Honestly, I don’t know whether to rant or weep, neither of which are usual impulses for me. In the wake of the slaughter in Paris, I have the urge to write one of two sentences here: Paris changed everything; Paris changes nothing. Each is, in its own way, undoubtedly true. And here’s a third sentence I know to be true: This can’t end well.
19 dedicated (mostly Saudi) followers armed only with paper cutters, did just that.
I don't know anything, really, about the reputed 19 hijackers, but even if they existed and were in those planes, they couldn't have caused the bulk of the NYC destruction that day.
The airplanes were irrelevant to the collapses of the Twin Towers. The collapses were clearly caused by explosives, almost certainly planted by Americans with building access.
Come into the present, Mr. Engelhardt. Or at least please tell us why you avoid the overwhelming evidence of explosive demolition.
"that group’s goal, as they write in their magazine and online, is “the extinction of the gray zone” in our world. In other words, they seek the sharpening of distinctions everywhere, which means the opening of abysses where complexity and interaction once existed. Their dream is to live in a black-and-white world of utter religious and political clarity (and calamity), while engaging in what American pundits like to term a “clashof civilizations.” "
That's equally true of the far right and especially denying delayalists, trying so hard yet so unconsciously, to create a world of extreme right and left, extreme poverty and riches, extreme ecological destruction and warfare, and in the end, global lifelessness. As long as we continue to let them, we'll continue to steam toward all of those.
Mr.Engelheart has given a thoughtful post. Obviously, it was too full of thought for some posters here.
Thank you. My delusional mysticism, which must be very strong to have revealed itself to you in only a very few words, nevertheless has no relation whatsoever to the facts proving explosive demolition. If you have the time to do more studying of the subject, I have no doubt that you'll see these proofs eventually.
For 30+ years I made a living in construction and (non-explosive) demolition and am familiar enough with the materials that were destroyed to completely reject the idea that what happened to those buildings could have happened from the officially-stated causes.
Tom E. is obviously extremely intelligent, and I wonder why he avoids the subject. I would just like to see him write about it, because assumptions about his reasons would be only assumptions and therefore unreliable.
Whatever it is you're smoking has fucked your mind.
You can't understand what I wrote? All you have is a personal attack? Try addressing the question instead of attacking me. You are not hurting me but I am not going to converse with anyone so impolite. Bye.
9/11 conspiracy theorists can only expect to get a contemptuous reply.
You made some other claims too, they're also rubbish.
" . . . plans by the U.S. to intensify the bombing of those Syrian oilfields under the control of the Islamic state (to cut into its supply of funds) reflect a strategy that, whatever its immediate successes, is guaranteed to further wreck the infrastructure of the region."
Wrecking infrastructure is not a byproduct of the U.S. bombing campaign; it's the objective. If the U.S. really wanted to hurt ISIS (and not just wreck infrastructure), the air force would be bombing ISIS oil convoys. ISIS would gain no revenues from oil that's not delivered. Could it be that convoys are not bombed because the son of Turkish President Erdogan is implicated in the delivery of ISIS oil? See http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/24/erdogan-s-dirty-dangerous-isis-games/