11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Harvey » Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:21 pm

Marionumber1 » Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:01 am wrote:I'm not usually into self-promotion, but I think John Brisson and I did a really good podcast episode today illustrating some of the lesser-known facts about the 9/11 attacks. We discuss the true background of Mohammed Atta, Russian organized crime's role, a CIA pedophile blackmail operation to facilitate the attacks, a possible link between Jeffrey Epstein and that ring, and more:



Excellent and very informative. I admire your attention to detail. I agree, the sexual blackmail angle is probably a crucial element in understanding 9/11.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby 8bitagent » Thu Oct 29, 2020 3:42 am

Harvey » Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:29 pm wrote:The Cynthia Weil footage of WTC 1 & 2.

It's very high res. Among the interesting things to point out about this is the delay in sound from WTC and how feeble the sounds are. Because of the camera zoom, for large parts of the video, what is taking place looks very nearby but it isn't. In one part Cynthia zooms onto the hole in the near tower where the first plane has entered. Inside you can see a number of people, apparently unharmed, communicating with each other as they cling to the ragged edge of the building and then we can see them waving for help. It's probably known who they were by now, but I don't know myself. It is a wrench to know their fate as they wave for help that would never come.

Before the intitiation of the first collapse at around 59:17 note that we can hear sounds from about 59:12/13 onward which sound like grinding or tearing noises, hard to hear over the helicopter. Through the small camera microphone and at a distance we don't know what they may have been. For comparison listen to the sounds of the collapse itself. We aren't hearing what was there to be heard, just what the camera picks up.

As the first collapse occurs (59;17 onward) it looks like about five to ten stories begin to sheer off and rotate as a whole block before any vertical fall occurs. You can see all of the upper levels above the impact site lean, but if you watch it several times you can see this effect of about ten floors rotating as a single block, slightly ahead of that lean, as if propelled. Two sheer lines, one at the level of impact and the other five to ten stories above begin to displace air (sudden movement in the smoke and puffs of fire) before the lateral or vertical movement of the tower, apparently sheering off, occurs.

The second collapse begins around 1:28:41. Again there is displacement of air immediately before collapse, very visible in the smoke at the right side of the building, but more clearly than in other footage we can see the top levels collapse toward the fire line at the impact point. This is significant because if the floors had collapsed from melting at the impact point, why did all the upper floors collapse into each other, almost all of them, before they reached the point of impact? Watch for yourselves. The upper floors collapse exactly like a controlled demolition, they just dissolve before meeting the impact level and at that point the rest of the structure follows.

Multiple explosive ejections can be seen at various levels below the onrushing collapse at this point.



Then there's the other slightly more woo element. I hate to mention it but it has been discussed elsewhere. At 4:27 an object enters the scene at top right and sails down almost vertically before disappearing behind the foreground building. I did a comparison with a helicopter which appears in later frames and it doesn't look very like it, looks smaller and closer. Also the Helicopter increases in apparent size very slightly as it travels across the frame, indicating that it moves slightly closer to the camera whereas the mystery object remains at exactly the same number of pixels even though it's apparent albedo diminishes slightly. This indicates that it travelled vertically with reference to the camera but did not alter it's distance from the camera appreciably.

Here's a side by side comparison of the helicopter and the object. I think it looks like a drone but who had small drones like this in 2001? What do you think?

Cynthia Weil video.jpg


damn, there's a 1080p raw footage of the towers? just jarring to see given my brain is so sapped from countless hours of watching low res quicktime videos and early google video footage.

I remember in a number of footage the moment UA 175 slammed into the south tower there appeared(from multiple angles/videos) of a white orb looking object hovering in front of the South Tower, almost seeming to guide UA 175 before the strike. It didn't appear to be a reflection of the plane, nor appear to be a video artifact but some sort of object acting independently. It's funny I've outright rejected a lot of the "exotic" 9/11 truther theories, even at times questioning "CD", but I definitely remember on a number of videos seeing orb or drone objects that were never explained.
I've seen enough strong evidence that could win a settlement against, at the very least against the kingdom of Saudi Arabia with 9/11 and various intel agencies, but I can't help but see a parallel "woo" element that can't be explained
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Grizzly » Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:46 pm

^^^

Wow!
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby thrulookingglass » Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:10 pm

I plan to watch this tonight. Never forget they say.



"some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
User avatar
thrulookingglass
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: down the rabbit hole USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Grizzly » Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:56 pm

I plan to watch this tonight. Never forget they say.


Where? is it on A&E?
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby thrulookingglass » Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:14 am

Currently only available for rental or purchase via Amazon to my knowledge.
User avatar
thrulookingglass
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: down the rabbit hole USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Mar 21, 2021 6:32 am

After a decade and a half on RI, I stopped coming on here as it stopped being interesting.

Im discovering comedians younger than me who are like peak 2000's RI and bringing that contextualization to a mainstream audience in ways we never could on this forum
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Harvey » Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:00 am

As it's coming up to twenty years...


https://soundcloud.com/user-989685163/tom-sullivan

ae911truth.org/news/754-controlled-demolition-technician-tom-sullivan-on-9-11-free-fall


Andy Steele:
Welcome to 9/11 Free Fall. I'm the host Andy Steele. Today we're joined by Tom Sullivan. Tom was employed by Controlled Demolition Incorporated for three years as an explosives loader and as an industrial photographer. He worked on projects such as the Seattle Kingdome, Three Rivers Stadium, Philadelphia Naval Hospital, KeySpan Gas Holders, and others. He's also a signatory to the AE911Truth truth petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the three towers in New York on September 11th as well as one of the experts featured in our documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence — Experts Speak Out. Tom, welcome to the show.


Tom Sullivan:
I'm glad to be with you today.


Andy Steele:
I want everyone to get a better sense of who all our guests are on the show and get your personal 9/11 story. I think it's important for the oral history. So please first elaborate on your history and controlled demolition. And then also tell us where you were on the day of September 11th and how you heard the news.


Tom Sullivan:
Well, I was in Annapolis and I watched it on the TV, and when I saw it I immediately knew it was controlled demolition. It was not an airplane. No question when I saw it, and of course I didn't... nothing changed my mind.


Andy Steele:
Well, obviously from all of your experience in bringing down the Seattle Kingdome, and I know we played that clip on our webinars every time it comes around in the cycle and takes a lot of knowledge and a lot of effort to be able to have that knowledge, so obviously you knew what you were looking at the day that it happened. Tell us more about your background. How did you get into the controlled demolition industry?


Tom Sullivan:
It's pretty simple. I went to school to see... Doug Loisseaux and his brother. I went in high school with him and Mark, Doug and Mark. Mark was a class ahead of me. I was a photographer in Annapolis, and I heard that they were going to take down a really large antenna array that was used by a military that was adjacent to the Annapolis Naval Academy.

So I contacted them and said I'd like to get on site, take some pictures and that kind of thing. The relationship went from there because they said, "Well, we're doing this and we're doing that, and we could use some photography." Because, often times they have a lot of... they themselves have cameras and that mount for implosions as well as a lot of enthusiasts that have cameras that are allowed in vicinity of these things.

So they have a lot of pictures of the buildings coming down, but what they don't have are working pictures, people doing things, people making it happen within the structure. That's where they would have an interest. That's where I had an interest. So the relationship went from there.

And because I know these guys and I asked a lot of questions and I paid attention. I didn't obviously know or was never given pertinent sort of trade secret type of information but I did ask a lot of questions as we went along, something different than the normal, I guess, employee because I had sort of carte blanche. I know the guys, I could walk up to them at any time and say, "Hey why is this?" Or "What are you doing here?" And also because I was roaming a lot of the times with camera, I got to see a lot of the aspects of things that maybe normally somebody that had only one job wouldn't see so much of.

And that's where I... the relationship went from there and I worked for them for about three and a quarter years or so until I went one way and that was sort of the end of that. But that's my relationship, and as I said, I learned a lot, asked a lot of questions, and that's where we off right now.


Andy Steele:
So I mentioned in your intro that you were involved in bringing down very famous, at least here in the United States, stadiums, Seattle Kingdome, Three Rivers Stadium. Talk about some of the work that goes into a project like that, how long it takes and what are some of the tasks that you got to do in order to make sure that their falls are as perfectly as they ended up doing?


Tom Sullivan:
Yeah, that's a key thing. Actually you struck on this, on the absolute key to understanding Building 7 and then subsequently the towers. Building 7, because it was not hit by a... the spectacular theatrics of an airplane, is the smoking gun in all of this. But the thing that's most important is what you just said. And let me help the audience understand this because they don't know. I mean, people just think you take a box full of dynamite and throw it in the building and the building comes down. It doesn't happen that way. So let me take you through a theoretical job and to illustrate what in fact goes on to prepare a building for implosion. And so we'll start with this. When a controlled demolition gets a contract, they... first off they hire a structural engineering firm, which by the way switches back and forth, so no one really understands and can lock in on the trade secret since the Loizeauxs have learned over time.
But anyhow, they hire a structural engineer firm to really look at the building and see how it was built. What held... How this thing went together? Because that's what they'll be have to compromise. And that would be the next step was to send a single crew member, a leader, a crew member to the site. He works generally with the general contractor that's been hired by the entity to take the building down. Very rarely is controlled demolition the primary. It's usually the secondary subcontractor that is the controlled demolition position.

So you got your CDI guy on site. He's working with labor and they proceed to compromise the building. This can take four weeks, it could take six weeks, it could take six months. It depends on the complexity of the building but they work at compromising the building. Now, what do I mean by compromising? Well, it starts with, obviously you remove the windows because you don't want glass flying all over the place. These buildings come down. And next thing you do is you start to remove key structural elements within the building. For instance staircases, staircases are cut. If they are concrete, the steps are cut, so they don't lock on as basically like a backbone of a building. You want to remove that structure. So the staircases are compromised. The elevator shafts are compromised. The steel is cut, the elevator cars are removed and on and on we go as far as the structure. Now in a steel building, which is what I have my most of experience with outside of the Kingdome, which is concrete, reinforced concrete.

Steel buildings, obviously you got I Beams running all over the structure that holds it. Now what we do is we compromise those steel I Beams. We cut them and we... How do we cut them? We don't cut them all the way through. We cut the web or the face of that. And we cut that. So when the time comes for loading on inclusion day, then that I Beam all it needs is a shaped charge that goes against the face of that I Beam that will cut that and allow the building to collapse.

Sometimes we even have to apply a kicker charge, oh maybe a quarter stick of dynamite placed behind that on a sandbag just to make sure that that I Beam doesn't lock up and prevent the building to fall on nader. And now on nader, that's a term that means the building fall straight down on its footprint.

And as you watched Building 7, it did an excellent job at that. It just dropped beautifully. You couldn't ask for a better implosion. Does that happen in real life? Heck no, absolutely not. It doesn't happen that way. These guys spent years and years, these contractors, not just CDI, these guys spent years and years learning the ins and outs of how to drop a building straight down. The point being is most of these buildings are in a city environment. You don't want them to be casting over to the side. Does that ever happen? Yep. Can happen. It can go over on the side. And sometimes even CDI has the buildings go a little bit to this one side or the other? Not much, maybe five degrees, 10 degrees least to one side or the other, but they just try to do it the best they can. They want to keep the rubble. They want to keep the building within its own footprint for easy removal. And they obviously don't want to harm adjacent structures for having the ability to cast to one side.

But like I said, they can happen, also what can happen if it's improperly loaded and it can happen, never has happened with CDI, but I know of instances where it has happened, the building can be in part in perfectly or halted on its way down because the charges didn't go off in the right way. And the building centrally locks up. And now you have a structure enormously dangerous because it is teetering on collapse, but you still have to send crew in to rearm it and keep that implosion going.

So it's a lot of technology, a lot of engineering, but at the same time there is a lot and a lot of basically just art. I mean, it's just the experience and the subtleties of knowing it, how to do this and where to put this because you're engineering a wave of destruction moving through that building, which will bring it down successfully onto the ground in a pile of rubble. And that takes art. I mean, it just really does. It's not easy to do.

So Building 7, as told by the government is an anomaly of common sense because it just doesn't happen that way. They want you to believe that an office fire, which burns well below the melting point of steel, caused this near perfect, struck and near perfect implosion. And as I outlined before, when we do it, the charges are timed within milliseconds. I mean, it is very, very delicate. It is extraordinarily precise, extraordinary. A Fire doesn't have that precision at all.

So if nothing else, even if the wild is where you can sit there and look at this and say, "Yeah, maybe it can happen." Well no, it can't, but let's give you the very large benefit of a doubt and say, "Well, maybe it could." Well then Building 7 wouldn't come down perfectly. You have a building, you have a fire initiating heat on one side, and it has to be uniform and timed perfectly.

Now I can segue over to the towers and say the same thing. You'll have again, did it happen? Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough guys. It just doesn't to melt steel, but we're told it did. And we're also told that a jet airplane hitting on one side will cause a implosion, all way uniform. I mean will cause a failure, a structural failure all the way across that floor and cause it to pancake down. Now that doesn't happen again. It's just is beyond that but Building 7 is the easiest one to illustrate how there is a great flaw in what we're being told. So I hope that helps.


Andy Steele:
It certainly does. And I guess if there's any potential mad bombers out there or terrorists who have any designs on bringing down a building by starting some fires around a single column, you're telling me that they're going to be highly disappointed that that's not possible even though NIST says?


Tom Sullivan:
Yes. I mean bring your hot dogs. You'll be able to roast some weenies, but that's about as far as you're going to get until the cops come in. It's just not going to happen. And now, again it just can't happen. And it just defies physics. It defies what is in reality. So both explanations, towers and, or Building 7, are just fantasy. It's just pure fantasy. They ignore the common facts that steel doesn't melt at those temperatures. And so it has to happen. It has to... You have to have that steel fail somehow. And the fire from jet fuel, which is basically nothing exotic. Jet fuel is just a slightly more refined kerosene than the normal kerosene you would buy. It's just slightly more refined. It doesn't have exotic properties. It's not locks. It does not fuel by liquid oxygen, like a rocket engine. It doesn't have that capability. Otherwise those jet engines, which are made from a hybrid aluminum, would melt. I'm sorry, it doesn't happen that way. So you don't have that kind of component ready to melt steel or cause that kind of damage.

But I will have to say that the towers looked spectacular. It's nothing like fireballs erupting out of the side of a building to get one thinking like, "Oh boy, this is going to be something." And it was, it was very, very theatrically done and very impressive. However, but in Building 7’sconcern, it wasn't. She didn't have that. There was sort of rather pedestrian, simple office fire that they said caused that. So that's why all this is pretty much a hoax. It really didn't happen that way.


Andy Steele:
Right. And, of course, anyone listening who doesn't like what we are about and what we are doing will likely stick their nose up in the air and throw up the same argument. Well, the steel didn't need to melt because that all it had to do was have the girder to get pushed off its seat by the thermally expanding beams. Well, first of all, that doesn't address the fact that the steel did melt. And NIST’s assertion, though, that this failure in one column can cause this chain of events within Building 7 to bring the whole thing down inside and then outside is utterly ridiculous. And we got a guy on this week who knows what he is talking about. And most of this audience knows this stuff already. We're repeating the same stuff over and over again until it sinks in into the collective consciousness of this world.

Now, what we do is we don't speculate very much. We don't point fingers. We just look at the videos. We look at all the evidence and we tell you what had to happen, had to be controlled demolition. However, there are some things behind the curtain that I do wonder about and that we probably won't have an answer to until we have a real investigation into the demolitions of these buildings. But just from your experience, speculating a little bit, Building 7 and the twin Towers really, you can comment on both. How long in your view would an operation like this take to set up?


Tom Sullivan:
Conventionally or unconventionally?


Andy Steele:
Well, I would imagine that there was probably a lot of unconventional ways that they set this up, particularly since it was supposed to be such a deceptive event. But just realistically. I mean getting the explosives into these buildings and doing all the work of ricking them up. I mean how long would an operation like that take?


Tom Sullivan:
Well and the towers, it would take months and probably the twin towers... I mean the Building 7 maybe a month and a half I guess, if you had the sufficient crew on tap. But the towers would have taken, because of the size and because you're doing two buildings, would have taken all probably closer to six months to do in a conventional fashion.


Andy Steele:
Now I'm curious, too, because obviously there was nobody marching boxes of explosives past security openly but they must've got them into the building somehow. Is this possible to do, clandestinely with the right training and the right skills, to rig these buildings and get at the proper areas of the buildings to bring them down the way that we saw on that day?


Tom Sullivan:
Okay. Now we're getting into the area that you identified as being speculation. But I will help but by, and refraining from using... I will talk in general terms. I won't be... I won't go to names although they’re there. So let's talk at... Let's take it one at a time.

Let's take the taps okay. How could that, because obviously you're not going to have a crew dismantling staircases and all kinds of things going on and all that business going on. So how could that been done? Well, first off, what the easiest thing would be do is talk to the company that had made maybe a maintenance contract. There was such and we talked to... Get them on board. And then what we need to do is use some, a little exotic explosives, not the normal stuff that we use RDX and dynamite. Nope. That's not going to do it, not with conventional or unconventional implosion involved here. Which is what we're talking about.

So what would we use? We'd use thermite. Thermite has the ability to burn. And yes, the steel does have to be compromised guys. You can sit there and I heard what you said before. It has to be compromised. It has to not burn through but certainly fail. And if it doesn't fail you have your head collectively in the fantasy world. And there is no addressing you because it does have to compromise. And by the way, as far as Building 7 and indeed the towers, it has to fail in precise milliseconds otherwise the building doesn't collapse straight down. That's fact, that's proven, there's no way of getting around that. So getting back to your question, well thermite, thermite burns hot and thermite [inaudible 00:21:03] around the building in such a fashion could have done that.

Thermite is why we don't use it and because it's very efficient. I mean it burns hotter and it burns as hot as the sun. I mean it'll do some damage. Why we don't use it? It's extraordinarily expensive. The contractor is there to make money, not lose it. So thermite's out of the question. Very expensive. Who uses that? Yeah, other people. The other people that drive around in black limousines. So they could use it and that would've gotten the job done in both instances, both over in Building 7, as well as the towers. All you need to do is place it and you only need a couple of floors. Now that works for conventional and unconventional. Both of them. Both of them and work in the same... In concert, you can only need to do a certain floors to have the weight of the building IMP cause further implosion or destruction of the building.

Now there are people as well, built... The towers, especially the towers, this happened, that happens and then the... They started to pancake down and there you go. Well with every lie, there's a little bit of truth and there's the truth. Yes, that's true. That's how it happens. You compromise a certain amount of floors. You use the weight, total kinetic load of the floor of the building. Use that to do all the destruction for you.

You just unleashed that kinetic load and the kinetic load? What am I talking about? I'm talking about every ideal, every ounce of concrete lifted up into that building to build that building has a certain coefficient of kinetic load. It's worth so much to put that there. And that weight, that effort, that energy basically is sitting there ready to be unleashed. Now what a contractor does is use that energy. And that's why we use very little explosives in conventional. We don't use very much. All we're doing is just using that bit of explosives to unleash that kinetic load, which will then cause the damage of the building. Yeah, they're right. But what they're not right is how it happened. That is... That's where we differ.


Andy Steele:
And it's an art form as you said. I mean I've seen botched controlled demolitions on YouTube. And indeed looking at the examples that I've seen, somebody has got to go in there afterwards and figure out how to dismantle this still remaining part of a building that's not even stable. And if you make the wrong move, maybe you could be falling out of it or the whole thing could be falling over. So it is an art form and a huge risk to take on September 11th, because imagine if it had gone wrong. I think we'd be in a completely different world and I'll be doing different things today but they did manage to pull it off and get what they wanted from it so far. But of course we are doing something about that, and we're waking up people all the time. I want to ask you from your experience because there's reports of explosions going off before the main event, before the big controlled demolition that we all witnessed. What would be the purpose of the explosions prior to the main event? Is there any kind of strategic reason to include that?


Tom Sullivan:
Yeah. That's not uncommon. Let me help explain that. When a building is initiated and when the charges are initiated, what happens is the initial charges will go off. And it seems like there's a delay. I mean, I don't know. I didn't time it but it doesn't happen right off. You don't push the plunger down and the building just, boom! And it goes down straight. It doesn't, it there's a little bit of delay. It's like, oh, I just heard all these in here. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom! That's what you hear, the 1001, 1002, 1003 or whatever. And then all of a sudden something starts to move and then the building starts to go. So yes, you will hear explosions go off. If you're inside the building, you better be running. But if you hear that, you do hear the explosions going off because that's going to be just prior to the building starting to collapse. So, that makes sense. That makes perfect sense and I would have expected that.


Andy Steele:
All right now final few minutes here, have you spoken to other? And if you're hearing my dog here, he's not feeling so good so he's riding shotgun with me for Free Fall but it's all right. Have you spoken with other controlled demolition experts about this? Is there a fear to come out and speak about this from what you've seen?


Tom Sullivan:
I haven't spoken to other people, but I just heard talking in general about this and just saying what's going on in the industry. That yes, I would expect so. I mean for instance, this is a highly political industry. Very, very political. If you want jobs, you better be careful. And because you're dealing with municipalities and politicians and in a lot of instances, the federal government. So you better be careful if you want to keep working. Therefore, I am not surprised at all that industry wide, most people have stood down from being involved in what you're doing today. It's just not good business. You could see that combat boomerang back at you in a New York second. And it's delicate. It's very sensitive. And like I said, all your contracts for the most part, a lot of them don't come from your private sector. They come from the public sector, and you got to be careful not to offend anybody or not to do the wrong thing. So I'm not surprised. So that's my reaction based on what I've heard.


Andy Steele:
Well, Tom, it has been amazing listening to you because you got the expertise. So we can ask you these kinds of questions and really delve deep into it. We are out of time, but thank you so much for being somebody who's not afraid to speak out, putting your name to that petition, and, of course, for coming on 9/11 Free Fall today.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Harvey » Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:06 pm


https://soundcloud.com/user-989685163/b ... ears-later

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/752-architect-bill-brinnier-on-9-11-twenty-years-later

Andy Steele:
Welcome to 9/11 Free Fall. I am the host Andy Steele today we are joined by Bill Brinnier, he's an architect and a signatory to AE911Truth's petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of all three World Trade Center towers on September 11th, 2001. His best friend Frank DeMartini died in the attacks in New York on that day. And we've had Bill on the show to talk about that before. We'll be catching up with him now. Bill, welcome back to 9/11 Free Fall.


Bill Brinnier:
Hey Andy, it's great to be back and it's great to be chatting with you again about a subject that is near and dear to my heart, especially when it comes to honoring Frank and his heroism on that day. Just thinking about him, which I do on a daily basis, as I miss him dearly. And it's always good to be back talking with you guys.


Andy Steele:
Right. And we've had you on in the past to talk about it, but it's been eight years worth of shows, and we're always picking up new listeners. So I'm going to ask you tell us again who Frank was and your story about him and yourself, of course, on 9/11 and how you began to question the events in New York on that day.


Bill Brinnier:
Well, let me try to give you the CliffsNotes version of my relationship with Frank. We met in college as college students out in Brooklyn at Pratt Institute. We were both in the school of architecture. And he came from South Jersey and I came from up in the Hudson Valley. We hit it off immediately. I think we met in the dorm. It was a big dormitory that most of the students were in, and we were in that together and I don't know somehow we met up and we hit it off immediately. So we finished school, we got involved in the brownstone effort. There was a movement to renovate brownstones and bring the city life back to life again. There was this great exodus during the '50s and '60s down into the suburbs, and in the '70s it began to reverse, and people were coming back into the city, and we got involved in that. And we ended up working together.

We kind of went through our formative years our 20s of watching, in the beginning, watching the World Trade Center come out of the ground and take shape and take form. I can remember one time Frank - we drove taxi cabs and got a little money in our pockets and bought motorcycles - and one night Frank said he was in lower Manhattan and there was this opening in the area where the Trade Center was going up, and they just drove in, he and his girlfriend, on the back. And they went down and down and down. They must've gone down six stories underground, and they were actually under the towers of the Trade Center in the garage. And they got to the bottom and there were all of these FBI cars lined up in a row. They had FBI license plates on them, and they just turned around and high-tailed it out of there.

But that was it; it was just part of our life, and Frank eventually we got our license. We sat for the exam and got our licenses and kind of went off into different directions. And in '93, Frank had a small practice in Brooklyn Heights and was looking to move to the corporate side, which I had already done. And he saw this ad for a position with Leslie E. Robertson. They were looking for an architect member of the damage assessment team to assess the damage after the bombing and the reconstruction in '93. He went on board for a temporary six-month assignment, ended up staying for the rest of his life. He was so well liked and respected by the Port Authority that they eventually hired him.

And at the time of the attacks of 9/11 - I'm going to say quote, unquote attacks - Frank was the manager of construction at the World Trade Center for the Port Authority. And he had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower. His wife had been on vacation in Switzerland visiting her parents, had just returned, and they were on that fateful Tuesday morning were sitting down for a cup of coffee in Frank's office and she worked in the South Tower. She was still working for Leslie E. Robertson who had the contract to maintain the structure. He was one of the original members of the design team that did the engineering for the buildings in the first place back in the late '60s.

And then all hell broke loose, a plane hit the North Tower. She said it was just amazing they were thrown to the floor, the ceiling tiles fell out. The smoke detectors went off. The sprinkler system ignited. There was water and smoke. It was a real bedlam. And she said the building shook three times, it swayed back and forth three times: womp-womp, womp-womp, womp-womp, and stopped. And according to her it felt like the building did exactly what it was supposed to do. And Frank got everybody together and cleared the floor, put everybody in a corner conference room, went looking for a stairwell that might be clear.

They found one, directed everybody down. Nicole led the team. She was rather anxious that Frank wasn't going to lead the team with her. He said, "No, you go first. I'm going to follow up from the rear. I'll clear the floor, make sure everybody's off and come down behind you." Well, once everybody was off and went down, Frank and one of his buddies, Pablo Ortiz, went up, and they made it to the 89th floor.

They got, I think about 12 people off of that floor. They continued up to the 90th floor and had to break in. That was a difficult one. It was only a couple of floors below the impact zone, and they got six people off of that floor. And they couldn't get any higher up, there was just so much damage, and so they decided to head down and clear the building.

There's an amazing book called 102 Minutes: The Fight to Survive in the World Trade Center. It was written by a New York Times journalist. And Frank was one of the few people who had a working radio. He had a Port Authority radio, so there are many excerpts of his communications during that period of time that are reflected in the book. He's one of the main characters of the book, so it's kind of interesting to read that. You get a feel for how brave he was and what a thoughtful guy he was. He was doing everything he could to clear that building. We're not sure where he was at the time that the North Tower came down.

As far as I was concerned it was blown to smithereens, but he didn't get out. Nicole did. She made it out. And she was near the Brooklyn Bridge, I think, when the South Tower came down. And my daughter was in the Greenwich Village in Washington Square Park watching it from there. It was just a crazy, crazy day. And I was on the Jersey Turnpike heading South. I actually witnessed the... I saw the smoke on the North Tower when the towers first came into sight. And then when I headed South, I got kind of abreast of the two towers on the turnpike. And I kept looking over, looking over away from where I was driving. And I noticed the South Tower exploded in a yellow ball of flame. I did not see the plane I was too far away, I just saw it explode into a ball of flames.

And I knew something was up. It was crazy. I got to the job site down on the Jersey Shore, which was about, I don't know, 30 miles South of the World Trade Center. You could see it. I was in a medium-rise building. So from the balcony of the 9th floor I had a clear vision of the plume of smoke that was rising. And I was lucky enough to have access to the basement of the building where the building staff had a break room, and they had a TV down there. So every once in a while I'd go down and see what was going on, and then I'd go back up, check on the guys to see what was going on. And at one point I went down, I guess it was a little after 10, and they told me that the South Tower had exploded and disappeared. That just did not seem possible to me, knowing what I knew relative to the structure and the design of the building.

It was designed to take the impact of a 707, which was actually as big if not a little bit bigger than the planes that were used that day to try and knock them down. These 707 were four-engine airplanes. They were almost as big as a 747. They were monsters. And so Frank had done a TV show with the History Channel. At his insistence or his prodding he finally convinced the History Channel to produce a TV show, a history of the World Trade Center.
And in that program, Frank talks about the structure of the building and what an amazing feat of engineering it was in terms of being able to resist... I mean110 stories, 200 feet wide, 1,500 feet high. You can imagine what kind of sail that is in terms of withstanding hurricane force winds. Just a tremendous load that an airplane of that size was just a smidgen of that load.

So there was no way as far as I was concerned that the planes could do that. And yet only an hour later, the North Tower came down and I was just stupefied. I didn't know what to think. And we were being barraged by such a constant stream of information that was coming from the mass media, from TV and radio and newspapers and periodicals. Just everything was pointing the finger at terrorists who hijacked airplanes and flew them into the Trade Center.

And I, actually, I have to admit at some point I just kind of gave up and started to buy that story. But it was nagging at the back of my brain that as prevalent as that story was, there were too many holes in it. It didn't really square with the evidence that I had seen.

I kept watching films of the collapses. I'm telling that this is a gravitational collapse and yet I look at these films and you can see the debris flying up and out sometimes 600 feet. It was clearly not what we were being told it was. And slowly, slowly, I started going onto the internet, which was in its infancy at the time. But by 2006, I had seen enough. And there was enough questioning going on that I found... And then I started to say, "I think I was right. That couldn't have been what they told me it was." It just didn't make sense.

And lo and behold, I came across Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and their "Explosive Evidence" film. I watched that. I sent away for it. As soon as I watched it I immediately signed the petition. I said, "These guys are onto something. They know what's going on." And I contacted them. I got in touch with Richard Gage, who was the originator. He invited me to come down to New York and interview with him because of my relationship with Frank, who was so close to the buildings and knew so much about the structure.

It started a quest for the truth in me that burns stronger today than it ever did. There's no way I'm going to give up. I have to tell you I don't have tremendous optimism about our chances of success in terms of talking our government into instigating a true investigation into the events of that day in New York City. It would be great to have an investigation of the entire situation, what happened in Shanksville, what happened in Washington D.C. Totally different. Related, but totally different from what happened in New York.

And the fact that we had three high-rise skyscrapers that came down, two in short order, the two monster towers, and then a tower. It was roughly half the size of them but still a tower in and of itself. I think someone once said a 47-story high-rise would have been the highest building in 31 out of the 50 states in the United States. So it was not a small building. It was a substantial high-rise steel-structured building. It came down at 5:20 in the afternoon, and we heard about it that day and maybe once or twice the next day, and then it was gone from the news. Nobody heard anything about it. I honestly don't remember hearing about it that afternoon. I was so consumed with worrying about Frank that I didn't really pay attention to what was going on.

And so it really wasn't until 2006 that I learned about Building 7. And Building 7 to my mind is the smoking gun. If Building 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, which is pretty clear, then the whole mess had to be controlled demolition. If you look at what happened with the towers and how they came down it's inescapable that there were explosives involved. And the more I look at it the more I question that the type of explosive that there is so much evidence of the nano-thermite in the dust. And there was a thin blanket of dust that coated the entire Island of Manhattan, South of Canal Street and a little bit North, I guess. But the entire footprint of that island was coated with several inches of this fine powder, it wasn't a gritty sandy dust it was a fine powder.

How does one explain all of the concrete and all of the glass in that building being reduced to a fine powder? What kind of energy does it take to do that? I have no idea. I'd certainly like to know, but I have no idea what could do that.

Andy Steele:
And of course, they've closed the book. They had an open comment period, NIST did, when they did their investigations into the destruction of the buildings. But once that open comment period was past, they closed the book, and they don't want to hear any more. But it's too bad for them because we are making them here more. And we've got their request for correction still ongoing that was sent into NIST, and we'll give updates to our supporters when we have more on that.

But to me, it's an open and shut case. It was a controlled demolition. And you don't need an engineering degree, you don't need an architectural degree to look at Building 7 and know that fire did not bring that building down. All you need is two eyes and common sense, and don't let anybody tell you any different. Don't let anybody say that you have to have gone to school for 10 years to listen to your own instincts and your own brains when you watch it come down.
It was right there; we should have a new investigation. It was a reasonable thing that we can ask for considering the loss of life and the Twin Towers and the impact of 9/11. Now, here we are 20 years, almost 20 years, after the event took place. This is obviously a very significant part of our nation's history, even world history.

And I feel that the post 9/11 world has had an impact in terms of the stuff that's right on the surface, the wars, loss of civil liberties, all of that. But also 9/11 Truth, the emergence of it, how that impacted the world too by first talking about 9/11 and then people talking about other issues. And I think a lot of what we're seeing now in terms of needed strife and questioning of government is as a result of the great work that we have done.

So I am hopeful because I see a change happening. It's not a pleasant thing to go through right now, but I don't see what we're seeing as leadership and governance is maintaining their foothold in power. I think we're going to see some changes over the years, and while that's going on we've been reminding people over and over again, planting that seed about this huge lie that was perpetuated onto the American public. So the time will come.

The great thing about the American government is that people shift in and shift out. New people come in. We educate young people that become the older people that fill those seats in Congress. I believe we will one day have an acknowledgement of what really happened. Everybody's got to keep on pushing. But I want to get your idea on 20 years later. In your view how is 9/11 still affecting our world? And why do we need to keep pushing on this?


Bill Brinnier:
Well, it's very clear, Andy, that it was a turning point really in the nation's history and the whole world's history. Everything changed on that day. In short order, we had the Patriot Act, we had the Department of Homeland Security, which is a cabinet level position in the administration at the highest levels. There was just absolute major change. And you've got a guy like Edward Snowden hiding out off shore based on his work with the National Security Agency and blowing the whistle on what they were doing. And what they were doing, basically spying on all of us, was a direct result of what happened on 9/11. And it continues today. All of the things that were supposedly put in place on a temporary basis seemed to become permanent based on a lie.

The fact that we were brutally attacked by ruthless terrorists on 9/11 It certainly would appear that that was the case, but it certainly seems to me to be a false flag event. We've been labeled as conspiracy theorists, nut case conspiracy theorists.

The term conspiracy theorist has been totally weaponized and is used to instill distrust in the general populace of anyone who questions the official story. We're now living in a corporatocracy that is not the democracy that people are taught in school that we live under. It's not the case. It's certainly not what it's cracked up to be. It's not what we're led to believe. The reality of it... You had a guy on the other day, John O'Malley the activist and he basically... I thought he did a beautiful job putting his finger on the pulse of that, that we live in a world that's controlled by people that are not elected to a government that supposedly governs and rules what happens in this country.

Those people that are elected and do create the legislation and enforce the legislation and the judiciary, they are all doing the calling of a certain select few. It's called the 1%. There's no other way to put it. And it's actually quite a bit less than the 1%. If anything it's the 1/100th of 1%. It's a very select small group in this country that controls the wealth, that controls everything that happens in this country and for that matter in the world. I see what's happening or what happened with 9/11 as a crucial moment for them. It was that Pearl Harbor event that they needed to guide in a quick fashion the direction of legislation, the direction of the country, the direction of where we were going in terms of the economic system, how it works.

You had a guy like George Bush that at one point admitted that we couldn't exist without war. We needed a permanent war. We needed a never-ending war. And we certainly got that with 9/11. It hasn't ended since, and we've been at war for 20 years. And things change and everything stays the same. We learn in the history books about the Hundred Years' War and all of... So many Thirty Years' War all these tremendous long wars that took place in the past and how much has things changed? What's changed is technology. Other than that, human nature continues to yield the same results. There is a select powerful group at the top that control everything, and the rest of us do the best we can to fend for ourselves.

And I have to say that I am actually starting to become optimistic based on where technology is taking this younger generation. These are kids today that are in college that weren't born 20 years ago when the World Trade Center disappeared on that beautiful September day weren't even born. And today a lot of us don't understand they have a different way of looking at the world. They were raised with computers. They were raised with an internet. They were raised in a world that is exciting to those of us that grew up in the '50s, '60s, and '70s, like me. It's extremely exciting. There's so much going on. But these kids, they have a different way of looking at life, and they're very demanding.

They look at things, and if it doesn't make sense to them they question it. They reach out and they demand change. So I think we're going to see some change, and we've seen a lot. We've made a lot of progress. Mr. O'Malley talked about the fact that the powers that be seemed to be hedging their bets and stepping back a little bit, I don't know. I was raised, as I said, in the Vietnam War era. And I took place or I took part in that fight to end that war. I remember going down to Washington as a college student. Frank stayed back; he didn't go with me. But I went with a bunch of other people and got arrested in Washington, and it was a crazy time. And we did stop that war.

And it just appears to me like the powers that be went to school on that. They learned a lot from that experience. They got rid of the draft, they stopped showing pictures of wars on TV. They retrenched, and they figured out how to get around that. They weren't going to let that happen again. That was a tremendous blow to them. And O'Malley talked about JFK. To me that was clearly a coup d'Ètat. He had to go. He had the unmitigated gall to try and direct things and make things happen in his way to meet his vision of what the world should be, of what the United States part in that world should be. And it didn't mesh with what the powers that be wanted.

And they had they had a guy waiting in the wings. They had Mr. LBJ, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was more than happy. It was the one thing that he lived for was to be president. And he did their bidding for a while, and then when came time for him to stand for his second election he dropped out. Suddenly he dropped out. He'd had enough. That war had just done him in; he couldn't take it anymore. And he left, and then we got Nixon. And the rest was history.

But there was this progression that happened after Vietnam. That was 1975 when that ended. And Nixon went down in flames with a resignation, which shocked the nation, shocked the world. Nobody thought that could happen, but they patched things together, and we had the end of the Cold War. There was a lull in the military industrial complex that had to be rectified.

And I think 9/11 was the culmination. They tried in '93 with the bombing. That didn't work. They needed something more intense and they got it with 9/11. It was exactly what they were looking for. I have to say that what happened that day, all the things that went wrong for those guys, who knows when... I have a feeling that Building 7 was supposed to come down in short order, and something went wrong. I don't know what the hell went wrong but something went wrong. There were all these things that went wrong, but they just kept covering it up and moving forward with their plan to hoodwink the people of the nation and the people of the world.

It was beautifully planned. I have to give where credit is due. What they did was phenomenal. It was just unbelievable and it would be nice to know how they did it, how it was brought off. I think it would be a complete surprise to all of us, the level of technical know-how and the brilliance of new technology that they used to make those buildings come down the way they did, so beautifully within their own footprints, cut up and ready to go. Everything... So much went well. A lot of things went wrong, but enough went right that they were successful, and they got done with what they needed to get done.


Andy Steele:
Bill, you're fascinating to listen to. Unfortunately, we're out of time. So thank you so much for lending your voice to the call for a new investigation and for coming out when you do. And thank you so much for coming on 9/11 Free Fall today.


Bill Brinnier:
Thanks, Andy. It was a real pleasure.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby dada » Tue Jun 01, 2021 2:30 pm

"What's changed is technology. Other than that, human nature continues to yield the same results. There is a select powerful group at the top that control everything, and the rest of us do the best we can to fend for ourselves."

Brings up this conspiracy/history dialectic that came up in the image comments thread. I agree, even said something similar to the first part somewhere around here recently, that nothing much has changed, what has changed is how we do business, the tech. But I don't know why we then have to decide conspiracy, or history.

Like, we're agreeing, we both see history, and conspiracy. But to then go ahead and conclude that history is just the history of conspiracy, and therefore is essentially "conspiracy," is to confuse the issue, and head off in all sorts of wrong directions. It would be the same if we said that conspiracy is just the "conspiracy of history," and therefore is essentially just history. Maybe in some academic corners where the "old left" still think they're in any way relevant nowadays, they go there. But no one who matters could possibly look at the world and end up there. It's more of a outdated political-organizational conceit. Like, to be in with the cool kids on the old left, you had to one up each other on how mechanized and soulless your analysis of world events could go.

So, I don't know. It just seems to keep coming up, and I think there's something that desperately needs bringing to light, but it keeps slipping away because no one wants to let it in. Conspiracy and history doesn't have to be approached dialectically, and in my opinion, this is probably a main nexus of confusion and misunderstanding. Like the tension needs to be maintained, or it collapses into "everything in black and white" through dialectical overindulgence. Which may be exciting and satisfying, but it isn't at all helpful and enlightening, in the end serving to reinforce the status quo and eject all approaches to an understanding of conspiracy and history that don't jump to the same conclusions, cutting itself off from potentally helpful partners and allies in the war on suffering.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Harvey » Tue Jun 01, 2021 6:27 pm

dada » Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:30 pm wrote:I don't know why we then have to decide conspiracy, or history.


Clearly, it's your choice to frame things either way or some other way entirely.

Harvey » Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:47 am wrote:0:45 onward. Clear as day: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1wixpa

(In other similar footage, the flashes are blacked out. On some of those videos you can actually see a few pixel wide halo of light with a black dot in the middle where the flash was removed.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby dada » Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:14 pm

"Clearly, it's your choice to frame things either way or some other way entirely."

Is it? Because it doesn't seem that is case at all. My choice, clearly, is to present my point of view and be ignored or brushed off, like you just did, or just keep it to myself.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby dada » Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:36 pm

Also, the argument I'm presenting is exactly that framing things as one way or another is wrong, in the sense of innacurate and unhelpful to clear discussion and analysis of the things being framed, which are not actually even things, but concepts shaped around making sense of "what is really happening."

So you're saying I have a choice to frame it any way I like. And I guess that means everyone else does, too, and everybody is free and right, and nobody is coerced or mistreated or wrong, and so what are we even going on about. I mean, it's everybody's choice to frame it however they like, how can I disagree with their free choices. Only bullies and mean meanies would argue at people by saying their freely chosen frames are wrong, and to add insult to injury, even have the audacity to get into the reasons why they are wrong.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby dada » Tue Jun 01, 2021 11:33 pm

I guess I should have put my comment into some sort of context as regards this thread, I could have presented it better. Where I come from, we know the towers were brought down as the demolition guys show here, it isn't even a question. I read the transcripts posted above, and saw nothing to disagree with.

The argument I'm making is on the level of the philosophical debate. I see this certain philosophical trend in peoples reasoning that I think hurts or undercuts the cases they make. So the angle I'm working is an attempt to be constructive and helpful. I just forget how sensitized and touchy mass culture makes everyone sometimes.

So I should be more intuitive about that, I know. I'm just really unplugged from it, sitting here right in the center of it. It's a good spot, everything at my fingertips, and yet totally unaffected by the mass currents of the hive mind. I'd say it's really the only way to take a good objective look at everything going on around us in all space and time, but I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. I do think that's too bad, though. I highly recommend it, people don't even realize what they're missing out on.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby dada » Thu Jun 03, 2021 1:11 am

Just thinking about this demolition of the towers. I'd say that people hear it, and treat it with suspicion, because they really don't want to know. I mean we can blame the spin machine for confusing them, but when it comes down to it, they'd rather be confused by spin control than come to terms with it. So we can say we're up against criminals, perpetrators, but there is a basic inertia to mass culture that works hand in hand with them, and what we're up against is willful ignorance. Maybe as a coping mechanism for the daily cognitive dissonance that comes with participating in mass culture.

So what can be done about that? Nothing, I guess. I think mass culture is hopeless, and am glad that I have my own culture to grow in. One of the many benefits of it is that I can look at mass culture from outside. And see no reflection of myself in it.

But now, I wonder if I say that the assassins of Hassan Sabbah, the old man of the mountain, is a total fabrication. Anyone who has done any research on the subject knows it plainly. But I wonder if it arouses suspicion here, like maybe there's a bit of that "I don't want to know" lurking about in the backs of minds. Or right in the fronts.

The myth was invented by the enemies of the Alamuti Ismailis. These were those same types of enemies as the types that called the Cathars "heretics," and the Templars "sodomites," devil worshippers. Inquisitions burning witches, gypsies and jews. The lies and rumors are spread first, then the invasions and murders come.

So Hassan Sabbah declares the end of sharia law in 1164 AD. No more veils, education for women. The orthodox say, "this is no good, we must put a stop to it," and off we go to the races. Same shit, only the names have changed.

I'm serious, look it up, if you really want to know. The myth grew popular in Europe, and has come down to us today. You can follow the history of the literature even, watch it propagate around. In the eighteen fifties, the generals and east indian company men who knew the aga khan were all just tickled to think they were friends with the great great great etc grandson of the leader of the assassins. The aga khan thought it was funny, and also took advantage of the mystique. This is during the great game, Russia and Britain jockeying for political influence in central asia. Lot of politics going on, everyone gotta play to survive, the Ismailis were no different.

And then the towers go down, and you can watch the "special episode" of the West Wing that was broadcast not long after. Sorkin writes a script where Rob Lowe and the rest of them teach a class of kids in the white house cafeteria all about "the assassins" and hassan sabbah, old man of the mountain. Perpetuating the myth for another generation.

And you might wonder, is Sorkin really that ignorant of historical reality? I'd say isn't it obvious.

And maybe it's nothing, I mean how much damage can be done by just a cruel, nasty myth. The kind that if you say it is a myth, people have trouble hearing it, they are suspicious. Like, how could this be.

But I feel like it is much more important and at the heart of things, than the twenty years that have passed since the towers went down. Twenty years is a blip in time. But mass culture's gears have been grinding for centuries and longer, and people love it, and would gladly be willfully ignorant so as not to jeopardize it.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Belligerent Savant and 48 guests