant that the official 9/11 narrative is sufficient to account for all the physical evidence that day, to weigh-in, on how it is, that the culprits figured so well, that the airplanes at those speeds, impacting at those facade locales, with that amount of jet fuel on board, would be just enough physical trauma, to eventuate the collapses of each of the two twin towers, due I guess, to inconsistencies in the heat-caused structural steel deformations …. how is it that Building 7 collapsed in the same observed fashion, as the twin towers, despite a completely different structural design, without the jet fuel added into the recipe, that was indeed apparently the necessary added factor with respect to the twin tower collapses? Why did building 7 collapse when it was not traumatized by an unusual office tower fire, …. because the usual office tower fire is considered by the building code, as a potential for which the design must address?

    Dave may well say that is just a coincidence. That weird coincidental stuff like that happens all the time, and sometimes a usual office tower fire, can bring down and collapse a tall building, despite the best efforts of the building code people and the structural engineering design community.

    I say that is too many coincidences, all on same day at the same locale. We should be suspicious. The onus is on the other parties to alleviate those suspicions. Have they? I haven’t seen anything along those lines, emerge (but I don’t follow the 9/11 mystery that deeply, …. maybe somebody in the 9/11-truther debunker community has already offered something around this?). Anybody know? Maybe Dave can point us that way? Why should we consider the building 7 collapse, to not be at all that unusual (even though it experienced just the usual office tower fire that is within the deign parameters of the building code), given the just prior events (that the twin tower collapses were due to the culprits, figuring correctly, as to ‘just enough physical trauma’, to bring down those two buildings)?

    • Replies: @Wild Man
    , @tanabear
  311. @PhysicistDave

    So, no: wild and crazy speculations are a dime a dozen — that is not how science progresses.

    Well, the speculations made by, say, Einstein and Tesla, are quite different than those of the average voodoo high-priest/priestess of the Congo; most of the rest of us fall somewhere in between.

    Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly enough – the genesis would be that first question of Why/How? Or, can we? Don’t we all progress through or upon the first answer/conclusion? Is modern science, in any field, often based on the conclusions of the questions/answers made beforehand?

    How many scientists of yore were imprisoned/executed/ridiculed for having been correct all along? Wasn’t there a physician whose career was nearly ruined because he determined, or guessed, that surgeons should wash their hands with a disinfectant before moving on to the next patient? I think it still happens today, especially to those who oppose the science of petroleum based medicine/pharmaceuticals, i.e. Dr. Bradstreet/Dr. Eva Snead.

    And that is the basic problem with all the crack-pot ideas tossed out by all you 911 Truthers.

    I don’t really consider myself a Truther. I do consider myself someone who is not easily fooled.

    Of all those architects and engineers on the roster of the professionals who deny the possibility of the official narrative, is there not a single one highly credentialed enough to render the crack-pot accusation null?

    Having said that, it wasn’t my intention to engage with you, specifically, about 911; I assume you remember our train wreck of a previous debate; there’s no need to rehash.

    Take the issue you raise: how to ” figure out how deceleration was wholly absent in three collapsing towers.” That has been figured out.

    Let me backtrack on my rehash declaration on this, though – I fully understand the official answer to why there was no deceleration for all three buildings, each of which was damaged in dissimilar ways – the nutshell answer from the NIST guy – after the initiation force, the floors below didn’t stop the collapse – I just don’t buy it.

    What is easy for me is basically impossible for you.

    Fair enough. But, some Truthers are smarter than I.

    the Twin Towers should indeed have proceeded with a roughly constant acceleration (technically, this is the asymptotic behavior). – But while no one here would pretend to be a doctor

    There were indeed many variables with regard to the occurrences within those buildings, yet the collapses were identical; the responses/reactions were identical in form. But, as you say, I’m not intelligent/educated enough to understand it, so fair enough.

    In point of fact, doctors are wrong all the time. I once had a pediatrician laugh in my face over my silly diagnosis of my child’s probable ear infection, as “her eyes had a slight swelling.” In goes the otoscope – “Well, Mom, it looks like you guessed correctly.” Now, that’s just a simple, silly story, but I’ve seen some egregious errors. However, you are absolutely correct; I am in no position to argue with a neurosurgeon or a physician, in general, but malpractice is real.

    Now, if all of the 911 Truthers here will unreservedly and unequivocally denounce Truth Vigilante for his blatant and proven libels that he keeps publishing, I am willing to reconsider.

    That’s an unreasonable demand, in my opinion. Why do his thoughts on the matter, or on you, determine your responses, or a lack thereof?

    In any case, I don’t think he believes in the CGI hypothesis, but regardless, he believes something in direct opposition to the official explanation is what actually happened, so in that respect, we agree.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  312. Sparkon says:
    @PhysicistDave

    You don’t literally mean it: you don’t literally mean that it violated “every law of physics known to man.” You are certainly not claiming, for example, that it violated the law of Biot-Savart.

    You’re grasphing at straws. The Biot-Savart Law applies to electromagnetism and magnetic fields, not collisions.

    For all your inflated conceit about your PhD, there is no sign in any of your pompous posts here that you ever took a course in logic, for your screeds are filled with logical fallacies.

    Again, I am not “all of you,” you babbling turkey, nor will I spend much time and effort here untangling your sophistry.

    My further exchanges with you are dependent on you addressing my comment #154.

    Until then, you’ve joined TV on my ‘ignore’ list, if for no other reason that to save space here, relieving me of the burden of scrolling through your strung out posts, which in style and composition read like they were written by a teen-age girl.

    [Little buddy] Look, you babbling turkey, I am neither friggin’ Truth Vigilante nor any of your friggen’ strawmen.

    I am not your “Little buddy,” but you are still a babbling turkey.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  313. @PhysicistDave

    And that if we do stop tolerating the lying, then civilization as we know it will collapse.

    This seems true. It also seems true that the lies have created our current cultural/political mess. Perhaps we are doomed.

    Perhaps the truth does not set us free, then? And yet, it often does exactly that. So, what is true/possible for some people creates a problem for other people.

    The Bell Curve is true; the lie that it isn’t is ruining us. The prophecy that Moloch will rule the earth seems true; the lie that his book is just mumbo-jumbo is ruining us.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  314. @Colin Wright

    > Will the moral complexion of the situation change if it turns out the Jews managed to murder ‘only’ fifteen thousand civilians?

    Certainly not in any way that will justify the fawning of US politicians over Israel. The more serious question there is who will get more egg on their faces, Republicans or Democrats? I refused to vote for Trump in 2016 because I was positive that he would attempt to instigate a war on Iran. I still think that such was his aim, but the Iranian leadership was cautious, and Trump had too much domestic hostility here to be able to pull something off without the Iranians first doing something stupid. I voted for Trump in 2020 because I saw that election as really about Antifa more than Trump. What I’ll do this November is an open guess. Maybe we’ll see Antifa burning down more cities, and I’ll feel obligated to vote for Trump. Or maybe Trump will be do so much gushing about the need to support Netanyahu, that it will be unthinkable to vote for him. We’ll see.

  315. @Colin Wright

    Part of the issue here is whether or not people were correctly identified. A major source for the stories about drug-addled Muslims was Daniel Hopsicker:

    https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2005/07/11/venice-author-questions-911-findings-in-controversial-book/28853117007/

    —–
    Venice author questions 9/11 findings in controversial book

    … Why should they believe him when he writes that Mohamed Atta, the terrorist who flew the first plane into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, and one of three hijackers who lived in Venice, was a cocaine-bingeing sex fiend?

    … In January, a man named Stephan Verhaaren filed a defamation lawsuit against Hopsicker and his company, Madcow Productions, claiming that Hopsicker lied about Verhaaren in his book and linked him to the Sept. 11 attacks and Atta.
    —–

    A more standard account of the hijackers is by Terry McDermott, Perfect Soldiers:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_McDermott_(journalist)

    —–
    Terry McDermott is an American journalist who … is author of Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers, Who They Were, Why They Did It, an investigative non-fiction book profiling the hijackers of the September 11 attacks in 2001 as well as the al-Qaeda leaders who planned and orchestrated the attacks.
    —–

    —–
    Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the acknowledged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, had been to the United States before; as a bright young man, he had come here from his native Kuwait to study science. He had returned home appalled, telling people Americans hated Muslims, and spent the next 20 years plotting to get even, developing for this purpose an unusual weapon: a group of young men from Hamburg, the agents of a seismic shift in modern history but in many respects utterly normal.

    The Sept. 11 attackers have largely been depicted with a series of caricatures that run from evil genius on one end to deluded fanatics on the other, but most of Mohammed’s protegees came from apolitical and only mildly religious backgrounds. Under his watch, though, they evolved into devout, pious Muslims who debated endlessly on how best to serve, to fulfil what they came to regard as their religious obligations. In fundamentalist Islam, religion and politics are inseparable; the Hamburg men saw themselves as soldiers of God.
    —–

    Hopsicker’s version rests on Amanda Keller’s claims.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20050507092928/https://www.madcowprod.com/fifthpilot.htm

    —–
    Keller said comments attributed to her in the Herald-Tribune on Saturday, saying that Atta lived in her apartment, were wrong. She said that it was this unidentified fifth man, also named Mohammed, that stayed in her home.

    The FBI believes Atta was on the plane that crashed into the World Trade Center’s north tower…

    The fifth man being eyed by investigators was tall, lanky and quiet, according to Keller’s mother and sister.

    In interviews at their home in the North Florida town of Lady Lake, they said the man introduced himself as Mohammed.
    —–

    Supposedly, Atta was 5-8, hence not “tall” as described. This was probably a different Mohammad, just like the stories of “hijackers alive” involved people with similar names in a similar location. I doubt that any of the real hijackers were cocaine-sniffers.

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  316. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    The British historian Alan Bullock wrote that Hitler had “the devil’s luck – a not inappropriate phrase”.

  317. @Truth Vigilante

    > the ICRC (International Committe Red Cross) that less than 300,000 Jews died* in ALL of those work camps (which were falsely labelled as extermination camps) in ALL German occupied territories during WWII.

    No, that is not accurate.

    The ICRC gave a listing of what were found as registered deaths in some of the camps (not all). The ICRC itself left open the matter of unregistered deaths. For example, this document:

    “The certification numbers of the Special Registry Office do not allow for any conclusions about the actual numbers of the dead in the concentration camps.”

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  318. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    It would be interesting if others remembered the “I got up and immediately afterwards a shell killed my friends” incident. It could be he was trying to create a “man of destiny” image for himself. Then again, accounts of wars, especially WW1, often mention soldiers having a sort of sixth sense about incoming shells.

  319. @Tiptoethrutulips

    Pinochet was permitted to live, and America didn’t set upon him, so what does that tell you?

    That apples are different than oranges, and you relapse into unfocused and “fan out” logic and conclusions, female based, are not efficacious and turbid and hazy.

    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  320. @Colin Wright

    Once the Americans ascertained that Muslims were the perpetrators, it was pretty obvious that it was a political act of terrorism, and that it was done in response to the American foreign policy in the Middle East. So, the *immediate* objective of the terrorist attack was achieved without any need for a specific individual or organization to come forward and claim authorship.
    The only problem is that the *ultimate* objective of the attack was *not* achieved. Muslims did not benefit at all with the ‘War on Terror’; Israel did. But that would be true regardless of anyone claiming responsibility for the attack.
    There is another way of looking at things, however. Maybe the War on Terror *was* the immediate objective, despite of the great sacrifice that provoking it imposed on the Muslim world; the ultimate objective was what *the aftermath* of the War on Terror would bring on in the U.S.: divisiveness, economic crisis, war fatigue, etc, etc.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  321. @PhysicistDave

    But while no one here would pretend to be a doctor, you all pretend to be able to judge issues in physics that you lack the expertise to judge.

    That’s an asymmetrical comparison. No one here is pretending to be a physicist. And a lot of people here pretend to be able to judge issues in medicine that they lack the expertise to judge. (Especially Covid-19-related issues.)

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
  322. @Poupon Marx

    female based

    Oh, please….you can’t insult me with a swipe about feminine reasoning, or the lack thereof…..as it is often true, but I am nearly always an exception.

    You were the one to sing the praises of the Chilean dictator, after all, and it is absolutely true that dictators, benevolent or not, must operate within similar parameters. It’s also true that the enemies of Zion and its lap dogs, US/England, are subject to all sorts of obstacles.

    I would say you’ve relapsed into the early afternoon whiskey swilling again, and turbid and hazy is a bit redundant. Perhaps you meant turgid?

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  323. Wild Man says:
    @Wild Man

    Here is the 2010 NIST answer to my query, in comment #312 above:

    https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    Mmmm. I was in the downtown office tower & commercial real estate biz until 2012. I didn’t hear boo about recommendations to retrofit older buildings for better anchoring/joining of structural members to deal with this unaddressed thermal expansion issue this NIST report claims has been under-designed, by the structural engineering community, for long-span floor systems. I was dealing with a whole host of structural engineers and architects all the time (parking-garage-rebar-oxidation-caused-structural-failure, and management of the mitigation for that, was one of the tasks I was assigned, .. and we had plenty of parking garages, …. and anchoring/joining of structural and cladding members was always an engineering focus, and well studied, at my sites, … and I managed office tower curtain wall retrofit projects, as well [plus a whole lot of other duties too]).

    Maybe these NIST recommendations changed the industry, and retrofits occurred all over the west, since 2012 (after I was out of the biz)? Maybe? I didn’t hear anything like that in the news, though. Does anybody know?

    It is still quite the series of coincidences though (Silverstein’s ‘very-lucky’ enrichment aside), …… isn’t there about 24 combinations, as to how these events may have occurred, at the gross-macro level, on that day, among the 3 buildings in question, with each building’s potential outcomes, grossly factored into 4 parts – 1) still standing and structurally repairable; 2) still standing but structurally irrepairable; 3) partial collapsed, 4) full collapse. It took quite a while for the global collapse of the twin towers to occur. I think the takeaway there, is that if the trajectories & air-speeds of the airplanes, and the locale of the facade impacted, and the amount of fuel on board, was any different, the outcomes could have been quite different. But the eventuality that actually occurred, seems to be have been about 4% probable (like if the culprits were to roll the dice instead on the odds they calculated just right, and obtained the actuality achieved, would appear to be about 4%. Mmmm. … maybe someone helped the inexperienced jihadists get the airplane-impact formulation just right (a team of structural engineers would be required to work this out), … and maybe said parties wanted rid of building 7 as well? Ron Unz claims (I think) that the eyewitness testimony is misrepresented, in this NIST report I linked.

    Of course I think we can figure probabilities around other strange anomalies that occurred that day, …. and when one includes these, …. this seems more and more unlikely to feature nearly as much happenstance as is actually featured by the official narrative.

    And as well, if these jihadists were sponsored by elements of the Saudi regime, then why were so many players associated with the Saudi regime caught completely off-guard, …. trying hard to fly the coup (with Bush 2’s help?), while the dancing Israelis were instead not caught off guard, … cheering?

    • Replies: @Wild Man
    , @Colin Wright
  324. @Tiptoethrutulips

    > In construction/demolition, pull it is the term for tearing down or removing, and it is also commonly used

    Your own citations illustrate that when “pull” is used in the context of construction demolitions, it has nothing to do with bombs in the building.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222

    —–
    Now, lets see what implosionworld told me:

    Conventionally, “pull a building” can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally.
    —–

    Even when used in the context of demolitions, “pull it” does not mean “blow up with explosives.” It means “pull down with cables.”

    Judging from later reports, Larry Silverstein never had any such conversation with anyone on the Fire Department. This seems to be a classic case of someone trying to inflate their own importance and then regretting it.

    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  325. @muh muh

    > Freudian perspective of religious faith as mental illness

    Where does Freud claim that? My recollection is that Freud took the view that religion was a necessity for early civilizations, but that modern civilization should now be able to supplant it with science and reason. Even if you disagree with that last judgment, I don’t know of any place where Freud actually claims that religion as such was a mental illness. He basically views it the way that a child may need a dominant father figure, but then breaks away from this at an older age. Freud envisioned, perhaps naively, that human society was undergoing such a maturation process whereby it would no longer need to invoke God as a universal patriarch.

    • Replies: @bjondo
    , @muh muh
  326. bjondo says:

    “Pull it” in NYC means to hook up the mules and pull.

    And,

    since the mule team pulled, WTC 7 did as expected: a combination of axial rotation and bending of members, resulting in a disjointed, asymmetrical collapse at less than free-fall acceleration.

    No free-fall straight-down collapse with gravity acceleration. No sir.

    Larry pulled out his hankie and wiped the foreheads of NYFD’s emergency mules.

    Then he wiped his own forehead.

    The rest is history.

    5ds

  327. @tanabear

    > NIST admitted to a 2.25 second free-fall in their Final report released in November 2008. So is a free-fall collapse possible with structural resistance?

    One should keep in mind that 2.25 seconds of apparent free-fall in the context of a wider event which takes longer than simple free-fall, is not really a free-fall collapse. It sounds very unpredictable whether or not one might, in the context of a longer event, have 2.25 seconds of apparent free-fall. The only thing I would ever be confident of is that the gross collapse-time should reflect the structural resistance which Sunder speaks of. The record shows that such was the case.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  328. Wild Man says:
    @Wild Man

    Maybe I could say one more thing about it, …. (further to comment #312 & 325), ….who benefited due to the aftermath 9/11?

    1) Neocons (as Ron Unz says)
    2) The faux-west corporatist globalists (as I state)
    3) Israel
    4) The American Military Complex (aka the American hegemonic brute)
    5) Ultimately, Sunni jihadists as per the later Obama admin, (even though Bush 2 had earlier started wars in the wake of 9/11 in order to go after these guys, apparently).
    6) The House of Saud

    Who experienced loss, due to the aftermath of 9/11?

    7) The people in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya.
    8) The American people lost liberties
    9) The American people have been saddled with insurmountable debt to pay for these wars (among other more recent follies) that will likely be price-inflated away
    10) The American middle class has stagnated since (when their elitists didn’t)
    11) All the peoples of the west, as the western alliance has since been destabilized.

    Who took hits but weathered the storm, in the aftermath of 9/11:

    12) China
    13) Russia
    14 Iran

    Here is the deal (to my mind):

    #1 thru #4 are all just elements of this faux-west corporatist globalism as I have already described. The changing allegiances amongst #5 is interesting, … leading to the strong speculation that the House of Saud is the wild card here, …. are they gonna stay in the #1 thru #4 orbit (the faux-west globalist orbit that looks to be about 25% Jewish in membership), or are they gonna go towards the #11 thru #14 grouping?

    I think potentially, everything that has happened geopolitically since 9/11, is primarily about just that. And this is still mostly obscured from our view. Perhaps the people of Saudi Arabia would be better off without the House of Saud (not sure on that one, actually, …. the House of Saud appears to have well-played cards so far, … enriching their own narrow [but thousands strong] group, …. but this geopolitical action has probably helped the Saudi people be better off too, than they would be otherwise, without the House of Saud playing geopolitical poker). But Israel is showing how it’s Jewish interests are in the drivers seat in the faux-west globalist cabal, right now, telling everyone around on their side on the geopolitical scene, a ‘fuck-you’, including the House of Saud (who I am sure are feeling quite fucked over by Israel showing it’s hand like this, now), over the recent decision to go bonkers/overdrive on the Gazan ethnic cleansing. So who knows which way the House of Saud will ultimately go? And can you see why I think a Jewish occult esoteric angle might feature? Why does Israel get to tell all the other members of the cabal: – ‘fuck-you and your stupid pretensions to any sort of collegue-ship here, …what I says goes’?

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  329. bjondo says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Freudian perspective of religious faith as mental illness. Where does Freud claim that?

    Pick a book any book.

    “Totem and Taboo”, “The Future of an Illusion”, “Civilization and Its Discontents”, and “Moses and Monotheism”

    The mental illness was wriggling, squirming in Freud’s brain.

    And his ilk.

    5ds

  330. @Patrick McNally

    UR readers, have you noticed that Patrick ‘McNally’ (real name Mordechai Moshe Baruch Shlongstein – or something equivalent), was not participating in this Open Thread, but somehow magically appeared out of nowhere?

    You see, his fellow disinformers (led by Fizzy-cyst Dovid), were taking one hell of a beating.
    So Shin Bet central in Occupied Palestine called in reinforcements to assist.
    And who better than Shlomo McNally, who has an extensive track record of propagating ZOG talking points.

    And, wouldn’t you know, Shlomo McNally chimes in trying to make a case for Mohammad Atta (and the other alleged Muslim hijackers – as well as KSM), as being responsible for the hijackings.
    Not content with that, Shlomo McNally puts in his two cents worth of obfuscation in some later comments relating to the 9/11 False Flag, claiming that the words ‘pull it’ means something other than what they obviously do mean.
    Shlomo McNally just never gives up. He has been a faithful servant of ZOG for many years, and will be rewarded accordingly in the award ceremonies at the World Jewish Congress once more, for his dedication and commitment to the Talmudic agenda.

    SUMMARY: None of these alleged 19 Muslims boarded any of the four planes alleged to have crashed on the day of 9/11.
    Only apologists for ZOG keep peddling this nonsensical allegation.

    BTW, it didn’t escape me that the Thick-as-a-brick individual that uses the handle ‘Brass Cubes’, gave Shlomo McNally an ‘Agree’.
    Brass Cubes has been repeatedly shown evidence that no Muslims hijacked any planes on 9/11.
    But such is his hatred of Muslims, he pays no heed to facts. He is that set in his ways and ignorant.

    • LOL: Patrick McNally
  331. @Patrick McNally

    Mr Mordechai ‘McNally’, thank you for forwarding your ICRC registered deaths document.

    Of course, nowhere in the document does the word ‘Juden’ appear, seeing as these numbers refer to total deaths of all inmates of ALL races and ethnicities (the bulk of which will have been gentile Poles/political prisoners/Soviet POW’s etc).

    FACT: After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, their records taken from the Auschwitz-Birkenau work camp which the Soviets had liberated in 1945, were released for public perusal.
    It showed that more Catholics died* in Auschwitz than Jews.

    (*Notice how I wrote’ died’, as opposed to murdered. Because the vast bulk of those that died in Auschwitz and the other German work camps, were NOT murdered. They died in the 1942/43 typhus epidemics and from malnutrition in the concluding months of the war, as the German food transport/logistics system had been decimated by Allied bombing/strafing.

    German civilians in the cities were themselves starving in the final months of the war as precious little food got through).

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  332. @Patrick McNally

    Well, BolshevikPretzel, you made my point for me; I was not arguing that Silvertongue specifically meant – bombs away! – nor that he was giving an order to “blow-up the building” – my assertion was that the term pull it was/is demolition jargon, which it is, as you say, and when he told the phantom Commander to pull it, he was NOT suggesting to evacuate the fire crew, which is what he tried to pass off as his actual meaning when initially questioned.

    You also thereby confirmed my other supposition, that there was no actual phone call, at least as he described it. He was just blowing smoke, laying cover, who knows? But, regardless of his motivation to relay the story of his phony command, pull it is a term used to indicate that a building is to be brought down by one of several methods of professional building demolition, which can’t be accomplished in a few hours, nor does the fire department in NYC provide that service.

    I think this is the first time we agree on anything, really, my BolshevikPretzel.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  333. Wild Man says:
    @Wild Man

    Further to comment #330, …. suppose you were the House of Saud, and suppose the rumors are all true that the gulf region is the home of relative-low-cost oil production for a long time to come, …. and suppose you had a choice to make now, …. a choice primarily about currency/sovereignty over money valuations/threats of violence for choosing differently than in the past, ….. would you not look for a way to double-cross your prior partners who won’t give you the full seat at the table, given that it is you that are in possession of the ultimate arbiter of human-ingenuity-enhanced value, as you possess the indispensable ingredient, ….. which is large-enough discretionary oil production targets (note that human ingenuity is hugely magnified by non-human energy assets), …. with new partners you could attack the American dollar in hopes of collapsing any notion of American sovereign money value, just when non-sovereign block-chained cryptocurrency is on the rise, given that Saudi Arabia would be the ultimate crypto-money-valuator in a world without sovereign currencies, which would be a world where energy is needed for crypto block-chain operations, … and using the BTC model, these energy-consuming operations pay in crypto, … fine-tuning the crypto money-value, from both sides (from the supply side and from the demand side), and if you control the supply side in this scenario, in the long-run you actually end up controlling everything crypto-valuation-point-wise, because, once this money-scheme would get going, demand for currency will be rather unelastic, compared to your control of the supply, …. but the House of Saud could not do this without Russia (the other large fairly low-cost discretionary energy producer) and China (holding huge American dollar reserves), and perhaps Iran. If the Chinese can strike a prior deal with the House of Saud/Russia to convert a good portion of their American-dollar-reserve-destruction-losses into the energy-based non-sovereign-crypto, with promises to let the Chinese go into south/central/north America and buy it up at pennies on the dollar, ….. well, we would have a new world order with the smallish House of Saud ascending even further in this order.

  334. muh muh says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Even if you disagree with that last judgment, I don’t know of any place where Freud actually claims that religion as such was a mental illness. He basically views it the way that a child may need a dominant father figure, but then breaks away from this at an older age.

    Your last sentence is correct, though the manner in which he expresses this sentiment clearly describes religion as a ‘neurosis’.

    In ‘The Future of an Illusion,” Freud states, “Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis.”

    In “New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,” he writes, “If we attempt to assign the place of religion in the evolution of mankind, it appears not as a permanent acquisition but as a counterpart to the neurosis which individual civilized men have to go through in their passage from childhood to maturity.”

  335. @Brás Cubas

    Brás Cubas wrote to me:

    [Dave] But while no one here would pretend to be a doctor, you all pretend to be able to judge issues in physics that you lack the expertise to judge.

    [BC] That’s an asymmetrical comparison. No one here is pretending to be a physicist.

    Well, as a matter of fact they are, or, at least, they are pretending they can do what physicists actually can do.

    I’m not sure you know what we physicists really do: we explain physical phenomena in the real world using the known laws of physics (on rare occasions we find that some phenomenon can only be explained by posting a new law of physics, and then we are very happy — but that is very, very rare). Our work product is providing explanations.

    And the 911 Truther pathological lying psychos here are claiming to explain what physically happened on 911. So, yes, they are indeed claiming to do the same thing physicists do.

    But they can’t. And so they present these crack-pot pseudo-theories: the planes as holograms, the nukes (!) in the basement, the claim that gravity-driven collapse violates Newton’s Third Law, and all the rest.

    No one with any actual knowledge of physics would spout such nonsense. But the 911 Truther psychos do indeed pretend to do what physicists do, even though they can’t.

    When, at Ron Unz’s request, I first engaged these guys back in the summer of 2023, I tried to calmly and patiently explain why their crack–pot theories were nonsense.

    The immediate response from them was a torrent — of veritable oceanic magnitude! — of verbal abuse and vitriol directed at me making all sorts of false and bizarre accusations against me.

    I’m a Silver Rule guy: do unto others as those others do in fact do unto you — and do it good and hard.

    Two eyes for an eye; twenty teeth for a tooth.

    So, I have hurled it all back at the lying little thugs. Ten-fold.

    Which I am greatly enjoying.

    As the saying goes, if you mud-wrestle with a pig, you will get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.

    And I am the pig!

  336. @Brás Cubas

    ‘…Once the Americans ascertained that Muslims were the perpetrators, it was pretty obvious that it was a political act of terrorism, and that it was done in response to the American foreign policy in the Middle East…’

    Curiously, I remember a lot of people were in denial about that last part. It was very, very important that the attack have been unprovoked in any reasonable sense. Remember ‘they hate us for our freedom’?

    …if so, we’ve certainly been addressing that source of discord.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  337. @Tiptoethrutulips

    Tiptoethrutulips wrote to me:

    [Dave] And that if we do stop tolerating the lying, then civilization as we know it will collapse.

    [Tip] This seems true. It also seems true that the lies have created our current cultural/political mess. Perhaps we are doomed.

    Perhaps the truth does not set us free, then?

    You seem not to have read my comment: I very strongly want to destroy civilization as we have known it, because civilizotion as we have known it is deeply and profoundly evil.

    Again, here is what I wrote:

    And that if we do stop tolerating the lying, then civilization as we know it will collapse.

    Because civilization as we know it for the last five millennia is built on lies.

    And that will indeed be a very good thing.

    See?

    I said that it will be a very good thing if civilization as we know it is destroyed.

    Government, religion, our education system, our system of justice, the legal profession, our military and foreign policy… all deeply and profoundly evil. And all based on lies.

    So, if we can end the lies, we can destroy all those deeply evil institutions.

    The record of “civilization” during the last five millennia has been war, repression, slavery, taxation and tribute, and, above all, the government seizing resources from the productive members of society and handing the loot over to the members of the government and their supporters.

    Civilization as we have known it is evil.

    So, no, we are not doomed because we can, if we wish, abolish the evil institutions that constitute civilization as we have known it — the horribly inhuman evil that we call “civilization” — simply by exposing the lies.

    Will we do that before we blow ourselves up?

    That is the key question.

  338. Ron Unz says:
    @PhysicistDave

    the claim that the collapse violated Newton’s Third Law of Motion, etc. are all not just wrong, but hilariously wrong to anyone conversant with actual physics.

    Well, I’ve always been very skeptical of the 9/11 Truther claims, including those on this discussion-thread, that certain aspects of the official 9/11 narrative are “physically impossible.” That especially includes all those claims that jetliners couldn’t possibly penetrate the WTC towers.

    However, there are many things that may not be physically impossible, but seem extremely improbable. For example, if you find someone suffocated in a room, it’s possible that he died because all the oxygen molecules randomly happened to move away from him and stayed away long enough for him to expire. But that scenario doesn’t seem very likely.

    Similarly, I think that according to the official narrative after one of the jetliners hit the WTC tower, an undamaged passport of one of the hijackers was supposedly found by a “good samaritan” on the street below and immediately provided to the police. It’s certainly *possible* that despite huge crash and the fireball caused by the explosion of the fuel, a hijacker’s passport somehow escaped burning, was thrown free of the plane, and landed undamaged on the NYC street below.

    But it doesn’t seem very likely.

  339. @Sparkon

    The evil little pathologically lying psychotic Sparkon wrote to me:

    My further exchanges with you are dependent on you addressing my comment #154.

    Until then, you’ve joined TV on my ‘ignore’ list

    Good — I’ve got what I wanted!

    Now, I can say anything I want about you and you can never respond!

    Let’s try it out: you are a lying, sniveling, cowardly little piece of subhuamn scum…

    And everyone knows it.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  340. @Ron Unz

    Niceland has been one of the sharpest commenters on this website for many years,

    I haven’t interacted with “niceland” all that much, but still it has been enough for me to classify him/her/it/them (not sure what the appropriate pronouns are) as a chronic liar and probably a professional disinfo agent.

    At one point in one of these 9/11 threads, he/she/it/they claimed to have read the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 in its entirety. My immediate reaction was to call out him/her/it/them as a liar. I thought it noteworthy that he/she/it/they did not even get indignant.

    Well, whatever. Stuff that happens… Out of curiosity, Ron, do you believe that “niceland” really did read that NIST report in its entirety as claimed?

  341. @Ron Unz

    Ron Unz wrote to me:

    Similarly, I think that according to the official narrative after one of the jetliners hit the WTC tower, an undamaged passport of one of the hijackers was supposedly found by a “good samaritan” on the street below and immediately provided to the police. It’s certainly *possible* that despite huge crash and the fireball caused by the explosion of the fuel, a hijacker’s passport somehow escaped burning, was thrown free of the plane, and landed undamaged on the NYC street below.

    But it doesn’t seem very likely.

    Well, I don’t think you or I or anyone can judge the probability of that. It’s like the straw driven through a tree trunk that Colin Wright alluded to above.

    Who would expect that? But it happened with a tornado, which is outside the realm of normal, daily human experience.

    Similarly, if you look at what was vaporized and what was left standing after Hiroshima was nuked…. no one could have predicted the pattern that actually occurred.

    Frankly, it is much, much easier for me to imagine a freak occurrence of the passport somehow landing in the street than any other explanation. E.g., why on earth would anyone put the passport there on the street if it didn’t come from the plane? And, for that matter, how reliable is the report that the passport was indeed found on the street and that it came from one of the passengers on the plane? As the discussion about Larry Silverstein in this thread shows, the 911 Truthers have been lying about a lot of details.

    The two planes, loaded with jet fuel, colliding at high speed with the Twin Towers is not an event that occurs very often! Unexpected things are going to occur when events outside normal experience occur.

    That is not even surprising.

    Some years ago, an acquaintance of mine asked me to talk with a friend of his about the friend’s alternative theory of the Fitzgerald contraction in relativity. This guy thought that the contraction was some mystery to physicists and needed some complicated explanation (he wanted an extra dimension into which objects got bent). I tried to explain that there was no mystery requiring an explanation: what is happening is very simple and obvious if you understand the physics. No mystery to explain.

    Beyond that, the Fitzgerald contraction is not something that is actually observed experimentally: it is just a necessary consequence of relativity — if you try to reject relativity, there is no Fitzgerald contraction to explain.

    My explanation had no effect on the guy of course: he was too lazy to actually learn the relevant physics, but he still thought he could teach us physicists something!

    The 911 Truthers are just like that guy (though he was a good deal more pleasant!): they start off with the premise that the conventional explanation is false — even though they refuse to acquire the technical knowledge needed to judge if the conventional explanation is right or not — and then they feel compelled to invent crack-pot Marvel-comics style “explanations” of what happened.

    Even though no such explanation is needed: we already have a perfectly good explanation that is in accord with the laws of physics.

    This is all utterly bizarre! Why on earth would human beings waste so much of their lives on such nonsense?

    The answer, of course, is the one I quoted from Vonnegut: their crazy ideas are badges of group identity, just like Catholics claiming to believe in transubstantiation.

    How and why do people thirst for such badges of group identity?

    Well… some people are just born into the group and want to continue to be accepted by the group: I suppose this is true of most Catholics.

    But for those who actively seek out such badges of group identity as adults… well, I have been trying to make sense out of this for the last fifty years or so.

    And what I have noticed is that such people tend to be, to put it politely, “lost souls.” To put it less politely, “losers.”

    I have been quite open here about my education, my career accomplishments, my wife and kids, etc., and I have actually provided links to back up much of that.

    You will notice that very few of the 911 Truthers have done the same. They tend to be very, very reticent about their education or lack thereof, for example.

    And those who have given a bit of information about their lives, such as “Kali” and “Prajna,” turn out to have lived very, very strange lives indeed. Not the sort of people you’d want as next-door neighbors.

    And their behavior here… for example, Truth Vigilante making the following bizarrely libelous accusation against me (see here) in which he claimed that I have:

    been shunned by fellow academics because he has a history of peddling junk science/been a serial offender in falsifying data etc,

    He has not even pretended to have any evidence that I have been viewed by any academics at all as being guilty of “falsifying data”!

    Anyone can read my Ph.D. thesis online and find out that I was not reporting any data I had gathered myself but merely comparing data reported by experimentalists to the predictions of various theoretical models. I was in no position to falsify data even if I had wanted to!

    You see why I have formulated the hypothesis that every single one of the 911 Truthers is utterly nuts?

    I have yet to find an exception!

    I truly am interested in psychopathology, and these guys are just a gold mine of examples.

    There really is something deeply and profoundly wrong with them, and I think Vonnegut does explain it: these are “losers” at the game of life and they have latched on to all of this 911 Truther insanity to give their sad little lives meaning.

    A badge of group identity.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    • Replies: @Wild Man
    , @Ron Unz
  342. @Sparkon

    But you got a gold box and praise from Unz, so there’s that.

    Unz seems to have a penchant for vouching for extremely dubious participants, like this “niceland” or “Alden”.

    He also has a level of tolerance for “Wizard of Oz” that is very hard to understand. For a while there, “Mr. Anon” was getting gold boxes frequently…

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  343. @Ron Unz

    It’s certainly *possible* that despite huge crash and the fireball caused by the explosion of the fuel, a hijacker’s passport somehow escaped burning, was thrown free of the plane, and landed undamaged on the NYC street below.

    But it doesn’t seem very likely.

    Have you ever attempted to estimate the probability of this?

    I certainly haven’t. It strikes me as significantly less likely than little Johnny’s claim that he did his homework but the dog ate it.

  344. @Wild Man

    ‘…Of course I think we can figure probabilities around other strange anomalies that occurred that day, …. and when one includes these, …. this seems more and more unlikely to feature nearly as much happenstance as is actually featured by the official narrative.’

    It occurs to me that the collapse of Building 7 doesn’t fit in with the giant plot theory any better than it does with the official story.

    If you’re going to hijack planes and fly them into the buildings to provide a fictional reason for their collapse so as to hide the actual one, doesn’t it kind of give the game away to blow up Building 7 even though no plane hit it?

  345. @Tiptoethrutulips

    Tiptoethrutulips wrote to me:

    Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly enough – the genesis would be that first question of Why/How? Or, can we? Don’t we all progress through or upon the first answer/conclusion? Is modern science, in any field, often based on the conclusions of the questions/answers made beforehand?

    I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

    The answer to your question is probably “No!” but since the quote I just gave makes no sense…

    Tip also wrote:

    I don’t really consider myself a Truther.

    If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…

    Tip also wrote:

    I fully understand the official answer to why there was no deceleration for all three buildings, each of which was damaged in dissimilar ways – the nutshell answer from the NIST guy – after the initiation force, the floors below didn’t stop the collapse – I just don’t buy it.

    Quacking like a duck indeed! You thereby reveal your utterly invincible ignorance of basic principles of science.

    There is no doubt — zero doubt! — that gravity-driven collapse is possible. This follows from very, very basic laws of physics relating to energy, momentum, force, etc. And detailed calculations have shown in detail how this can happen, confirming the basic scientific understanding.

    But you “just don’t buy it.” Because you have never bothered to acquire any understanding of natural science.

    At all.

    Tip also wrote:

    Of all those architects and engineers on the roster of the professionals who deny the possibility of the official narrative, is there not a single one highly credentialed enough to render the crack-pot accusation null?

    As I have explained again and again, I have had a number of architects in my family: not a one has any understanding of unusual modes of building collapse. That is not what they do or what they learn.

    They learn how to design buildings in accord with the local building codes and then submit them to structural engineers to check that they are sound.

    And I have also knows some structural engineers: most just plug the numbers into software and make sure the software says the building is sound. They also are not experts on highly unusual modes of building collapse.

    A few guys are: as I have said, Zdeněk Bažant quite literally wrote the book on stability of structures.

    And Bažant supports the official narrative.

    As I have also said before, as it happens, an old acquaintance of mine, Professor Hung Leung “David” Wong of the University of Southern California is an expert on structural stability under earthquakes. David therefore is interested in modes of building collapse.

    If David told me that one of the 911 Truther theories was probably true, I would take him seriously.

    He hasn’t.

    So, no, I am not impressed by the supposed thousands of non-experts in AE911Truth. When the Germans published Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein attacking Albert Einstein’s work, Einstein supposedly pointed out that if they were right, one would have sufficed!

    The same thing applies to AE911Truth: if they were not all crack-pots, they would not need thousands — one would suffice if he could actually show that the official explanation is wrong.

    None has.

    Tip also wrote:

    [Dave] Now, if all of the 911 Truthers here will unreservedly and unequivocally denounce Truth Vigilante for his blatant and proven libels that he keeps publishing, I am willing to reconsider.

    [Tip] That’s an unreasonable demand, in my opinion. Why do his thoughts on the matter, or on you, determine your responses, or a lack thereof?

    It is not his “thoughts” on the matter: it is his obvious and very blatant libels against me.

    Truth Vigilante made the following bizarrely libelous accusation against me (see here) in which he claimed that I have:

    been shunned by fellow academics because he has a history of peddling junk science/been a serial offender in falsifying data etc,

    Truth Vigilante has not even pretended to have any evidence that I have been viewed by any academics at all as being guilty of “falsifying data”!

    Anyone can read my Ph.D. thesis online and find out that I was not reporting any data I had gathered myself but merely comparing data reported by various experimentalists to the predictions of various theoretical models. I was in no position to falsify data even if I had wanted to!

    So, I am using Truth Vigilante’s contemptible lies as a character test for all of you 911 Truthers: do you have enough sense of human decency to denounce this bizarrely evil and mendacious behavior on Truth Vigilante’s part? Or are you so enwrapped in groupthink that you are unable to denounce that sort of behavior?

    So far, the response has been as I expected.

    I think that this is an extremely fair and reasonable test of your honesty, your sanity, and your character indeed!

    You are not a good person if you cannot denounce his behavior.

    In fact, an evil person indeed. A contemptible evil cultist.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  346. @PhysicistDave

    Fizzy-cyst Dovid writes:

    Well, as a matter of fact they are, or, at least, they are pretending they can do what physicists actually can do.

    The field of Physics is pretty broad. Now Fizzy Dov may well have specialisied in Quantum physics or String Theory or some other esoteric areas.
    As for basic high school level physics, it is obvious that either:

    1) He has no grasp of it whatsoever (seeing as it’s been so long since he studied it that he’s forgotten, coupled to the likelihood of early onset dementia) OR …
    2) He deliberately misrepresents it so as to ingratiate himself with his ADL/B’nai B’rith benefactors.

    We all know that Fizzy-cyst Dovid tells some absolute whoppers. That’s who he is – a morally bankrupt and jaded individual, after being exposed by his peers for the fraud he’s perpetrated.
    And we know he’s stupid, because he says some of the dumbest things imaginable.

    Meanwhile, the explanation for the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11, involves much more than just physics. It involves the disciplines of metallurgy, knowledge of explosives and controlled demolition, chemistry, mathematics, structural engineering and more besides.
    And, FOR CERTAIN, the combined talents of the Phd’s, Emeritus Professors and various academics and experts in the AE911Truth organisation, is probably three orders of magnitude more substantive than anything Fizzy-cyst Dovid has to offer.

    Meanwhile, I’m going to say something that I’ve refrained from saying previously as I didn’t want to boast. But it needs to be said:

    Dovid Miller may well have superior expertise over me in Quantum Mechanics, String Theory and other areas. But said disciplines are of no assistance in analysing the events that transpired in NYC on Sept.11, 2001.

    However, IN THOSE SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES THAT RELATE TO AN ANALYSIS OF THE 9/11 FALSE FLAG, I have a hard science background that leaves Dovid Miller floundering in my wake.

    This statement above should have been abundantly obvious from the various carve ups I inflicted on Dovid Miller over the last 12 months or so, beginning with the Mark Gaffney articles where individuals who have a long history of integrity in UR (like Iris, Rurik, Old Philosopher and others – with a little help from myself), thoroughly demolished the juvenile assertions and misrepresentations from Dovid Miller, which were nothing more than pure pseudoscience.

  347. @tanabear

    The obnoxious imbecile tanabear wrote to me:

    [Dave] My freshman and sophomore years, I learned physics from the Feynman Lectures on Physics.

    I know his approach to science better than you do.

    A lot better.

    [tan] So do you believe that the experimental method is the arbiter of competing scientific hypothesis?

    The competing scientific hypotheses must first agree with the already known facts of science.

    The nonsense promulgated by the 911 Truthers most assuredly does not.

    Therefore, their “hypotheses” do not count as scientific hypotheses.

    I know you lack the mental ability to grasp this.

    Not my fault.

    tan also wrote:

    They were challenged on this by Steven Jones and David Chandler.

    I knew who Steve Jones was long before 9/11, due to his involvement in the “cold-fusion” fiasco.

    I think it is fair to say that very few physicists take Steve seriously, then or now.

    Indeed, he was pushed out of his university because of the general lack of respect for him among his colleagues.

    As for that con artist David Chandler… perhaps you have forgotten your and my exchange last summer (see here). Chandler is a high-school physics teacher, and an incompetent one at that. He lied about basic principles of physics with regard to the Twin Tower collapse.

    If Chandler told me it was sunny outside, I would be inclined to assume that it was overcast and raining heavily!

    Now, I know this will not convince you.

    I do not want to convince you.

    You and your fellow 911 Truthers are obnoxious, mendacious, contemptible, evil human beings.

    I do not want any of you on my side.

    I have gone into detail about my education, my professional achievements, etc. and backed up much of that with links to the Web.

    All of you 911 Truthers have been extremely reticent to reveal your educational background.

    And rightly so — because you are all “losers,” eager to attack your betters.

    tan also wrote:

    So how can there be structural resistance and free-fall? Or are you saying that momentum transfer at free-fall acceleration is possible?

    Your questions are silly. You really do have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

    Now, what did you say your educational background was?

    • Replies: @tanabear
  348. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote to me:

    [Dave] ‘…It irritates a lot of people here, who are quite willing to pay an auto mechanic or a hairdresser to make use of their expertise, when I point out that we physicists also expect to be paid for our expertise…’

    [Colin] The mechanic actually has to fix the damned car. You’re just proposing to explain how to do it.

    But explaining is what physicists do. It takes many years of study and training to learn to do that. And of course, we use that skill of explaining physics to teach engineers who then go out and build stuff. I myself have done that too — i.e., I spent some years working as an engineer. A rather different job from being a physicist.

    By the way, a similar distinction exists in other fields. Do you know what pathologists spend most of their time doing? No — not cutting up corpses! (I have a pathologist in the family so I actually know.)

    They spend most of their time looking at slides under microscopes so that they can explain to surgeons what form of cancer (if any) their patient has. Then the surgeon, if necessary, does the work of cutting it out.

    Pathologists are knowledge people. Surgeons are manual laborers.

    Of course, logically, some of the 911 Truthers might have acquired the requisite knowledge of physics without actually being physicists: Zdeněk Bažant actually did, for example.

    But, none have.

    Of course, if they actually learned basic physics, they would stop believing in the 911 Truther nonsense and so would cease to be 911 Truthers.

    A simple cure for the disease!

    • Replies: @Rurik
  349. @PhysicistDave

    Well, as a matter of fact they are, or, at least, they are pretending they can do what physicists actually can do.

    That’s equally the case if you substitute ‘doctors’ for ‘physicists’, which was my sole point.

  350. @Patrick McNally

    I have just peeked into the official explanation, and it is compatible with yours, with further details:

    This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

    It’s quite possible that commenter PhysicistDave is correct that, while there may be some fishy aspects to 9/11, they are not implicative of any *physical* inconsistencies in the official narrative. And he is probably correct that most doubters of the official narrative engage in some suspicious selective arguing. That is the case with the ‘blast sounds’, which Ron Unz and others insist upon. Those ‘truthers’ strongly emphasize that rescue workers heard those sounds coming from the Twin Towers, but they conveniently ignored my several previous comments highlighting the fact that the fall of Building 7 lacked any of those sounds.

    In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

    My quotes are from:
    https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    • Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips
  351. @Ron Unz

    Sure, that passport was a fishy occurrence. But, while it does raise suspicions about 9/11, it has no obvious bearing on the soundness of the official *physical* narrative of 9/11.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  352. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    I remember in the film Speed (1994), Annie (Sandra Bullock) wonders about the bomber’s motivation. “Did we bomb the guy’s country?” She is a relatively intelligent character and that one remark was a stray bit of foreign policy reality in a Hollywood film.

  353. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    Where did you learn Turkish?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  354. Wild Man says:
    @Colin Wright

    Look, …. I have linked the two events (the falling of the twin towers, and the falling of building 7) within the 24-combinational probability model (modelling at the very macro-gross level) that I used, and did not treat the events separately, with differing odds then (which would work out to be 8 combinations for the twin towers, and 4 combinations for building 7, as viewed separately), … and with these differing odds by way of viewing the two events as mostly disconnected (like building 7 came down by happenstance, more or less, then … as the NIST report claims) it works out to be that naive jihadists would have around a 12% chance of figuring just right, with respect to the airplane-impact-formulation, to achieve the outcome actually eventuated at the twin tower site, … and then that led to the happenstancal collapse of building 7 with 25% chance of that occurring, in this circumstance, given the partial lack of firefighting water in the building due to crushing of city water mains due to the collapse of the two towers (not sure why they didn’t use the building’s many fire hoses to feed water via stairwells, from floors with water-filled standpipes, to floors without, though?).

    Two things bother me about the logic of de-linking these two sets of events, though.

    1) It is a bit hard to believe that building 7 was an accident just waiting to happen like that (despite the NIST claims that it indeed was)

    2) It is clear that there were master-planners above the jihadists (if this indeed was carried out be these said 19 jihadists). If these master-planners were tied in with the Saudi regime, … that would require Saudi-regime controlled structural engineers. Isn’t that the Bin Laden Group? So why were there so many of the Bin Laden Group, caught off guards in the U.S., in the aftermath of 9/11, trying hard to get out of Dodge?

    3) The portion of my comment you block-quoted is indeed warranted, …. Ron Unz mentioned one such anomaly this morning. There are many. These other anomalies tend to give credence to a ‘false flag’ operation description of the events. The only parties that were available that day, that would be able to carry out such a false flag operation (with Mossad’s aid let’s say), were concentrated in building 7.

    I think it is premature to de-link thee two sets of events, odds-wise, given these 3 points.

  355. Wild Man says:
    @Colin Wright

    I think I goofed a bit in the first reply comment I sent you (still in moderation). Where I said:

    and did not treat the events separately, with differing odds then (which would work out to be 8 combinations for the twin towers, and 4 combinations for building 7, as viewed separately), … and with these differing odds by way of viewing the two events as mostly disconnected (like building 7 came down by happenstance, more or less, then … as the NIST report claims) it works out to be that naive jihadists would have around a 12% chance of figuring just right, with respect to the airplane-impact-formulation,

    , …. I instead, should have said:

    and did not treat the events separately, with differing odds then (which would work out to be 16 combinations for the twin towers, and 4 combinations for building 7, as viewed separately), … and with these differing odds by way of viewing the two events as mostly disconnected (like building 7 came down by happenstance, more or less, then … as the NIST report claims) it works out to be that naive jihadists would have around a 6% chance of figuring just right, with respect to the airplane-impact-formulation,

  356. Wild Man says:
    @PhysicistDave

    Kurt Vonnegut had a reputation as a humanist – no? You are misusing his quotes, methinks, to suit your much more nihilistic sentiment.

    Don’t all the people that will die when the wheels come off civilization (as you hope for) deserve to live, including yourself?

  357. @PhysicistDave

    You seem not to have read my comment: I very strongly want to destroy civilization as we have known it, because civilizotion as we have known it is deeply and profoundly evil.

    No, I understood exactly what you meant. You were clear that it is evil as it exists now, and also in the past.

    But, what then? Will it not rise again? Is civilization inherently evil, or is it humans who bring the evil? Are some groups more evil than others? Or, maybe some groups aren’t suited to high-trust, high-cooperation, high-functioning societies?

    That’s what I meant by doomed – perhaps the incessant conflicts are just inevitable?

    I think you’re right about the lies, but do you think America has always been that way? Didn’t this country have the best shot at success for the majority of citizens? How do we eliminate those who cause the trouble without the accusation of evil acts? Is it evil to give troublemakers the boot?

    It is obvious that some groups are meant for structured, cooperative society, whilst some are not. That’s the clash of civilizations that causes the intractable problems, in my opinion.

  358. @Colin Wright

    Exactly. That would be beyond dumb. That’s why the ‘no planes’ hypothesis surfaced (not that I subscribe to it): the absence of a plane hitting building 7 just makes the whole previous conspiracy hypotheses featuring planes completely idiotic. (Some ‘truthers’ had tried to sell the notion that Flight 93 was meant for Building 7, but since it was obviously heading for Washington, D.C., that was just a very short-lived desperate attempt to salvage their hypothesis. In the ‘no planes’ version, they could just say — some actually did, if I remember correctly — that some electronic device failed at the last minute or something like that.)