Goldwag: Some thoughts about 9/11 Truth

Discuss

182 Responses to “Goldwag: Some thoughts about 9/11 Truth”

  1. MrJM says:

    “consider NORAD’s and the FAA’s torpid response to NWA’s rogue Flight 188 two weeks ago, if you think that sufficiently-committed hijackers couldn’t knock down another American building”

    And yet I have to take my shoes off to board an airliner.

    – MrJM

  2. David Kyte says:

    FYI

    A very interesting controlled demolition technique in common use in France involves going into a prepared structure and using hydraulic jacks or other mechanical means to knock out key supports. The upper block of the building then demolishes the rest of the structure using nothing but gravity. a feat 9/11 truthers say is impossible!

    When you see one of these controlled demolitions you will note the upper block of mass is not slowed down much by the rest of the building. The collapse occurs quite quickly. The debris is largely confined. Though some appears propelled out the sides. The collapse of the entire structure is achieved by highly localized one or two floors failures.

    And NO explosives are used, Only the force of gravity.

  3. Pavlovian Dogcatcher says:

    So you need subpoena powers to answer the question “can you think of any evidence that would convince you that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by terrorist with airplanes and not government agents with explosives?”

    I ignored that question because it doesn’t apply to me, projecting beliefs I don’t hold. The attacks were indisuptuably perpetrated by terrorists with airplanes, and I rather doubt that whoever masterminded the attacks were acting as agents of our state or any other. Granted, it is likely that least some of the individuals who actually rigged the buildings to come down did/do hold positions in our government, but figure they have been exploiting the authority were vested with rather than acting under it.

    If you simply want to know what evidence might convince me the buildings were not rigged to come down, and go back to believing the official conspiracy theory instead, there isn’t rightly any possibility of that. I was able to conclude the official story is false the moment I first saw a building of WTC7 fall in 2005, and since then I went back and looked at the official arguments of how the towers came down to find that are equally impossible. So, you can ignore WTC7s free fall and all evidence which contradicts the official conspiracy theory as long as you want, but you can’t convince me to do the same. You’d be waisting your time trying just as much as you would if you were attempting to convince me the Earth is flat, as neither claims have any basis in reality.

    To the extent that this has any validity, it refers at most to a restricted portion of time well after the global collapse had been underway.

    Rather, the period of free fall is in the first few seconds of the budding as a whole coming down, which happens after the center columns had been taken out, as is visible in the video you linked. That is the four outer corners of the building go from being supported by all of the resistive force needed to hold them up, to dropping over 100′ at free fall acceleration because all the structural resistances was removed.

    Granted, you can pretend this is consistent with the official story with whatever excuses you like, but what you are arguing is quite simply physically impossible. That is why NIST couldn’t actually show their simulation collapse, and only first few seconds instead. To make the simulation actually consistent with the video evidence, one would have to simulate some form of controlled demolition. Again, I know this is a painful truth to face, but it is a matter of irrefutable fact regardless, and the sooner our society comes to terms with that the sooner we can get a really investigation into what actually happened that day.

    Anyway, perhaps this video of a reiterated engineering executive who served 37 years with NASA explaining some of the facts which prove the official conspiracy theory wrong might persuade some of you here to start taking a serious look at the evidence:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En6gL1W4avA

    • Brainspore says:

      If you simply want to know what evidence might convince me the buildings were not rigged to come down, and go back to believing the official conspiracy theory instead, there isn’t rightly any possibility of that.

      In that case you’ve just been using a whole lot of words to say “my argument is unfalsifiable.” Anything that follows isn’t debate, just a statement of beliefs that is impervious to contradictory evidence. The Mythbusters could commission a full-size replica of the WTC and destroy it with a couple of jetliners and you’d still refuse to budge an inch.

      Believing something to be true is not the same as believing it to be unfalsifiable. I believe that it’s impossible man to fly just by flapping his arms, but I can be proven wrong if someone does so tomorrow.

    • Anonymous says:

      “Rather, the period of free fall is in the first few seconds of the budding as a whole coming down”

      You got that one wrong. David Chandler makes clear in his videos

      http://www.ae911truth.org/info/44

      that he is focusing on the north-west side. But as is noted in the fuller video I posted

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw

      the collapse did not spread to that part until more than half-way into the full collapse. Chandler is looking at a point when the collapse was already well underway and noting that it appears to be free-fall at this late stage. No surprise there.

  4. danlalan says:

    never argue with a moron, they’ll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

  5. MadMolecule says:

    Mojave: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  6. valdis says:

    @Mojave: “How many of you here have ever read or heard or seen any kind of stories from the Arab world where a father or mother was interviewed about their missing hijacker son? Not one of those 19 hijackers families ever came forward to claim that, “yes it was my son, he did it”.”

    You didn’t see Richard McVeigh’s parents on TV much, or Lee Harvey Oswald’s parents, or Jeffrey Dahmer’s. I’m certain there’s 19 sets of Islamic parents out there, trying to quietly live with the shame and humiliation, and blaming themselves and wondering where they went wrong.

    Quick test: If you had kids, and one of them did something like this, would you *want* to go on TV about it?

  7. noahpoah says:

    The seven years of international adventurism, state-sanctioned torture, domestic spying, rampant privatization, and upward redistribution of income that followed, all of it promoted by waving the bloody flag, have left us more polarized as a society than we’ve been since at least the 1960s.

    The seven years? I must have missed the fact that the international adventurism, state-sanctioned torture, and domestic spying stopped in September, 2008. That sure was nice of Bush to put a stop to all that right before he left office, wasn’t it?

    What’s that? He didn’t put a stop to any of that? Do they, in fact, continue under Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama? Huh.

    Oh, and just out of curiosity, how exactly do alleged rampant privatization and upward redistribution of income fit in here? Would that be the rampant privatization and upward redistribution of income embodied by No Child Left Behind? Or the Medicare drug plan? Maybe TARP?

    • Arthur Goldwag says:

      Daniel Edd Bland III personally blames Bush and Cheney for the attacks. The following is from an open letter he sent to Eric Holder:

      “I am making serious accusations regarding former Vice President Dick Cheney’s involvement in a criminal conspiracy and have directly accused him of being an accomplice in the murder of at least 175 innocent American citizens on the morning of September 11, 2001. I have also accused him of committing treasonous crimes against humanity. If you believe my claims are false, I ask you to please make recommendations to have me officially charged with libel. In this manner, we can finally take the 9/11 Debate into an open court of law. There would be no excuse for hiding this case behind the veil of national security! This country was founded upon the rule of law, so let us start enforcing it. Either Dick Cheney is guilty of treason or I am guilty of libel. For the sake of our global security we must move quickly to determine which one of us is guilty!”

      I agree that it’s shameful that so many Bush/Cheney policies have yet to be reversed.

      • Daniel Edd Bland III says:

        Hi Arthur-

        Thanks again for keeping this issue in front of the people. You are correct that I have specifically charged Dick Cheney with murdering 2,993 innocent American citizens, and millions more around their behalf. I also believe that their is a much larger conspiracy with many other guilty parties. Although Cheney/Bush are guilty and must face justice, I do not believe they were the bosses in this operation. I know believe that the international banking families are at the highest level of this conspiracy.

        Even after serving in Iraq and watching Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, I still believed the official story until the fall of last year (2008). During the announcement of the banker bailout, I realized that they were about to magically create $750 billion out of then air. I knew that inflation would be the obvious result so I decided to Google and YouTube the word “inflation” which took me straight down the rabbit hole and has made the last year the most exciting one so far. I am 30 years old.

        It was the bailout crime investigation that took me back to 9/11. I began seeing incredible evidence that I never saw on TV. I would know because I was glued to the television for 3 months straight after the attacks before joining the Army. What I was sold during those three months is nothing like the real story that I have only learned in the last year. I started sharing all this stuff with my father a year ago. He believed all the money/banking history, but was extremely hesitant to take a fresh look at the evidence because he was so sure that his own government could be capable of such evil. I think it may have taken sharing Operation Northwoods with him to reconsider and start taking a new look at the information.

        If you look back through the history of my blog, you will see that initially he was with me on the banks, but cautioning me on my 9/11 claims. Two weekends ago, he had finally reviewed the evidence thoroughly enough to publicly back my calls for a new investigation.

        Truthers do not claim to know the entire truth, we only claim that the official story is a complete lie and a new open investigation is urgently needed to determine what really happened. Americans do not realize that their “national security” depends on identifying the true perpetrators of 9/11 because the true criminals are much closer to them than anyone living in Iraq or Afghanistan. I do not believe this is a Republican or Democratic conspiracy. The false left/right paradigm is just another way they have divided this nation. The crazy thing is that this conspiracy for a one world communist government has been around for many generations, and the craziest thing is that it seems to come from my ancestors. Here is a brief summary of the last 100 years.

        Thanks again Arthur!

        Daniel Edd Bland III

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Daniel Edd Bland III,

          If you link to another website that contains anti-Semitic material, I will peel you like a pear.

          • Daniel Edd Bland III says:

            @Antinous

            Two questions:

            1.) Why was my first comment with the evidence against Cheney never posted?

            2.) Exactly what information on the NWO time-line do you consider anti-Semitic? It’s all documented historical facts.

            Thanks in advance for explaining.

            Daniel Edd Bland III

          • failix says:

            It’s because Antinous tries to hide the REAL evidence for the REAL 9/11 truth from BB readers!

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            It’s because Antinous tries to hide the REAL evidence for the REAL 9/11 truth from BB readers!

            Was it the nictitating membrane that tipped you off?

            Not surprisingly, some comments have contained links to sites that, for example, are selling copies of the notorious anti-Semitic propaganda, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. We will not be hosting links to sites like that, although it’s certainly illuminating to see conspiracy theorists who claim to be the grieving relatives of innocent victims pushing the same hate speech as the Third Reich.

          • Daniel Edd Bland III says:

            I work for a Global 200 Company. They block access to many categories of websites including racially divisive sites. If they do not block access to that site, why would you?

            Daniel Edd Bland III

            P.S. Can you please publish the very first comment I submitted that began by thanking Boing Boing? Thanks!

          • Arthur Goldwag says:

            I read through the Timeline of the NWO link that Daniel Edd Bland III just posted on my personal blog; its author makes some effort to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I think it’s both nonsensical and implicitly anti-Semitic, but if anyone wishes to see it and judge for themselves they can visit my site at http://arthurgoldwag.wordpress.com and look for themselves.

            The timeline makes note of another 9/11 coincidence that I mention in my book but forgot to mention here: the cornerstone of the Pentagon was laid on 9/11/41–in a full-blown Masonic ceremony. One of the weirder things about NWO conspirators, as opposed to garden-variety criminal and political conspirators, is that they compulsively call attention to themselves, scattering a plethora of numerological, calendrical, symbolic and other clues in their wake that are easily decipherable by anyone in the know.

    • teapot says:

      Oh, and just out of curiosity, how exactly do alleged rampant privatization and upward redistribution of income fit in here? Would that be the rampant privatization and upward redistribution of income embodied by No Child Left Behind? Or the Medicare drug plan? Maybe TARP?

      Seems like a case of selective memory here. Surely you remember the countless private investments that Bush Administration figures have/had in oil, defence contractors & military manufacturing?

      The time that the rampant privatization stopped was when the wheels fell off the US economy just before Bush was done – thanks to his administration’s mismanagement.

      I find it so funny that you are tacitly defending the US taxpayer’s dollars that are/were being wasted on bribing Afghani & Iraqi groups not to kill each other as a direct result of Bush’s little conquest (based on lies of secuirty) whilst you suggest that spending money on things like taking care of the appaling US heath & education systems or protecting the US economy from the real possibility of a depression are a waste of money.

      The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost over $900 Billion US. This figure does NOT include other costs such as the CIA/military paying people off people not to kill and for intelligence. I ask you noahpoah: What did your $900 billion USD buy you exactly?

      Check this site to see what it could have bought you instead:
      http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
      http://www.costofwar.com/

      I am relieved to see such calm and level-headed discussion from many on this board as the comments on these kinds of post on any blog/site almost always deteriorate into useless name calling and complete misinformation.

  8. hail_diskordia says:

    *Sigh* we as a nation are getting stupider and more often than not, we base our perceptions of events on fiction, not fact, because we live in such fantasy worlds nowadays. It’s sad, wait, no, it’s repugnant and silly that we spend sooo much time on ephemera- yeah, all those coincidences? Ephemera and nit-pickedy-picking. People need to feel like they’re *in the know* and everybody else is the herd, even when there’s either nothing to know of any import, or when what there is to know is spurious and second-hand (at best). So many more important things to worry about *THAT ARE HAPPENING NOW* and are demonstrable, not bits and pieces of a far-flung and rather paranoid conspiracy. I don’t believe the Mossad did it (wtf makes somebody think that… oh, wait, agenda), I don’t believe Cheney did it (not everything evil is his fault, believe it or not)… I believe, uhhh… that Osama Bin Laden was in charge and several Arab terrorists carried it out. I don’t need to clutch at straws to explain the world around me, or to fabricate things I wish were true for reasons of politics. From where I stand, few other theories make any real sense to me. There are things that make me wonder, but ultimately I believe actual foreign terrorists did it, and not some Jew/Fed/Ninja/Reptilian conspiracy. I feel that, having looked at the largely circumstantial and unproven theories pointed to as “evidence”, they’re BS and make no sense, except in a far-flung, cobbled-together, made-up way.

  9. freeyourcrt says:

    “The more audacious the lie is, the more widely accepted it will be.”

    “You can educate a fool but you can’t make them think.”

    I’m glad I didn’t join in when this was originally posted because ultimately it really doesn’t matter what the majority or minority thinks.

  10. VagabondAstronomer says:

    It is so easy to want to fall into believing this.
    It was certainly a perfect storm; you had an election that was questionable at best, you had a sudden swing in the US back to the right, you had a president and vice president who started off a bit unpopular. In the summer of 2001, there was a lot going on in Afghanistan; the Taliban were destroying those wonderful Buddhist monuments, Osama bin Laden was most assuredly there. You had an energy task force that was convened under the vice president that had more than a passing interest in Iraq.
    A perfect storm.
    There is little doubt that the event of 9/11 were meant to send a strong message to us, to provoke us. A strike at golden heart of the Great Satan, a dent in his shield, so to speak.
    When you look at what followed, how our country was transformed, yes, it is so easy to want to believe that this was a gargantuan conspiracy.
    We may never know, but from where I sit, it simply looks like the worse set of coincidences that have befallen our country in a very long time. Coincidence, and nothing more.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I remain convinced that the Truthers are part of a PNAC conspiracy to discredit talk of the Bush admin’s negligence in preventing 9/11 by drowning it in a sea of bullshit regarding their complicity in planning it. And don’t you dare tell me otherwise :P

    • zyodei says:

      What I find amazing is that people thing the government isn’t capable of this. I mean, we have people who have specialized for 50 years in pulling all sorts of black ops…assassinating leaders, destabilizing regimes, creating illusions of one kind or the other..Doing it all, as far as I can tell, with a great deal of success, secrecy, and precision.

      I mean, how do you think the CIA was able to topple all of those democracies? With “get out the vote” drives?

      And how many CIA agents have come out and said “I’m sorry about what I did in Iran/Guatemala/Indonesia/etc., it was wrong?” Not very many.

      And what if they did? What if some spook came forward and said he had played a hand in 9/11?

      Here’s what would have likely happened: The news media would have chalked him up as some disgruntled employee, some kook, and not run his story (look how far FBI translator Sibel Edmond’s story got in the mainstream media); he would have been financially ruined somehow; and maybe his family would have suffered harm.

      Sure, we had the Church Commission in 1975, investigating and outing the CIA..and then the CIA spent the 1980s doing the same shit in Nicaragua and elsewhere.

      If a group is capable of killing tens of thousands in, say, Guatemala, why would anyone think they are not capable of killing people in America? I mean, hasn’t anyone heard of Project Northwoods, which was signed off by the whole Joint Chiefs of Staff in the early ’60s and only stopped by Kennedy himself? It’s declassified now, you can read the whole proposal, which included blowing up American planes and making it look like Cuban terrorists did it, to justify an invasion of Cuba.
      ——————————–

      Another thing to realize is that, if the “intelligence agencies did it” theory of 9/11 is correct, then it was an act of psychological warfare, carried out six years into the Internet age. How hard is it to fill the Internet with all sorts of outlandish websites, that make the whole thing seem ridiculous?

      Some CIA agent sits down, spend a day shitting out a dozen web sites with names like 911superdupertruthsite.com about holographic planes, bombs under the wings, empty planes, unicorns in the cabins, etc,etc; all sorts of nonsense; then the average, fairly intelligent viewer will read these sites and think the whole 9/11 truth movement is a bunch of idiots. Maybe some of the “9/11 truthers” themselves will believe some of it, and start repeating these insane theories and discrediting themselves.

      Hell, I don’t know what is true and what isn’t, I don’t know what the hell happened, but the “official” story is full of holes, it just doesn’t make sense.
      ——————————–

      Here’s something that is undeniable: There was some degree of cover up about what happened, no one was ever disciplined for this tremendous fuckup, at this point EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the “9/11 commission” has come out and said they were lied to, obstructed, and they were not able to carry out a full investigation. Farmer, the chief counsel, the guy whole actually wrote the damned 9/11 commission report, said that they were lied to and stonewalled by everybody.

      Whether the Bush administration was trying to cover up their ineptitude or played some active role in the whole thing, I don’t know. But there is no doubt the American public does NOT know the whole story. Something is definitely fishy about the whole thing.

      I have read the various “911 myths” web sites, and on many points they are convincing. But there are still many questions left unanswered. I feel the 9/11 truth views are best represented by the testimonials on this page:

      http://patriotsquestion911.com/

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        zyodei,

        In the last week you’ve worn three hats: AIDS Denialist, Anti-Vaccinationist and 9/11 Truther.

  12. Anonymous says:

    …one time our country was attacked… Hardly the one time our country was attacked. Somebody seems to have forgotten about the fact that we were invaded in 1812. If only there was some easy way to bring that to mind, perhaps in a song…

  13. Anonymous says:

    One thing that always makes me laugh is the “Why is there no footage of the Pentagon? A missile must have hit it!”

    Yeah, so the conspiracy that managed to put two airplanes into the WTC (and those are on film) somehow couldn’t find a third plane and decided to shoot a missile into the Pentagon instead? Sure…

  14. Anonymous says:

    “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”

    Very stoic.

  15. sirpentine says:

    It’s interesting to note how so many here have an opinion about the “truthers” and why they are the way they are, yet not many posters here actually discuss the collapse of WTC7, the building that mysteriously collapsed into it’s own foot-print without a plane hitting it, or any pertinent facts surrounding that day for that matter. Nobody mentions the war games on that day? What about the bin-ladens flown home the same day? How about the FBI translator Sibel Edmonds who said we had intimate relationships with Bin laden all the way till Sept. 10, 01..Bin Laden the grand mastermind. Why don’t any of you address how the Patriot Act was written before 911? How the US had pipeline plans in afghanistan before 911, ready to go. Sorry, there is a lot of arm flailing and gesticulation, and zero discussion here about facts. The most ironically precious of which was some poster claiming that there are 1000 scientists/engineers that have proven the official account and the truther movement has 1 AKA Steven Jones. I think he got that reversed. The truth movement has close to 1000 engineers/scientists(IE: ae911truth.org) the official government fairytale has a couple of NIST government scientists WHO failed to even look at the possibility of explosives in the towers. Sorry people, the incosistancies, lies, failed investigations warrant a new one, even the god damn 911 commissioners agreed they’ve been lied and stone walled. Give me a damn break!!!

    • failix says:

      It’s interesting to note how so many here have an opinion about the “truthers” and why they are the way they are, yet not many posters here actually discuss the collapse of WTC7, the building that mysteriously collapsed into it’s own foot-print without a plane hitting it, or any pertinent facts surrounding that day for that matter.

      What I find interesting, is the fact that myself and others have suggested links and answers to irrelevant questions and “facts surrounding that day”, that Arthur Goldwag even directly addressed the WTC7 collapse, and yet, no truther bothered to respond directly to any of the pretty simple and reasonable questions they were asked, let alone respond to the answers we gave.

      So many don’t answer your questions simply because they begin to feel you don’t really care about evidence and that you won’t change your mind anyway. They are tired to calmly explain over and over again why your “evidence” actually isn’t evidence for what you claim, and that the “loopholes” aren’t actually loopholes, but details that aren’t as easy to understand on first sight as you are used to.
      The unclear areas don’t become clear and logical if you try to explain them by claiming the 9/11 attacks weren’t caused by terrorists.

      To Democracydiva, your copy-pasted long and boring text is a waste of space. The link you gave to the text would’ve been enough.

  16. Inkstain says:

    “I think it’s difficult for many people to believe that the media and their government (basically one in the same) would lie to them.”

    I find it difficult to believe you’ve ever met a person who worked for the media if you believe that.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Calling someone an idiot is rarely a persuasive argument.

    No, but it’s important that people hear it in a face-to-face argument to know that such an assessment of their stance is possible.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Always avoided these stories. But this one is on a site I trust. read about Sivan. Geez. And Wow…

  19. Anonymous says:

    The point with the socalled Truth movement is not that they have the opinion they have, but that to them their Truth is absolute; they have no doubts about it, they just “know” they know the Truth.
    If a movement calls itself a “truth movement”, you can be quite sure that it has more to do with religion than with reality.
    To them their Truth is the Absolute Truth. And therefore they are not really interested in debating the issue; they are interest in convincing non-believers to change their way and start believing in the “Truth”.

  20. Anonymous says:

    What we do know is that the Israeli ‘movers’ caught cheering and documenting the destruction from the Jersey shore that morning were found to be Mossad agents, and quietly allowed to leave the country. The open question is to what extent the Mossad were abetting in the action? At the very least, they had foreknowledge of the attack. From a right-wing perspective, Israel stood to be a beneficiary if the US were to take military action in the Middle East, so this seems to be calculated self-interest on the part of Israeli intelligence.

    Many people know about the neocons and the Project for a New American Century, but not as many know that the title of their seminal report ‘Securing the Realm’ referred not to the United States, but Israel. Specifically, the militant right-wing of Israel. Tying these groups together doesn’t mean that they all planned or knew about 9/11, however it is certain that 9/11 benefitted their goal and strategy at the time, which seems to be more important in terms of coming closer to knowing the truth, rather than the futility of finding the extent of actual culpability in the events of 9/11.

    There is no grand conspiracy, however, there are a lot of uncomfortable truths that are not acknowledged. While the US has futilely chased Al Qaeda around the globe, Israel has continued its forceful expansion and escalated aggression, from Lebanon to Gaza to Iran. A little benign neglect on 9/11 is small beer next to what they did in Gaza. That’s the latest conspiracy.

    • Anonymous says:

      “At the very least, they had foreknowledge of the attack.”

      While that’s possible, it’s not made clear by the evidence. Those 5 Israelis who were arrested were picked up in circumstances that are fully consistent with them not having known anything in advance. They attracted attention because the woman who saw them said they seemed happy. That proves that they were jerkoffs who deserved getting picked up. But there is nothing to suggest that they knew of the attacks in advance. They probably just heard of them like everyone, grabbed their camera the way a lot of other people did, and then acted like jerkoffs in a way which drew attention and got them a well-deserved cool-off period in the can. Nothing more to it is really apparent.

    • Anonymous says:

      > It was the bailout crime investigation that took me back to 9/11.

      That’s not a very good mode of logic. Attempting to jump between events that are 7 years apart and draw extrapolations about 911 is not a good methodology at all.

      > The crazy thing is that this conspiracy for a one world communist government has been around for many generations

      That type of Right-wing crackpotism has been around for generations, but that’s about as far as it goes. Whatever one may suspect of 911, you should always be very suspicious of attempts to weave grandiose conspiracy theories which cover a broad span of history. To the extent that actual conspiracies occur, they center on limited events taking place within a day or so, like 911 did. The tendency to weave grand historical conspiracy theories usually arises from seeking an easy way to grasp historical events which might require some serious study before one could say anything competent.

  21. Anonymous says:

    A question for truthers vis-a-vis the pentagon-missile idea:
    Please explain how, on the morning of 9/11, I, me, was just uphill from the pentagon (near the current site of the USAF memorial) when I saw a plane fly into it.

  22. JayByrd says:

    When TWA 800 went down in 1996 there was a similar conspiracy theory that it was to work of a Navy cruiser. That theory gained less traction because the free flow of ideas on the Internet was less robust then. Ditto with FDR’s pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor.
    In all cases it’s peoples’ inability to process “unreal” reality.
    The brilliance of bin Laden’s attack was his understanding of American psychology. What we saw was not an act of war, it was an act of theater.
    The lives lost on 9/11, the buildings and the planes, are just a tiny amount of the total damage bin Laden did to our country.
    The conspiracy I would like to see revealed is exactly why we invaded Iraq. No one has ever given us a straight answer.

  23. Arthur Goldwag says:

    Sigh…. Here I bend over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt, and then he starts posting links to anti-Semitic websites.

    Just as the Elephant in the Room with many of the Birthers is Barack Obama’s race, the elephant with global conspiracy theory is Anti-Semitism. The template for so many of today’s New World Order conspiracy theories was set at the turn of the century by Nesta Webster, when she wrote about the ancient Jewish and occult enemies of faith who used the Masons and the Illuminati as their tools to destroy the European monarchies and replace them with a godless money culture; she would be one of the most enthusiastic English proponents for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Russian forgery that was the supposed smoking gun for the Jewish conspiracy. Her idea of an unholy cabal of billionaires and bolsheviks has traveled down to us today relatively intact, except instead of the Rothschilds the face of evil has become George Soros and the Bilderbergers–and weirdly enough in this first year of the Obama administration, ACORN and the SEIU.

    Richard Hofstadter’s ever-timely essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” written in 1964, describes the paranoid’s nightmare adversary: “a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman–sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving…[who] manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced.” Exactly the sort of person who would destroy the WTC to justify an evil war that would eventually cause the economy to collapse, the loss of American civil liberties, and eventually sovereignty itself.

    Most Truthers, I think, are unaware of the disreputable antecedents that go into some of the 9/11 theorizing. I’d be very surprised if Daniel Edd Bland III, whose posting on my blog started this discussion, and whose postings in this Boing Boing forum seem to be bringing it to a close, is anti-Semitic himself–but in the heat of debate, the elephant sometimes makes his presence known.

  24. Teller says:

    The 9-11 Conspiracy Movement was born out of a dislike for Bush (oil & Daddy’s war) and Cheney (oil & Halliburton). The existence of those two ignited the extremely disenfranchised to string together curious, disparate facts into a tale of widespread compliance, not unlike Jim Garrison, all with the aim of proving Bush & Cheney evil incarnate. THAT is the conspiracy here. A conspiracy of like-minded paranoiacs chasing down two morons.

  25. Anonymous says:

    I live in Pakistan and the terror and bomb attacks we have to go through every single day are no less than 9-11. It seems funny to me that during the 8 years since 9-11, suicide bombings and random attacks by the U.S army have continuously occurred in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, China, and God knows how many other Asian/mid-east countries. They’ve killed thousands of innocent civilians, while the people in Britain and the U.S live happily as if nothings going on in the rest of the world…

  26. efalk says:

    I have no idea why you’re saying this. There actually is video footage of the pentagon explosion, and there are pictures of plane wreckages.

    Now this is one of the reasons why I have no respect for the integrity of the truthers. If they were all about applying their own interpretation to the evidence, I could dismiss them as well-meaning crackpots.

    But they’ve gone well beyond that point and into the realm of out-and-out lying about the evidence.

    The most telling example is their claim that the Pentagon was attacked by a missile, and quoting an eyewitness as saying it “was like a cruise missile with wings”.

    That eyewitness is named Mike Walter and he’s a USA Today reporter, and he can be seen in this video explaining exactly what he did say, and affirming that it was definitely an airplane he saw. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305

    In addition, photos clearly show the site strewn with airplane wreckage, but the truthers are always careful not to show those photos.

    The truthers are flat-out lying about the evidence.

    All of these details aside, there’s one key problem with the truther theories. These theories are mostly fueled by inconsistencies in the official story. But the key issue is this: Things which are inconsistent in the official story are still inconsistent in the truther version of things. The truther theory doesn’t actually solve any questions. It’s harder to explain all the little inconsistent details in the truther story than in the official one.

  27. Anonymous says:

    yes!something should be public!

  28. David Kyte says:

    9/11 truthers were all atwitter when Steven Jones announced he along with Kevin Ryan, Neils Harritt and Tony Szamboti had gotten a paper accepted in a “Peer Reviewed” science Journal. exposing supposed “Nano Thermite” in ground zero dust. A first for the conspiracy theorist promoting the idea a super duper double secret nano thermite had brought down the World Trade Center.

    Unfortunately debunkers soon pointed out the science journal in question was Bentham Open Journals, a for all intents and purposes a “vanity publisher”. You pay, they publish. Not exactly a REAL peer reviewed publisher of hard core science information.

    The dubious quality of Bentham’s peer review process has been brought into clear focus by a graduate student at Cornell University. They got a paper accepted by Bentham that consisted of nothing but computer generated nonsense. Pure made up bologna.

    The writers of the paper even dropped a hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or C.R.A.P.

    The Cornell students withdrew the hoax paper, Why? Because they are poor students, and Bentham wants $800 to publish. So for $800 you to can become the hero of trutherville.

    The 9/11 Truth movement dies a slow but humorous death but does provide a good laugh from time to time.

  29. OregonJohn says:

    People are scared. They don’t want to believe such a conspiracy is possible. That is understandable.

    The unexplained facts are all too many for me to ignore, and I’m okay with acknowledging chaos in the world…so I contend there is a massive cover-up.

    Now we have economic collapse. Same people? Maybe, but definitely a conspiracy that is not coming to light. Just like 9/11.

    I wonder what the next collapse will be. Seems the ocean is about to do something horrible. Maybe the world can deny conspiracy there as well.

  30. nathanmaas says:

    To all the “truthers”, please admit you don’t know the truth. There are glaring questions and mysterious circumstances to investigate, but one must not come to a conclusion yet. Avoid dismissing evidence that clashes with the “inside job” stream-of-thinking. New evidence that upsets the old is something to look into, not dismiss outright.

    To all those who buy the government story, please admit you don’t know the truth. Instead of blindly dismissing another viewpoint because it clashes with your own, attempt to embrace the phrase “I don’t know.” If someone poses a question, don’t attempt to answer it flat-out, attempt to research it with an open mind.

    There are incredibly important (and unanswered) questions about 9/11. Some have been stated, but there are many, many more. Reading a Popular Mechanics debunk-article does not make you an expert, and nor does watching a one-and-a-half hour documentary on the Pentagon Missile Theory.

    And finally, to everyone, please refrain from calling those curious about 9/11 as “truthers”, even though it IS called the “truth movement”. Many people use that phrase as something synonymous with “wackos / crazies / ignorant”. This is a poor way to think, as it instantly dismisses a group of people based on your assumptions. It’s your mind’s simple yet incorrect way of dealing with a challenge you don’t know the answer to.

    Treat questions not with quick answers, but with more questions.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Ahem.

    Dear Debunkers,

    You can’t simply assert a general contradiction between bureaucratic incompetence and organized crime and pretend an argument has been made.

    Large, wasteful bureaucracies that harbor incompetence (as well as routine personal corruption and patronage) are actually standing invitations to those who would engage in more organized exploitation and criminal activity. We see this daily in the capture of regulatory functions of the government by corporate interests, as when some Wall Street bank hires everyone fresh out of their stints at the SEC, or gets to appoint the Treasury Secretary.

    One of the logical fallacies from the rote debunkers of 9/11 skepticism is in seeing a paradox between incompetence in the government environment and organized criminal activity, which is not prevented but enabled by such incompetence.

    The orchestration of September 11th as a psychological operation that could confer carte blanche for the existing war plans and intended policies of the Bush regime would not have been committed by “the Pentagon” or “the CIA” or “the government” per se; but by a network ensconced within those and other agencies.

    In other words, the relevant actor would have been a covert operation, not a bureaucracy!

    The wealth of loose ends and unlikely synchronicities suggesting such a network begin with the prima facie systematic AWOL on the part of the chain of command during the attacks (from Bush down to Rumsfeld and including Myers, Eberhart, Winfield and Mies) and the reactions of the air defense system on the day; and continues with the prima-facie systematic protection of the alleged hijackers from discovery prior to the day. These loose ends in turn have not been pursued systematically by journalists, the laughably compromised official investigations (Zelikow, hello, despite his exposure by the 9/11 relatives) or, for the most part, by the majority of 9/11 researchers and activists who rely on “case closed” slogans about demolitions (or god forbid, the Pentagon hole) and get cranky over working out the details of the Able Danger suppression or the implications of the September 11th wargames mirroring the actual attack.

    Incompetence and imperfection within the operation itself could still rely on the incompetence of the bureaucracy as a whole to cover for it. Also on the reluctance of the media to investigate, on fear and patriotic denial during a time of “war,” and on the cultural assumption that all allegations of covert operations within the government are “conspiracy theory” and therefore crazy until established by court standards. (Or enter the history books, a la “Remember the Maine,” the “Gladio” false-flag terrorist networks organized in cold war Europe by NATO and the CIA, and the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication.)

    Another common fallacy is to apply scientific parsimony to political events. “Occam’s Razor” is not a scientific law, it’s only a rule of thumb for formulating hypotheses that then still require testing. In the present context, it’s just another thought-stopping platitude. When falling rocks can issue press releases denying that they’re falling, get back to us. Until then, accept that deception is a daily part of political theater and is often designed to confuse people about what they should consider plausible.

  32. Anonymous says:

    to anonymous addressing debunkers: nice try in trying to cloak your faith in pseudo intellectual argument…but your whole stack of cards falls flat on the very first tier.

    It is not the incompetence of a bureaucracy that is at issue, but rather that of the allegedly infinitely capable cabal.

    For as an excuse for the war in Iraq, it fell quite short of some essential details.

    Why weren’t the highjackers made to be Iraqis?
    Why (later) weren’t even a few grams of some WMD planted in Iraq?
    Why go to the trouble of controlled detonations of buildings that weren’t even hit by planes?
    Why not manufacture pentagon footage of a plane crashing (hey, they did it for the moon landing, why not here)?

    So many obvious factors that make the “truther” fantasy not even close to an hypothesis worth investigating.

    Yes, the government lies and covers up their mistakes, as they always do.

    Yes, the government (and most of the world) is beholden to corporate interests and serves almost entirely to fuel their rapacious greed.

    It does not take an arcane, esoteric conspiracy to see this plainly.

    What is sad and pathetic is that so much time and energy that could be used addressing these real issues is wasted in such irrational indulgences.

  33. MadMolecule says:

    Mojave: Have you done any research into this story, or do you automatically believe that the US Government would never, ever, ever lie to you?

    Do you know what a false dilemma is, or do you fart in the bathtub and bite the bubbles?

  34. idjt says:

    Sort of a shame to see all the semantic hair-splitting going on, doesn’t really prove anything to claim someone’s answer falls short of your personal requirements for answers. But for some reason this particular topic always seems to end up with trolls calling everyone else truthers, ?

    So ok, ‘evidence that would convince you’, how about — flight data recorder from the pentagon plane ending with the altitude of the building, or video from any of the confiscated cameras showing the actual plane on approach. How about an FAA reconstruction of the wreckage of any of the planes with part and serial numbers tied back to maintenance logs. And hmm, an investigative commission where _less_ than half of the members have questions about procedure and evidence.

    But ok, to be fair here, is it actually possible to provide any of that? Might as well ask for video of the collapses that doesn’t show free fall at some point?

    Just a comment on the “significant presence of aluminum and iron rust” post there, the grains discovered in the wtc dust were layered. Accidental mixing of particles of each material wouldn’t have been worth mentioning.

    Well, maybe everyone has lost interest in this post by now. The pilots for 911 truth site has some good info, architects and engineers for 911 is another one. Hunt the boeing, webfairy, killtown, lots of pics archives out there.

    • Anonymous says:

      “Accidental mixing of particles of each material wouldn’t have been worth mentioning.”

      You might be surprised at what can occur from just accidental mixing of particles.

      http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=542&parent=506

      —–
      A safety coordinator at the Esso Oil Company plant in Longford, Australia, was using a belt grinder in his home workshop to smooth the edge of a hacksaw cut on a 2″ length of 1.5″ angle iron. He had been grinding for about 1.5 to 2 minutes when there was a loud “THUMP” accompanied by an approximately 2-foot diameter brilliant yellow orange fireball. The fireball lasted no more than 1 second and then completely extinguished itself. It completely enveloped the machine, his hands to half way up his forearms, and the front of his torso…

      A few days before the event, the man’s son had ground the heads off about twelve aluminum pop rivets. Finely divided aluminum mixed with finely divided ferrous oxide (the black powder residue from grinding steel) produced a compound called thermite. Thermite is used to fill incendiary bombs and is used commercially to weld large steel items. It burns at approximately 3500C (6300F), hence the extensive burns from such a short exposure time.
      —–

      That was a rather small incident, but it would be easy to get the first impression that a conspiracy must have been behind it. With such a large-scale catastrophe as the collapses of the WTC buildings there are many more unknown variables which must be anticipated. But the claims of nanothermite have yet to produce anything which is obviously unaccountable for outside of a conspiracy framework.

      • idjt says:

        >> You might be surprised at what can occur from just accidental mixing of particles.

        Hmm, no, my surprise is that someone is posting a random shop safety anecdote, without replying to the actual point — “layered”, ?

        “The chips are bi-layered, red on one side, gray on the other”

        • Anonymous says:

          “The chips are bi-layered, red on one side, gray on the other”

          That appears to not have been exactly the case.

          http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf

          —–
          Instead, dozens of chips showing the same red aspect on both faces, aspect and chemical composition difficult to distinguish from the one found in the red layer of the red/gray chips.
          —–

          Sounds pretty random actually. Rather than a suspicious uniformity of red-gray appearing across a common group of samples, they found just a few red-gray ones and many more red-red ones. The clincher from the same piece:

          —–
          Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed.
          —–

          While I’m hardly an expert on the technical matters here, it does seem plausible to think that such random variations probably reflect the byproduct of materials which formed out of the aluminum and iron rust which was within the structure of the building itself and was compressed together with enormous force. The suggestion which truthers make that these alleged nanothermite samples were so uniformly alike as to suggest a common industrial manufacturer is not upheld by the data.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Would PNAC really be so stupid as to publish a statement of purpose like “absent some galvanizing event like a new Pearl Harbor.”

    Oh…wait.

  36. justanotherusername says:

    A list of everything that’s suspicious about the official 9/11 story would probably contain into the hundreds of items.
    One example off the top of my head: there are DOZENS of people on video at the scene at the time saying they heard a series of bombs go off.

    But if you don’t believe the official story, you are supposed to be a wacko conspiracy theorist.

    Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

  37. danlalan says:

    Seems the ocean is about to do something horrible. Maybe the world can deny conspiracy there as well.

    The ocean is in on it?

    Holy moly. Something is beginning to worry me, but it isn’t a global conspiracy.

  38. Inkstain says:

    @nathanmaas false equivalence and splitting the difference between any two sides is not wisdom. Sometimes, one side is just right.

  39. darue says:

    of great, the standard Coincidence Theorist has spoken…

    Goldwag’s dismissal of serious questions around 9/11 is standard, by-the-book garbage. As usual he mentions the more loony stuff and completely avoids the facts that clearly show that the “official explanation” is bull.

    There are two types of “9/11 truth” out there though, there’s the non-sense designed to discredit (pushed by professional disinfo artists and the mildly deranged) and then there’s the really serious facts pointing to some kind of real truth beyond the official lies. No credible researcher claims to know the truth – yet.

    I have neither the time nor interest to go through this whole comments section responding to all the arrogant dickery on display. Rest assured there are more facts out there than should be necessary to convince any non-biased thinker than a real new investigation is needed.

    All of you arrogant defenders of orthodoxy need to consider – 20 years ago you would have been just as SURE that the US was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin – and you’d have been just as wrong as you are today. but hey – you think you know better, fine, sleep easy.

  40. Anonymous says:

    PS – Wouldn’t your time be better spent leaving aside “timelines of the NWO” e-mailed by well-meaning friends and instead exploring the largest collection of verifiable facts and sourced claims about the September 11th events on the Web, the evolving timeline and archive of thousands of MSM articles and government documents edited by Paul Thompson and his cohorts at historycommons.org? The issues raised in that collection are far from resolved, or for the most part even addressed.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Something happened. We know that much. Several buildings and a farm are gone and one building was damaged. It may not be exactly the way that we heard, but the general idea of “Islamic terrorists hijacked planes and made them hit targets” is pretty much correct.

    The Bush administration was slow and ineffective in responding to the story, and may have subverted it for its own use building a war in Iraq but to think that it was entirely directed by U.S. government officials who wanted those 3,000 citizens who did nothing but go to the airport or work that day to die is unfounded.

    Several questions remain:
    Why couldn’t Bush have quietly excused himself from that classroom and done his job?

    Why would Bush request a committee to investigate 9/11 and be so eager to hear their findings then disagree with the angle that “al Qaeda terrorists redirected the planes and made them crash,”?

    How do Dick Cheney’s ties to Halliburton and oil companies factor in to this?

    Occam’s Razor is the best idea here. It’s a lot easier to imagine a few religious zealots overtaking 4 planes and blowing them up for their own purposes than to say that the most powerful government in the world, the largest military in the world, three separate cities and states, three privately owned airlines, airports, security companies, firefighters, police officers, structural engineers and the entire American media got into a plot to kill civilians.

    SIMPLEST ANSWER IS USUALLY THE CORRECT ONE!

    • Anonymous says:

      “Why couldn’t Bush have quietly excused himself from that classroom and done his job?”

      While I hated Bush from day one when he took office, on this point he does have a valid explanation. The Secret Service would not have allowed him to go anywhere until they were confident that they had secured a route. It would have been natural for them to assume on that morning that some type of assassination attempt on the President might be made and that as long as they felt they had the area around the school secured that simply keeping him there would be the best thing. Attempting to rapidly whisk him off somewhere would have run the risk of running into an ambush somewhere and so they were perfectly justified not to attempt anything in a rush.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Homeland Security Advisory Council ~ “we got started late; we had a very short time frame… we did not have enough money… We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. … So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail”

  43. rastronomicals says:

    Mojave: How is it again that the existence of PNAC proves the Bush conspiracy? Again, no-one is trying to claim that the PNAC-influenced Bush administration weren’t opportunists.

    MarkM: I think that there is definitely a far-left component to the Truther movement, multiculturalists who find it easier to blame the neocons for the horror than those who, for example, might agree with their own views on the Palestinian thing.

    It certainly is a weird alliance they make.

  44. Anonymous says:

    well, I think a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are either crackpots or folks with a hidden agenda themselves, but you’d have to be an idiot not to think that there are definitely some weird things about the attack. here’s a question, and please answer honestly: how many of you knew that the 9/11 attack came 10 years to the day after Bush Sr.’s “New World Order” speech (9/11/1991)? There are a lot of people out there (and not just lunatics) who think the 9/11 attack was not directed against Americans per se, but against our government and the (in many ways) repressive police state that it has become, as if it were a Matrix-y attempted wake up call, to shock us into actually seeing our geo-political environment for what it is: incredibly repressive and unjust to the vast majority of citizens (of our country, and also the world). Yeah, if you’ve got weath (or at least money) and the entitlement that comes of a good education in this country, things are probably great for you. but if not, if you come from a lower income environment, or a minority group, or are a member of the purposely “under the radar” substrata (crime-ridden, drug-addicted, dangerous-environment-living) then you are fair game for the police to pull over for any one of the minor excuses they have now to do so. When there are so many laws, and they are so…open to interpretation, it’s a license for the police force to do pretty much anything it wants. Watch “Cops” sometime, and don’t just watch it but SEE it. Typical episode: cop pulls someone over, tells them “DON’T MOVE!! HANDS ON THE STEERING WHEEL!!” and then when the person either doesn’t move (thus non-complying with command number 2) or puts his/her hands on the steering wheel (thus non-complying with command number 1) he/she finds himself/herself (that’s right) resisting arrest. I’m sure the Nazis did the same shit to the Jews during WWII, fucking with the Jews on their way to the concentration camps. Pretty much a variation of “What’s your dirt doing in my hole, boy?” Another favorite of mine is when a cop on the show grabs someone, and the detained person instinctually pulls away, and then get nabbed for resisting arrest. The key word here is INSTINCT. It’s like Judo. When you grab someone and pull them toward you, they almost without exception pull away from you. It’s not something that can be initially prevented, usually. An evolutionary thing, maybe. try it on a friend & see what happens. But cops do it to arrestees (or detainees) all the time, and boom, a resisting arrest charge materializes, validating the initial stop. That pretty much sums up the situation for some of us here in the good ‘ol U.S. of A. And elsewhere. Resistance, non-compliance, used to be what America was all about (or something it was about, at least): the whole “Don’t Tread on Me” bit. Now it’s turned into “Please Tread on Me, Sir”. We’ve learned to love the rope. And it’s sickening. Bear in mind: one reason for responses terrorist in nature comes from a feeling of helplessness, the inability to have an control over one’s autonomy and environment, on the part of the terrorist. The US is all about control: new weapons of “compliance”: sound, light, cameras, tazer, gas abound. It’s all about COMPLIANCE. Don’t fault some citizens (world or otherwise) for having a normal, evolutionary desire for self-preservation; a desire for autonomy and self-worth in the face of the American goverment’s steamroller of conformity and it’s agenda of “baby-proofing” practically everything “for” us (though actually for THEM, right?)

    A word to the wise guy.

    • Anonymous says:

      “how many of you knew that the 9/11 attack came 10 years to the day after Bush Sr.’s “New World Order” speech (9/11/1991)?”

      Why should this imply anything specifically? Assuming that this was a deliberate coincidence and not a mere accident, do you think Arabs are incapable of noting dates just as well as you can? Maybe Arabs planning attacks decided that arranging the attack to fall on the tenth anniversary of Bush’s speech would be a good idea as a way of marking the downfall of the US. Such dates do not need to be arranged by the Illuminati or whoever in order to be deliberate. This is still consistent with the idea of an Arab attack carried out as blowback for US intervention in the Middle East.

    • Arthur Goldwag says:

      It’s also the anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre in Utah and the Allende coup in Chile. The first World Parliament of Religions took place on that date too; and it’s the date the Camp David Accords were signed. Millions of people celebrate their birthdays and wedding anniversaries on 9/11 too.

  45. Taidgh1941 says:

    Saturday, August 16, 2008
    Global Peace
    While covering the elections back in 2004. Several people approached me with their stories. Being a photographer at the time I captured the moment with the expressions of the People. Looking at main media these stories never made it to the pages of print media. My natural curiosity lead me down a pathway that is rarely covered if at all. To get the ball rolling I’ll post the shots I captured of WE the People. The ordinary folks willing to step forward and speak their piece. Keep your eyes on this site . Spread the word. WE have a stronger chance to be part of a major change that is NOW unfolding. LOVE & PEACE Taidgh1941

  46. Anonymous says:

    The venom directed at Truthers is revealing in it’s own way. It suggests a desire for a degree of rationality in human behavior and politics that exists only in our idealized internal visions of the world–which we try vainly to recreate virtually online. So, they play out a certain kind of predictable narrative which plays out roughly: I will not allow you to despoil my hermetically sealed innerverse.

    What’s interesting about the paranoia surrounding 9/11 is that it is well-founded. That Muslim extremists hijacked airplanes and knocked down what we took for bedrock American structures doesn’t even begin to explain things or the myriad coincidences on that fateful day. Perhaps only mythology can. We are quite literally powerless, politically and emotionally, before the forces that shape and control the boundaries of our lives and the Bush years had a way of making this fact uncannily demonstrable. Simply watching Bush misunderestimate his job, daily was enough proof–who made this guy president anyway was a question both vexing and non-rhetorical.

    The superstructure of deceit and shadowy connections probably has a structure unknown to even its participants. The figures represented in a Mark Lombardi drawing probably know less about their relation in toto than the viewer observing the piece. So, the 9/11 Truthers are correct, even if only metaphorically, which I don’t think is as insignificant as it sounds.

  47. Anonymous says:

    “I would need an explanation for the nano thermite found in the dust”

    It would go something like this. Thermite appears to be typically composed of iron rust and aluminum. There was plenty of each at the World Trade Center. What distinguishes nanothermite from plain thermite is that the particles are much smaller, having been broken down much further. A nanoparticle has a diameter of between one billionth to ten millionths of a meter. So because things are more fully broken down the mixture between aluminum and iron rust can occur at a more intense level. So it reduces to a debate over whether or not the crushing impacts of the collapses coud be expected to cause a sufficient breakdown in the composition materials to give us some nanoparticles. Devastating collapse impacts cause major decompositions of structural maerials into nanoparticles; significant presence of aluminum and iron rust in the builings leads to the formation of nanothermite. While it’s worth keeping an eye on any further scientific debates which may occur around this issue, it doesn’t sound promising for proving the controlled demolition thesis about the World Trade Center.

  48. Taidgh1941 says:

    Friday, August 29, 2008
    Fresh Leadership is on the way
    My grandson was born March 31, 2008 he is the seventh generation of Nolan’s in America, the sixth here in Minneapolis. What have we given him to look forward too. Health Care that is primarily for profit. Education that has failing marks when only 60% of students finish high school. Gas prices at a all time high and still climbing. Food costs soaring. The elephants will be here in Minnesota this September. A three ring circus of ADO (A)cquire (D)ownsize (O)utsource. Sad but true it is going to be a repeat of the anti war protest in Chicago in 1968. We as a nation have been living in another state of FEAR. JFK’s assassination and 9/11 have a interesting parallel. The behind scenes power that is working to destroy WE as a country and a nation that I have always loved . Embarrassed at times to admit I’m American. The prayer of St. Francis is one that I keep praying. I too am in favor of moving forward. We can stand still forming an analysis paralysis. Let’s promote DFL back to a (d)emocracy (f)resh (l)eadership. Tell it to our neighbors spread the word HOPE is insight. Taidgh1941 August 29 ,2008

  49. Arthur Goldwag says:

    “I am relieved to see such calm and level-headed discussion from many on this board as the comments on these kinds of post on any blog/site almost always deteriorate into useless name calling and complete misinformation.”

    Amen, Teapot! For the most part, you are an admirably civil, knowledgeable, level-headed bunch. I’ve learned a lot from you in the last two days.

    Not to single you out Darue, but yours is the newest comment on the board–twenty years ago, I was quite certain that the Tonkin Gulf incident was a fraud. And I was and am against the wars that followed 9/11. I hope I am not a defender of “Orthodoxy”; I do consider myself a defender of “Reason.” They are not always the same thing.

    Tomorrow I’m going to post about a couple of cults that I only found out about recently–one in Uganda, one in New Zealand.

    See you soon!

    • darue says:

      20 years ago you were certain – and yet you had no proof.

      Many of the commenters here would have called you a “conspiracy theorist” – unfortunately they don’t seem to understand what a conspiracy is or realize that history is full of what could be called conspiracies.

      the only serious problem I have with your post is the conflation of 9.11 “truthers” as some kind of monolithic body. You’ve now got folks here who’ve obviously never looked deeply into it, trashing screwy ideas that serious researchers rejected as a theory long long ago. Most of these ridiculous theories about holograms and missiles et cetera are bunk and no-one doubts that. Most researchers are not pursuing pet theories like that at all.

      As for the Occam stuff – that is a valid rhetorical point, surely good for persuasion, but actually explaining complex events in detail… it just doesn’t have any bearing.

      anyway – looking forward to what’s next… cults eh? brown skinned cults from far corners of the world? huh. How about that. How about you focus on the Cult of War that runs this country? You could start with “The Family” in DC…

      ahh, heck.. but hey I don’t mean to be so hard on you, good luck with the book and happy guest blogging. :)

  50. Pavlovian Dogcatcher says:

    …Arthur Goldwag even directly addressed the WTC7 collapse…

    Me made some vague comments about it, after denying the fact of free fall in his article, and then linked to an article which doesn’t acknowledge the free fall either. So I pointed out the fact that WTC7 did undergo a period of free fall acceleration, and rather than address the logical implications of that, he went off on a rant about bigots in the truth movement to slander it as a whole, as if there isn’t a mass of bigots who defend the official conspiracy theory. Granted, one can’t acknowledge WTC7′s period of free fall and defend the official story while remaining consistent with the laws of physics, and of course the logical implications of the official story being so flagrantly false is a painful reality to accept. So, I do understand why so many of you are adverse to directly addressing such facts, and compulsively resort to misdirection instead.

    …no truther bothered to respond directly to any of the pretty simple and reasonable questions they were asked…

    I want answers to those questions too, but it will take a proper investigation with subpoena power and full access to the evidence held buy our government to answer them. At this point we only have enough public evidence to prove the official story false in various ways, the WTC7′s period of free fall acceleration being the most notable example of this. Please take the time to come to terms with that proof rather than making excuses to ignore it and mocking those of us who don’t.

    • Brainspore says:

      Dogcatcher responded to:

      …no truther bothered to respond directly to any of the pretty simple and reasonable questions they were asked…

      With this statement:

      I want answers to those questions too, but it will take a proper investigation with subpoena power and full access to the evidence held buy our government to answer them.

      So you need subpoena powers to answer the question “can you think of any evidence that would convince you that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by terrorist with airplanes and not government agents with explosives?”

      I don’t actually expect the Truthers to provide honest answer to this question, but I keep asking it because it demonstrates the problem of arguing against a non-falsifiable theory.

      • Tony Lambregts says:

        Brainspore says: “can you think of any evidence that would convince you that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by terrorist with airplanes and not government agents with explosives?”

        I don’t know who was responsible for the destruction of the twin towers and building seven. I do know that any theory would have to explain at least the following:

        I would need an explanation for the nano thermite found in the dust, an explanation that conforms to the laws of physics that explains the building 7′s free fall descent and the squibs that occur 10 – 40 floors below the destruction waves of the Twin Towers. I would need an explanation of the micospheres of iron in the dust and the “swiss cheese” steel that exibited signs of intergranular melting from building 7.

        • Brainspore says:

          Tony: your premises (thermite residue, violating laws of physics, free fall, etc.) have already been thoroughly refuted by a number of experts, the vast majority of whom are not in the government employ. So I suppose the follow-up question is “what would make you reconsider those premises?”

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Yeah, but who could resist throwing around terms like nano-thermite?

          • Tony Lambregts says:

            Brainspore scribed: “your premises (thermite residue, violating laws of physics, free fall, etc.) have already been thoroughly refuted by a number of experts, the vast majority of whom are not in the government employ. So I suppose the follow-up question is “what would make you reconsider those premises?”

            You say these premises have been refuted. I would like to know where these refutations are. As far as am know building 7 underwent free fall for at least 2.25 seconds. Are you disputing that? Are you disputing that iron microspheres were found in the dust? Are you disputing that squibs occurred 10 to 40 stories below the wave of destruction of the Twin Towers.Tell me what is refuted about the swiss chess steel found at WTC 7?

            http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

            I did not start out disbelieving. The destruction of the Twin Towers was an unprecedented event that warranted a full forensic investigation. We have lots of examples of how to conduct the kind of investigation I expected ie: homicide’s, plane crashes and the space shuttle disasters. One of the key elements of these investigations is examining retaining the physical evidence. The fact that so much of the steel was not retained (over 90%) and none of the steel from the impact areas was retained is atrocious. You might be OK with this but I am not.

          • Brainspore says:

            You say these premises have been refuted. I would like to know where these refutations are.

            I suspect that you already know where many of these refutations are and choose to dismiss them, but just in case you’re serious here’s one good place to start:

            http://www.debunking911.com/

  51. rorschachian says:

    Why, oh why, can people not see the simple middle path here? The Bush Administration didn’t do it, didn’t help it… but they let it happen. They could have stopped it, but stepped aside and let things go.

    All the additional bomb BS and hidden planes, fake passengers, blah blah is all ridiculously overcomplicated. Smashing a huge fully fueled plane into a building will topple it quite well. To the point, it disguises and aids the Bush Administration in hiding what really happened – they knew Bin Laden was going to attack and they let it happen for the blank check they would then be given.

    Read “Against All Enemies” by Richard Clarke for an inside account of the bizarre Bush White House priorities for national security; research the bizarre military exercises scheduled for the day, the clearly ignored and plainly obvious briefings given to the executive (wide knowledge), and the weird disconnect between the executive branches on vital national security information (wide knowledge).

    No one wants to believe even Bush or Cheney would allow such a thing to happen – but if they were willing to lie to start an illegal war, isn’t it pretty plausible they could know about 9/11 and not stop it?

    The famous saying goes “Don’t attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.” It is certainly possible 9/11 happened due to the incompetence of the Bush Administration, no one could deny that. But some hard questions about why the government so spectacularly dropped the ball that have never been asked *really* need to be asked – beyond those asked by the 9/11 Commission (who I think meant well but were given no resources to truly do their job).

    • VagabondAstronomer says:

      @rorschachian…
      Now THAT I’d believe.

    • Brainspore says:

      @Rorschachian: I don’t buy that 9/11 theory either but I find it refreshing to hear one that wouldn’t require tens of thousands of co-conspirators to pull off successfully.

      @Daniel Edd Bland III: Same question I keep asking the other Truthers and never get an answer to. Can you think of any evidence that would convince you that 9/11 was perpetrated by airplane-hijacking terrorists and not government agents with explosives? If not, isn’t that proof that you are letting your conclusion shape your facts and not the other way around?

  52. Pavlovian Dogcatcher says:

    In that case you’ve just been using a whole lot of words to say “my argument is unfalsifiable.”

    Rather, I’ve been concisely explaining the facts which irrefutably prove the official story false, and responding to those who are ignoring those facts.

    The Mythbusters could commission a full-size replica of the WTC and destroy it with a couple of jetliners…

    No, they couldn’t, and neither can anyone else. Not with a full-sized replica, any scale model, or a computer simulation which adheres to the laws of physics. What you insist could happen is physically impossible, just like the idea that a man could fly just by flapping his arms, and just like the idea of a man delivering presents across the globe in a reindeer driven sleigh. You can insist on clinging to such positions of faith in spite of the facts which contradict them as long as you like, but you aren’t going to get anywhere trying to convince me to do the same.

    • Brainspore says:

      One more time: whether or not a statement is believed to be POSSIBLE has no bearing on whether or not it is FALSIFIABLE.

      Example statement: “It is impossible for a human to eat the sun.”
      Example falsification: The previous statement would be disproved if someone ate the sun.

      Get it??

  53. Keith says:

    The truthers are more libertarian or republican-leaning. The explanation for which I’m still trying to understand.

    Libertarians and Republicans hate the government, therefore, the government did it. If they hated Jews, it would be a Zionist conspiracy. If they hated vegans, it’d be a vegan conspiracy. If you already have a hate on for one particular group or institution and you’re confronted with a conspiracy theory that needs a scapegoat, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

    If something bad happens and it’s caused by a member of their in-group, you’ll quickly learn to your surprise that that person was infact a crypto-jew or crypto-socialist or crypto-whatever they hate. Since conspiracies run on vapor-logic anyway, why not have it be self-reinforcing? Cuts down on the cognitive dissonance.

    It isn’t just conspiracy theorists who do this. See: FoxNews and their habit of identifying every Republican caught doing something naughty as a Democrat. Our gut reaction is to blame everything bad on Them, for whatever value of Them is to us.

  54. nathanmaas says:

    @Inkstain,

    I did not claim it to be wisdom. I believe that in the “end”, one side WILL be right. A wise person will be able to choose that side, supposedly. Perhaps that side does not exist yet? Perhaps it is one of the arguments already made.

    Does true wisdom make its mind up quickly with questions unanswered by existing evidence?

    My post was not to answer, but to illustrate that one should not be so bent on answering. Do not go into a debate with an “us against them” mentality. In fact, splitting the debate into two groups is inaccurate to begin with.

    • Brainspore says:

      I believe that in the “end”, one side WILL be right.

      If the two sides are “the government did it” versus “no they didn’t” then one side is ALREADY right and has been from day one.

  55. Inkstain says:

    “It kinda plays into their whole “sheeple” fantasies, that they are somehow in the know and everyone else is just ignorant and beneath them.”

    Without that very human emotion, we’d have no conspiracy theorists.

  56. Pavlovian Dogcatcher says:

    Bah, that was intended to start with “He” rather than “Me”, please pardon my dyslexia.

  57. jasonrobot says:

    I don’t understand the focus on the so-called precision of the collapses as part of The Truther’s proof. If someone is okay with destroying the The World Trade Center and killing thousands, why would they care about professionally pancaking the buildings? They wouldn’t. I’d think having them fall sideways would be way more dramatic and damaging.

  58. Anonymous says:

    Quoting: “The famous saying goes “Don’t attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.””

    This isn’t true. Sometimes people who operate with malice will try to make like they are incompetent. They go “oops” so no one blames them. Should their actions be attributed to incompetence because their actions CAN be explained by incompetence?

    I guess so, unless your hard and fast rule to explain malice away isn’t the truth of things. Sometimes there is malice and sometimes it poses as incompetence.

  59. belgium says:

    @Mojave

    I found this in five minutes, its not concrete, and the guy understandably asks not to be named, but I’m not inclined to spend any more time on this – but I’m happy to take this as an example that similar statements exist.

    “Reached by NEWSWEEK, one relative of Ziad Jarrah, the hijacker believed to have piloted Flight 93 into a Pennsylvania field, expressed just this kind of ambivalence. “Of course we want to get back his remains, but we are not planning to make any contact before things get clarified,” said the relative, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. He couldn’t bring himself to admit that Jarrah had carried out the atrocities. “Maybe he participated,” he says. “Maybe there is something we don’t know.” But then he paused. Perhaps, he conceded, his relative was indeed involved and he himself was just “engaging in wishful thinking.””

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724/page/4

  60. anansi133 says:

    If you’re a guy, and you’re walking down the street and someone kicks you in the balls, How likely is it that you’re going to want to know who they are or why they did it? Most guys are going to want to chase that person down and kick them in the balls (or the equivalent) once they’ve picked themselves up.

    Just like everyone else in this place, I got kicked in the balls that day. I don’t think it’s unpatriotic, though, to want to ask harder questions about cell phone calls from 30,000 feet, the collapse of building 7, the absence of plane wreckage or video footage from the pentagon explosion… any number of inconsistencies in the story.

    It’s a *huge* leap, though, from saying, “this looks fishy, I don’t understand it and I’m suspicious of it”, to saying, “I know the real story, here’s who really did it and why.”

    There are plenty of people in the first group who don’t like being lumped in with members of the second group, than you very much.

    It’s that magic bullet all over again. You have to be able to believe that some truly evil people have made it to the top before such wacky questions can even be asked. I don’t blame people for not wanting to believe they’re being lied to: once you start, where does it end?

    One truth remains: ad hominim attacks do nothing for one’s credibility.

    • failix says:

      “I don’t think it’s unpatriotic, though, to want to ask harder questions”

      Nobody cares if you’re patriotic or not.

      “…about cell phone calls from 30,000 feet…”

      “While not exactly reliable, cell-phone calls from airplanes were possible in 2001-even from extremely high altitudes. “Because cell sites have a range of several miles, even at 35,000 feet, that’s entirely possible,” says Rick Kemper, director of technology and security at the CTIA-The Wireless Association. “It’s not a very good connection, and it changes a lot, and you end up getting a lot of dropped calls because you’re moving through cell sites so fast.”

      “…the collapse of building 7…”

      See Arthur Goldwags response to this.

      “the absence of plane wreckage or video footage from the pentagon explosion”

      I have no idea why you’re saying this. There actually is video footage of the pentagon explosion, and there are pictures of plane wreckages.

  61. Keith says:

    Part of the reason I try to avoid getting into arguments with them is because I don’t want to seem to be impugning their intelligence or their characters.

    Why? Clearly both their intelligence and their characters are flawed. I have a soft spot for crackpots as well, but I don’t for a minute take them seriously. Pulling intellectual punches for fear of offending their clearly warped sensibilities strikes me as being squishy soft on kranks. Maybe 8 years of putting up with truthers, wingnuts and now birthers has left me a bit short tempered. Their worldview is demonstrably false and harmful, and sparing their feelings is just something I have no time for.

  62. hail_diskordia says:

    The best thing about the entire movement is that it has managed to suck in not only knuckle-dragging troglodytes that don’t actually know what they’re saying, but also very intelligent people, some of whom I used to respect intellectually. The main thrust of all this has very little to do with any actual, substantive “truth”, and a lot to do with political agenda. I don’t know what makes people think it’s primarily a Republican conspiracy; if anything, I’ve found the opposite to be true, and that the very idea of 9/11 conspiracy seems directly tied to a hatred of the Bush Administration rather than the quasi-science and odd coincidence (or synchronicity, if you prefer). I think people are desperate to find a bad guy to pin it on, and apparently the hijackers are too easy a group of targets, so, naturally, it follows that our ponderous, uncoordinated behemoth of a bureaucracy, with its press leaks and political wrangling, formulated an elaborate plan that somehow never sprung a credible leak and went off without a hitch. Unlike anything else it ever does. Ever. Somehow that’s logical to people, and it’s funnier than it is infuriating; it proves to me that, in this age of technology and constant stimulation, people still have *wonderful* imaginations and can spin the most elaborate tales out of thin air and concrete dust, regardless of whether they make any sense whatsoever or not. It’s genuinely heartening; I was beginning to think all the whimsy and make-believe had gone out of daily life, yet there it is- it was just lying in wait. There’s a market for these kinds of ideas and conspiracies, but surely they should be the same crowd John Hodgman markets books to.

  63. Gendun says:

    Good god, this is a topic I could very much do without on Boingboing.

  64. tongodeon says:

    There are (at least) three distinct 9/11 conspiracies.

    The first is that a group of mostly Saudis conspired in Afghanistan to destroy the World Trade Center and Pentagon with hijacked airliners. There is substantial, convincing evidence to support this conspiracy theory.

    The second is that the Bush white house ineptly responded to the reports of impending attacks and then conspired to “lie to us, repeatedly and brazenly … cynically exploiting the attacks to promote a war”. There appears to be substantial, convincing evidence of this as well.

    Then there’s a third theory – that the first theory and the second theory had something to do with each other. All “evidence” that I’ve seen here is ambiguous and/or highly speculative, to be charitable.

    What’s frustrating about proponents of the third conspiracy theory is that, when challenged, they frequently attempt to prove the first or second conspiracy theory. Yes, the Bush administration turned the attacks to their own purposes which makes them opportunists, not conspirators.

    • Daniel Edd Bland III says:

      Cheney was involved in carrying out the attacks, and George W. Bush was watching the operation on closed circuit television from his limo before entering the school. They are not the bosses of this international conspiracy. It’s all about Global Governance, their New World Order. These guys do not swear allegiance to a single country…..the think bigger than that. They want the entire world under their control, only after they finish significantly reducing the population first. Here is a time-line of the last 100 years.

      Please take a fresh look into the evidence. Then demand TRUTH!

      Daniel Edd Bland III

      • Daniel Edd Bland III says:

        Moderator: Why was the YouTube link showing Bush admitting to watching the first plane hit the first tower before he entered the classroom erased? Please explain. Definitely nothing anti-semitic there. Thanks!

        Daniel Edd Bland III

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, but no. A key element on which all truthers will agree: the buildings were brought down by demolition. (There is no part of the “official story” that even comes close to acknowledging that).

      In fact, there are simply two camps:

      1. Those who believe that the planes and the resulting fire were 100% responsible for the collapse of the three trade towers.

      2. Those who recognize that all three were demolished with preplanned explosives.

      Don’t make it more complicated that it is ;)

      Cheers,

      S

  65. Anonymous says:

    “WTC7 did undergo a period of free fall acceleration”

    To the extent that this has any validity, it refers at most to a restricted portion of time well after the global collapse had been underway. The full collapse time of WTC 7 according to seismic readings was 18 seconds:

    http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002/0121_terrorist.html

    Film clips allow one to detect about 17 seconds of this collapse-time:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw

    If you’re going to try to zero in on a very select portion of the collapse in its later stages then it becomes chaotic and unpredictable. The most one could reliably say is that the collapse should take longer than the 6.5 seconds which some truthers have wrongly ascribed to it, and it indeed it does take longer. Once the collapse has been in process for about half of its overall collapse-time then you have to anticipate that the entire structure may be undermined in ways which lead to unpredictable outcomes in the last stages of the collapse. That’s why this argument is not valid.

  66. funkadelic73 says:

    Our president at the time nearly choked to death on a pretzel. You think he can cover up a plot like this?

    Now, if you want to talk about how the moon landing was fake, I’m all ears!

  67. Anonymous says:

    Anyway, 10:30, the other night, I go out in my yard, and there’s
    the Wurster kid, looking up in the tree. I say, “What are
    you looking for?” He says “I’m looking for my burrow owl.”
    I say, “Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick. Everybody knows
    the burrow owl lives. In a hole. In the ground. Why the hell do you
    think they call it a burrow owl, anyway?” Now Stuart, do you
    think a kid like that is going to know what the queers are
    doing to the soil?

  68. Anonymous says:

    Here you go Mojave….sounds like Mohamed Atta’s family is a Truther…his theories sound about as sound.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usa

  69. demidan says:

    My youngest brother is a “Truther” drives me nuts, I have explained that if it was a controlled demo the public might have noticed the at least six months worth of work it would have taken to remove the dry wall.or how the windows would be blown out of the lower floors because of pressure caused by the collapse. All to no avail, the months he spent in combat in Iraq shipping batteries and garbage back and forth (and killing many people) have left him a bit vulnerable to this kind of hooey.

  70. 2k says:

    If only it were possible to stay impartial on a subject whilst perplexedly being stonewalled for vital information that could help you come to a rational and balanced decision.

    pff.

  71. dequeued says:

    Ah, the truthers.
    Do they still think George Bush did 9/11?

    Take one part self-rightious douchieness that would make creationist blush, and add subtle dishonesty of Holocaust deniers, and you have the typical 9/11 truther.

    This is how to deal with truthers:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shCNVZ31–0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9iGeRsHuyA&feature=related

    See more:
    http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Truther

    You’re welcome.

  72. darue says:

    Daniel, you’re tripping really hard on this stuff right now, take it easy :) It’s all one stiff cold drink of WTF, that’s for sure. You’re getting caught up too much in one single explanatory framework that isn’t fully supportable. Remember it’s entirely possible that this all went down in a way that left no available “proof” (whatever that would even be) to find. Know that lots of people have been working this problem for a long time now, that there must be counter forces out there in play or end-game would have already come and gone long ago. heck, maybe it did. Dealing with the consequences has to be the priority, finding the final complete truth of the origins of 911 may never happen, but there’s already lots of details out there that are nice to be aware of ;)

    as for the folks who think bush admin was a failure… ha. I wish I could fail that well just once. They succeeded in making the changes they wanted to, doing the deals they wanted to… Obama hasn’t done shit to restore constitutionality or hold anyone accountable for anything. bush won and he’s still winning. Change that.

  73. scifijazznik says:

    I came here to say pretty much what Keith said, except he said it more gooder.

    Bland III (great band name) may be sincere and well-intentioned, but he’s also willfully ignorant. Though the taint may rub off on me, I align myself with Bill Maher who said the reason he knows 9/11 wasn’t a conspiracy pulled off by the Bush administration comes down to one thing: it worked.

  74. Axx says:

    This thing goes all the way to the TOP, man. THE TOP!

  75. Honour says:

    Folks:
    My brother is a volunteer fireman.
    He was on the roof of the Pentagon on 9/11.
    He says there was a crashed plane.
    _His boot soles melted and stuck to pieces of a crashed plane._
    …In case you think he could somehow have been too pig-ignorant to know the difference between a plane and a missile:
    1: He was a Smokejumper.
    2: Before that, he was in the US Air Force in Vietnam.
    He’s seen hundreds of different planes, and dozens of different missiles. He knows which is which.
    – and he and I _both_ are Conscientious Objectors with no love for Gov’t shenanigans by any or all parties, so don’t bother claiming we’re part of the cover-up.

  76. nathanmaas says:

    @Brainspore,

    Please read the sentences after the one you quoted and I believe it will answer your question.

  77. belgium says:

    I thought all of this crap was past us, but then recently I was forced by a friend to watch the ‘documentary’ Zeitgest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist,_the_Movie).

    I tried to explain to him why it was all wrong (especially the 9/11 part) and was attacked for being ‘close-minded’ and ‘snobbish’ because I wouldn’t accept an uncredited web distributed documentary over scientific evidence.

    I’ve added this post to my favourites in case the topic comes up again (though he wouldn’t even read the Wikipedia page – which thoroughly debunks the film – so who knows).

    It pains me the way people are so happy to embrace conspiracy theories / pseudoscience over scientific fact.

  78. tomservojr says:

    @coaxial

    That’s not exactly what was said – the claim was that Truthers tend to be libertarian- and republican-leaning (in other words, people who generally aren’t crazy about government). In my experience, that’s true.

    I’m not sure what “crazy hippies” even means, although I’ve also found that Truthers tend to spend a lot of time getting high and watching YouTube conspiracy videos, so you may be on to something there.

  79. danlalan says:

    Option 1) At least 10,000 peoeple have conspired to give the American people the mistaken notion that Muslim extremists flew airplanes into buildings by flying airplanes into the WTC and rigging the buildings with explosives so that an hour after a fuel laden airplane crashes into the building and burns, demolition charges can be set off causing the towers to pancake down from the top, and then later having WTC7 demolished with explosives from the bottom up. The same conspiracy attacks the pentagon with a cruise missile cleverly disguised as an airliner. (rearrange the details as you see fit)

    Option 2) Muslim extremists actually did fly airplanes into the pentagon and WTC which then collapsed as a result producing a chaotic situation out of which some seemingly out of place information is produced, and you or the people you are listening to don’t understand the physics of building demolition nearly as well as you think you or they do.

    hmmm, which to choose…

    • idjt says:

      The idea of 10k people all having the same info doesn’t really make sense though, its sort of like saying the entire navy knows what the SEAL team is doing? Compartmentalization of info, ?

      But ok, let’s assume the entire thing was up front, nothing arranged beforehand. Why were any gag orders issued, then? Does the replacement of Popular Mechanics staff before their 911 article came out, have anything to do with that? Or Kevin Ryan being fired from UL, earlier?

      Another interesting math sort of question, the videos show collapse a few seconds short of free fall speeds. But, how does large amounts of concrete turn to dust, just from falling x number of floors?

      What caused bone fragments to end up on other roofs? Lots of pics showing steel beams in midair as the collapse starts; should those be bent at all, if they were snapped and sent flying by the weight of floors above them?

      Basic question there is, does the video evidence demonstrate any excess energy, above potential being turned into kinetic.

      Sort of surprised the Charlie Sheen questions haven’t been mentioned but, whole other topic there maybe.

  80. cognitive dissonance says:

    the towers were self destructed, and a missile hit the pentagon that was fired from the grassy knoll where the naval surgeons haphazardly dealt with the autopsy while the flight 91 took off from denver airport which has obviously is the headquarters from the new world order and is where they filmed the moon landings and keep the roswell aliens from the bildeberg group and the coconut grove crowd consisting of yale alumni that belong to the skulls & bones, and free masons eating off of nazi state china while swearing an oath on the head of geronimo and practicing human sacrifices and devising the next great disease to engineer to eradicate the homosexual population in the us. obviously.

    • Anonymous says:

      To: cognitive dissonance – Oh My! You use words like daggers! Slice and Dice! I disagree 100% with your stance but I would love to read more of your writings.

      Also, I think you meant Bohemian Grove instead of Coconut grove, where they worship the 40′ statue of an owl who is said to be the same demon Molach who is spoken of in the Bible.

      Recently this demon has been misrepresented as Lilith, but it is not her.

      • cognitive dissonance says:

        hahaha, it is bohemian grove isn’t it? i was on a roll and didn’t bother looking anything up, which i felt fit into my whole conspiracy theory spiel.

  81. travtastic says:

    These articles are just endlessly frustrating. I have some questions about all the gaping holes in the 9/11 story, so I’m a Truther? The tone is honestly insulting, like we’re talking about Creationists or Flat Earth Theorists.

    Is every person who didn’t vote Obama a teabagger?

    No.

    Am I a Truther because I don’t believe the official line?

    No.

    I’m an edcuated, concerned citizen, and I just want some believable answers. That’s it. Why don’t we just have a simple, rational conversation on the subject? Get it out of the way, over with, and move on?

    • Brainspore says:

      I’m an edcuated, concerned citizen, and I just want some believable answers. That’s it. Why don’t we just have a simple, rational conversation on the subject? Get it out of the way, over with, and move on?

      We had the rational conversation eight years ago, sorry you missed it.

      Seriously, same question I asked Mojave: can you think of any evidence that would convince you that 9/11 went down more or less the way that the official account says it did? I don’t mean the nitpicky “box cutters or knifes” kind of stuff, I mean “terrorists in airplanes or government spooks with explosives.”

    • Keith says:

      You have believable answers, you just won’t believe them. That makes you a Truther.

  82. David Kyte says:

    Indeed why worry about the feelings of a bunch of kooks? When some idiots walks up to you and tells you “no Jews died in the concentration camps” they deserve the scorn and ridicule, same with truthers. When faced with fools it is no time to be politically correct.

  83. richlb says:

    Wow. The Birther crowd just got a little bit more emboldened. Boingboing should show both sets of crackpots the door.

  84. Pavlovian Dogcatcher says:

    I’ve read articles by structural engineers that completely demolish his claim that the buildings collapsed at “free fall acceleration.”

    You’ve been reading articles by people are knowledgeable enough to know free fall is physically impossible in the context of a fire initiated collapse, but who aren’t looking at the evidence which shows both near free fall acceleration in regard to the towers and a period of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall in regard to WTC7. Even NIST admits the videos of the towers coming down show acceleration very close to free fall, from NCSTAR 1-6:9.3.3:

    “Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall as seen in videos.”

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/EWTC7

    The WTC7 period of free fall is noted in NCSTAR 1-9:12.6:

    “In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.”

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf

    But of course you don’t have to take anyone’s word for it, as anyone can easily Google up videos of all three buildings coming down. Granted, NIST claims the free fall makes sense in the context of the official story, and there’s plenty of websites supporting their claims, but none can prove as much, because what they are claiming is quite simply physically impossible. All three buildings had previously been rigged to come down, as is proven by the video evidence and the laws of physics alone. The who, when, how, and why, are all painful and perplexing questions that I’d like to know the answers to, but that isn’t going to happening as long as so many insist on ignoring all the evidence which contradicts the official conspiracy theory while laughing off if not shouting down those of us who don’t. We need a real investigation to find the actual masterminds of 9/11, as the people who had the WTC buildings rigged to come down and who pressured our government officials into covering up for them are most certainly not hidding out in caves in the Middle East. I know these are ugly facts which many would prefer to ignore, but that only allows the madmen who actually attacked us to continue to walk free, and we are in for an ugly future as long as they do.

  85. Sceadugenga says:

    Part of the reason I try to avoid getting into arguments with them is because I don’t want to seem to be impugning their intelligence or their characters.

    Lately I have been thinking that this attitude is responsible for a lot of the bad in the world. People who have the power to do good often refrain, or refrain from doing as much as they can, because they don’t want to be seen as impolite.

  86. Keith says:

    coaxil @51:

    Most of the Truthers I’ve met have ill-defined and contradictory political leanings (like most poeple) but self-describe as Libertarian because it sounds cooler than Uninformed Reactionary Tool. Mostly, they are either non-voters, or voted overwhelmingly GOP. A few were even that mythic beast, the I-was-a-Democrat-before-9/11-but-now-I’m-a-Republican.

  87. Anonymous says:

    >You know what.
    >You’re not going to find any such story because it doesn’t exist.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui
    His mom ‘starred’ in a documentary about him. I doubt many other people would want to be known for that, but it’s quite laughable to say ‘you’re not going to find it’ when it’s so easily found.

  88. nathanmaas says:

    @Brainspore,

    Regardless of semantics, do you feel that the following sentences addressed your point? You started your statement with the word “if”, so I assumed you wanted me to answer. If I’m not being clear, please say so.

  89. danlalan says:

    I must admit that prior to this blog, I never put much thought into all that goes into the 9/11 conspiracy, because the “standard” causes of the collapse of the WTC seemed adequate, and because the scale of such a massive conspiracy stretches my credulity past the breaking point.

    But I begin to think I may have underestimated how much damage the incredibly poor/inept/corrupt leadership of the Bush administration has caused. I’ve never liked Bush or the neocons. That they have wildly exaggerated the threat of the terrorist boogeyman because it fits nicely with their political ideas that the threat of an external enemy is required to keep the populace of a liberal democracy in check seems self evident. And I’m convinced that they deliberately lied to manipulate a suggestible and angry public into a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with any attack on the U.S. for personal reasons and personal gain. Both of these are reprehensible, and the second would be criminal if there was not a tradition of immunity for those in high office over foreign affairs.

    Possibly worst of all is that the corrosive effect of the blatant lies and overt manipulation of the public geared at keeping a bare majority behind them, combined with the impotence of the common man to do anything about them appears to have driven a not insignificant portion of the populace into accepting ideas that would otherwise have been confined to the lunatic fringe. And this too plays into their hands, by allowing them to successfully label a fair sized block of their opponents as wackos.

    Damn Bush, and damn the neocons for their cynical manipulations.

  90. Democracydiva says:

    I highly recommend exploring the following website. Look under “evidence”. The founder, Erik Layer, a firefighter, was awakened to the anomalies surrounding 9/11/01 by a friend who graduated from West Point with a business degree.
    From Erik Lawyer: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?p=300

    <1-- 23 Aug 2008

    MAYDAY….MAYDAY….MAYDAY!!!

    Welcome to Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. My name is Erik Lawyer, and I am the founding member. I am currently a full time firefighter, and have been assigned to Ladder 3 in the City of Seattle for the last 13 years. Before that I was with the City of Sacramento as a Firefighter Paramedic. I first began working in Emergency Services in 1988 in the Sacramento area with a 911 private paramedic ambulance company. I have 20 years experience in Emergency Services. I earned my pilot’s license in 1987, and have been recreationally flying since. I graduated with a Bachelor’s of Science in Mathematics from the University of California at Davis in 1993, with 2 years of elective Engineering courses, and a Minor in Psychology.

    I would like to share my story concerning September 11, 2001 and the events that led to the creation of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. I, like most Americans, remember exactly where I was when I saw the attacks and had the overwhelming urge to take action. I was shocked, outraged, scared and confused. I called my Battalion Chief and asked if Seattle would be sending any teams to help. I was a member of the MMST (Metropolitan Medical Strike Team), and figured we would be needed and I wanted to know where to report. Due to the nature of the incident we were not called up, and instead USAR (Urban Search and Rescue) teams, including Seattle’s, were sent.

    I first visited Ground Zero in October of 2001 with several firefighters from Seattle. We went to pay our respect and show support. We raised money for our brother firehouses and attended the funerals of our fallen Brothers. I was deeply moved and humbled by the community support, the sheer enormity of the tragedy along with the courage and compassion of the FDNY “Brotherhood.” Even though I listened to their stories for days, I cannot even begin to imagine the pain and tragedy they suffered on that day and the years to come. I vividly remember the anger I felt, the intense desire for vengeance, and the feelings of helplessness. I was relieved when the government identified the terrorists and satisfied that we were going to have a swift deliverance of “justice.”

    I’ve been a conservative my entire life; a registered Republican since I could vote. I am a self proclaimed Patriot with George Washington as one of my all time heroes. So when conspiracy theories quickly surfaced, and “Liberals” cried foul on the erosion of civil liberties, I chalked it up to their political beliefs and bitterness towards the Republican President. I read many debunking articles - including Popular Mechanics - and watched many debunking videos including, Farenhype 9/11. I was convinced that these “Liberals” were misinformed and were grasping at straws to discredit the “official” story. Like most people with strong opinions, instead of looking at all the facts, I was specifically looking for anything that supported my own beliefs. As soon as I discovered any inaccuracy in a conspiracy claim, I wrote it off. My father, a big city cop and Korean War veteran, loved to joke, “don’t confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up!” Well, I had my mind made up. I told conspiracy theorists like my own Truck Officer, Lt. Earl Emerson, that they were insane if they thought anyone other than the terrorists did this. Heck, we have ID cards, security camera videos, Bin Laden confession tapes - how much clearer did they need it? The years went on and I was satisfied in my beliefs. I even believed these “Wackos” that doubted the “official” story were distracting our country from focusing on the real threat of terrorism.

    Fast forward to March of 2008. A great friend of mine with a Business degree from West Point, as conservative and non-conspiratorial as they get, came over one night to talk about what he saw happening in the economy. He provided some disconcerting evidence that we as a nation are at risk of entering into another depression; he pointed out historical parallels where other countries, such as Germany, suffered economic collapse. THAT was my eye opener. I became obsessed researching things such as economies, who is in control of currencies, what causes depressions, who profits during war, etc. So many things kept pointing to 9/11. Another one of my dad’s favorite quotes was, “believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.” So, I looked at both sides and quickly noticed a pattern. On one side, the general media ignores some of the most compelling evidence that contradicts the “official” story. On the other side, science based conspiracy sites such as Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice, along with the experience based sites such as Patriots Question 911 and Pilots for 911 Truth, fully explore the evidence. Their research points out numerous inconsistencies and raised serious questions about the “official” story. To be fair, I looked at the debunking sites again. On Popular Mechanics (the source often quoted for confirmation of the “official” story), as well as most debunking sites I usually found name calling and smear tactics. In my own personal experience, as soon as someone needs to resort to name calling and smearing during a debate, they’re not very secure in their “facts” or the “truth.” I found that many of these debunking sites also failed to tackle some of the most compelling evidence. They would often bring up the most ludicrous of conspiracy claims, debunk those, offer far reaching explanations, or never fully explain the “how.” They often made you really have to stretch to believe that so many catastrophic failures - which had never happened before - could all occur separately, on one day, and multiple times (e.g. failure to intercept aircraft x 4 for the first time in history; complete collapses x 3 for the first time; no obvious plane wreckage x 2+ for first time, etc.). Even the NIST report only describes the EVENTS that led to the moment of collapse of Towers 1 & 2, not the SCIENCE behind the instantaneous collapse of the cold steel below the impact zone…because it is that obvious? How does that teach us how to improve building safety?

    The clincher for me was when I learned that the lead investigators on the crime - the FBI - do not even have the 9/11 attacks mentioned on the Bin Laden page of the FBI’s Most Wanted website list due to LACK OF EVIDENCE. How can it be that we were led to believe Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, yet the FBI doesn’t publicly accuse him? Remind me again why we are at war and have given up so many rights our Founding Fathers gave us???

    When I voiced my new opinion and concerns most of my friends listened. I think because they were shocked that a staunch Conservative could have such a major shift, or because they thought I had lost my mind and wanted to diagnose the cause. Curiously, some became angry at my new questions and actually thought I was supporting Terrorists with my concerns. Being a part of that same mindset myself only a few weeks ago, and then having a major shift in consciousness, really shook me to the core. What has happened to our collective consciousness that we believe anyone who doubts the “official” story or what the government tells us is an enemy? Anyone who asks for the Truth is labeled a “Wacko” or “Terrorist Sympathizer?” What has happened to us? Are we not founded on Freedom of Speech and taught to check our Government?

    Through my research I learned that many mainstream people, government officials, pilots and regular “Joes” actually doubt the “official” story. Yet the media still treats “Truth” seekers like they have a mental disorder, are few and far between, and even dangerous. I’ve since learned there are major news stories concerning 9/11 that the media won’t cover. Do you know about Tower 7? And, did you know that Japan, who lost 24 of their citizens in the 9/11 attacks, has held hearings this year on the possibility that the “official” story isn’t the truth? Why hasn’t the media covered THIS? I’ve since learned about the whistleblowers that have been silenced. There are many top pilots (including pilots who have flown those specific aircraft) who say they could not have performed the maneuvers at those speeds while physically encountering the G-Loads and overcoming control issues associated with high speeds. Now, I’ve been a private pilot for over 20 years and have competed in spot landing, aerobatic and maneuver contests. I know how difficult it is to perform precision maneuvers at moderate speeds, let alone full speed, and I would never dream I could do the same in a jumbo jet.

    To be honest, I was asleep at the wheel, and relied on what I was being told by mainstream media. The same media, whose parent corporations, are some of the largest suppliers of weapons in this war. Before this “awakening” I had no idea the extent of our civil liberties that had been eroded in the name of Terrorism. I had never really wrapped my brain around what legalized torture means. I had always claimed America was noble. Just look at how we treated POW’s during WWII and Vietnam compared to our enemies. That separated us. We were setting the example of Human Rights to the rest of the world. Sure, you’ll always have individuals that will take things too far, but Government sponsored torture? What has happened to our country? What kind of example are we setting for our children, and the world? You would be interested to learn how many of our own rights have been stripped away recently. Look up the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, Homegrown Terrorism Act and Presidential Directive 51. It is amazing the rights we have all lost in the past couple of years and very little is covered by the U.S. media.

    After discovering this, I applied the “common sense” test that my Grandfather always said wasn’t so common. Why would a government so aggressively suppress truth and blatantly destroy evidence if there was nothing to hide? Why has every testimony from sworn government and military officials that points to “prior knowledge” been stricken from the 9/11 Commission Report? How did paper business cards, cloth bandanas, and plastic ID’s that implicate the terrorists survive so neatly through jet fueled fireballs hot enough to destroy titanium and steel? I’ve seen bodies burned beyond recognition, yet I have never found one that was wearing unburned clothing. These questions alone are enough to make me risk everything for a real investigation and accounting. Sadly, there are many more questions! This has nothing to do with party politics for me anymore. This is about saving our Country and pledging allegiance to our Flag not the Government, to protecting the principles America was founded on, not the beliefs of a few people in power. I have the utmost respect of our Soldiers and the sacrifices they have made, and continue to make. This is about defending what these countless men and women have died for. This is about defending the freedoms they gave us- about defending the Constitution, and about protecting the future for our children.

    When I truly realized the enormity of the effect 9/11 has had on our Rights, our Economy, our Beliefs, our Fears, our Intolerances and our Government - I felt fear, then anger, then the need to take action. Bill Chickering said it best, “Anger is a very appropriate and necessary response to an injustice. But stand back now; the truth, clearly spoken, is always your best weapon. Calmly spoken, it can burn a hole through the hardest heart.” When I realized the extent of the force and attitudes working to silence those who peacefully ask questions, demand answers, and seek truth, it became clear to me that our Country is in serious trouble and I must now stand alongside those Patriots who seek Truth and Constitutional Restoration.

    Our Founding Fathers would be disgusted with what we have let happen. To sum up their beliefs, “Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither.” I now recognize the true Patriots. They are not the ones blindly following, always believing and defending their government; they are the ones asking questions, demanding answers, and defending The Constitution. As Mark Twain so eloquently stated, “In times of change, the Patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.”

    My fellow Firefighters and Citizens, I ask you to at least inform yourself. Take the time to look, with an open mind, at the events surrounding 9/11 and the changes that have been made to our Constitution. Have the courage to weigh the possibilities. Remember, “Only a brave person is willing to honestly admit, and fearlessly face, what a sincere and logical mind discovers.” Ask yourself, do we really need to erase what our Founding Fathers fought so hard to create in the name of Terrorism? Make your own informed judgment and have the courage to consider the tough questions. If you too feel the call to action, we desperately need your help.

    As Firefighters we immediately respond to, and risk everything for a “Mayday” call. Most Firefighters go an entire career without calling a “Mayday”. We know our Brothers only call one if someone is in serious peril and they can’t handle it themselves. By the Grace of God, I have never had to call a “Mayday” on the fireground or in the air. But, I am calling one now on our soil. “MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY!!!” Our Country, Our sick Brothers and Sisters desperately need your HELP. -->

    • Anonymous says:

      “the lead investigators on the crime – the FBI – do not even have the 9/11 attacks mentioned on the Bin Laden page of the FBI’s Most Wanted website list due to LACK OF EVIDENCE”

      Look up the name “Al Capone” and check that case out. This is very similar. Capone was known everywhere as one of the leading figures of the Chicago Mob, but it was impossible to put together an ordinary type of case using witnesses and all of that against him. So they instead prosecuted him for tax evasion. They used these charges with a lot harder approach than is normal, because they knew he was guilty of more than just that. But it was easier to make a legal case around tax evasion.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Democracydiva,

      Please don’t cut and paste whole articles from other blogs into our comments.

  91. Anonymous says:

    “many of them are not bad”???? Ummmm – As a member of the 9/11 truth movement I would say that most (all) are not only not bad, they are the most awesome, inspiring, caring individuals I have ever met. If you think people who question authority, or question the governments accounts on topics are “weird” than you have been fooled into believing that asking questions is not ok.

    The 9/11 truth movement is filled with people who genuinely care about their fellow American citizens (humanity as a whole), and put themselves in front of others (in spite the criticism they may receive) to get the truth out.

    It makes me sad that so many people just don’t give a damn about what is going on in this world. I challenge anyone who reads this who is not on board with “9/11 truth” to go out there and look at all of the evidence available. (ae911truth.com is a good place to start)

    The truth will set you free.

    <3 a 9/11 truther who is level headed and full of love.

  92. Anonymous says:

    He joined the service because he thought the nation was at risk? This guy needs to turn off Fox news occasionally. I seriously doubt the US was in danger of being destroyed by a couple of buildings being knocked down. I recall Europe survived WWII when every hour was like 9-11.

  93. sievetronix says:

    I have nothing much to add here except for I love the fact that most truthers instantly assume that if you disagree with them that is is because we cannot ever possibly believe that the government would ever lie to us. Like if we don’t believe in the truth movement we somehow can’t grasp the fact that the govt made shit up to get us into war in Iraq.

    It kinda plays into their whole “sheeple” fantasies, that they are somehow in the know and everyone else is just ignorant and beneath them.

    That’s why I don’t even argue with the, not only will they not listen to anything they will not want to hear, not only will they break your brain with serious fucking illogic but i somehow suspect they are getting off on it in a deluded superior kind of way.

  94. AndyK says:

    “But I have seen no credible evidence that Bush, Cheney or anyone else in the American government planned or abetted the attacks themselves–and my mind boggles at the sheer nastiness of some of the Truther scenarios that question whether the people on the planes really died.”

    This is a double-whammy straw man argument. The straw men:

    1)That if Arabs didn’t do 9/11, then it had to be the US government.

    2)That most who believe 9/11 was an inside job also believe there were no plane crashes.

    The reality (in reverse order):

    2)The idea that there were no airplanes was briefly advanced by a few on the fringe of 9/11 truth; this idea has been resoundingly rejected by nearly everyone. The planes were real, the crashes were real. The question is: who were the hijackers?

    1)If al-Qaeda didn’t do 9/11, it does NOT follow that the US government did it. There is another entity out there with a long history of perpetrating false flags operations with Arabs used as scapegoats. This is foreign government with deep ties in American government, military and security. And no, it is not a Muslim government.

    • failix says:

      “This is foreign government with deep ties in American government, military and security. And no, it is not a Muslim government.”

      “If al-Qaeda didn’t do 9/11, it does NOT follow that the US government did it.”

      But it follows that the jews did it? Now what will you come up with to convince me that you’re not antisemitic?

  95. Anonymous says:

    A few things which I just cannot get my head around to consider in any way rational:

    1. WTC7: What would be the purpose in having this building “detonated”?
    2. Why were there no Iraqis as highjackers?
    3. Why were no WMDs planted as evidence in Iraq?
    4. Why was camera footage not manufactured for the Pentagon?

    The list can go on and on.

    For such a vast malevolent conspiracy, they seem to have f’ed up on a lot of important details…but yes, were extremely successful in keeping mum the hundreds if not thousands of co-conspirators.

    The “truth” is simple…american and western interventionism and brutal neo-colonialism has created an atmosphere of hatred and antipathy.

    American intelligence has been inept and perhaps deliberately lax hoping for some excuse to start more foreign campaigns to benefit corporate greed. Probably what might have been hoped for was something somewhat smaller, less grandiose.

    Coverups as always to hide all this.

    But the american government has done much worse, both before and after 9-11, killing millions of people and causing vast amounts of suffering, and leaving our world to be raped by the corporate powers that control most aspects of our lives and society.

    The 9-11 “truth” movement detracts from searching out this greatest of evils and, as such, only serves to abet such powers.

    There is also more than a tinge of anti-semitism running through the party line…just look above…and look in the mirror.

    What is so disappointing to me is that so many “left-wing” proponents have abandoned completely the intellectual rigor which I had previously been proud to say distinguished those I called my compatriots.

  96. David Kyte says:

    It’s funny that people assume there were 83 cameras at the Pentagon and that all of them captured images of the crash. No one can show who made this estimate or if it is in fact correct.

    To be sure you would have cameras that look at nothing more then a doorway, a storage closet, a hallway, these would capture nothing. Some may have captured images of the interior as fire engulfed the floors, some of these may even show people dying in the fires and that sort of stuff would never be released out of respect for the dead. Some would show security methods at the Pentagon and would not be released.

    Camera outside the Pentagon would not be the property of the government and would have to be released by the owners.

    And if you did see a video clearly showing the 757 AA jet the hundreds of people saw, the truthers would say it is faked.

    • Brainspore says:

      It’s funny that people assume there were 83 cameras at the Pentagon and that all of them captured images of the crash.

      The funny thing is that if there HAD been more footage showing the approach and impact from optimal angles, the conspiracy theorists would (justifiably) be wondering why all the Pentagon’s security cameras had been facing the sky that day. Almost as if… THEY KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE HIT FROM ABOVE?

  97. Cog says:

    Next up: A sober examination of the Greys v. Reptilians controversy.

  98. David Kyte says:

    “JFK’s assassination and 9/11 have a interesting parallel.”

    Yes, they have become main mythology of the conspiracy theorist types. Along with fake moon landings, chemtrails, Alien bodies in area 51 and countless other imaginary diversions from the reality based world.

    We have become a nation of suckers who buy conspiracy hype because it fun. You don’t have to know science and physics, just watch a YouTube video and repeat the popular buzz words. “Free fall” “thermite” “pull it” “controlled demolition”. Never mind the fact truther don’t understand what the words mean. It’s truther mantra.

    9/11 truth is a faith based initiative.

    • zyodei says:

      Sure, it’s sloppy to just watch a YouTube video and repeat what’s contained within it without exploring further. It’s equally sloppy to dismiss that video without examination, or to lump all sorts of people together simply on the basis that some of them are deluded.

      I think that the available evidence supports two statements 1) The “official” story is incomplete, contradictory, and does not take into account all available evidence. 2) SOME of the “truther” explanations, such as controlled demolition, are possible, even if they seem unlikely.

      So, stepping away from the youtube videos, how do you reconcile these accounts from “the reality based world?”

      “‘There was nothing there but rubble,’ Mike said. ‘We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!’ … The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘”There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything” he said.

      They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up ‘like a piece of aluminum foil’ and lying on the floor.”

      WTC1 Stationary Engineer Mike Pecoraro, Chief Engineer Association website.

      http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

      “The sound it made. As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building. That’s how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall.”

      “That’s when I looked up, and the tower started coming down, which at the time I said I thought it was a secondary device. I had warned the guys about secondary devices on the way down…”

      “About a couple minutes after George came back to me is when the south tower from our perspective exploded from about midway up the building. We all turned and ran…”

      “At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges. We had really no concept of the damage on the east side of 2 World Trade Center at that point, and at that point many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade,”

      etc. etc. etc. There are many more like this.

      - testimony from firefighters at the scene. 118 of the 503 fire fighters mentioned what, to their perception, seemed like some kind of explosion occurring inside the building.

      http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

      Now, they might have all been in a state of shock, misinterpreting what had happened due to its unprecedented nature, describing as “explosion” the loud collapse of the building subframe and subsequent pancaking, etc. etc.

      But to chalk it off to a bunch of bozos sitting around slapping together YouTube videos is either dishonest or misinformed.

      To my knowledge, the official account, which ruled out any explosions in the building before it began, did include any examination of any of these accounts, and is thus, at the very least, incomplete.

  99. MarkM says:

    The thing thats hilarious (or terrifying) about the 9-11 truthers is, they eschew all smart or book-learned experts EXCEPT THEIR OWN. There can be 1000 structural engineers who will tell them to excruciating detail how and why the towers fell (no, the steel didnt melt, it didnt have to, it sagged; no, there werent explosives; yes, it looks like a controlled collapse, you are going to get pancaking when the structural failure occurs, etc.) and they’ll discount it AND they’ll yell about how experts don’t know it all and what’s really are so important about credentials and graduate degrees in the pertinent subject anyhow? But, if ONE scientist or professional (and its usually someone without relevant credentials– say, a lawyer or a particle physicist) is on their side, well, they will tout his scientific or professional expertise till the cows come home.

    There’s also a wierd political skewing of the truthers also. Whereas with the JFK or UFO conspiracies there’s more of a “hippy” / “liberal” bent. The truthers are more libertarian or republican-leaning. The explanation for which I’m still trying to understand.

    I dont impugn the truthers character. But as for their intelligence and reasoning ability… i think if you’re a truther, you are missing some fundamental cognitive abilities. much as do the birthers and the young earth creationists.

    • coaxial says:

      Tuthers are republican leaning? None of the truthers I’ve met have been republican. They’ve all been crazy hippies. The republicans I know all say “Bush kept us safe! Leaving Florida and springing into action the one time our country was attacked would have scared children!”

    • Anonymous says:

      > Whereas with the JFK or UFO conspiracies there’s more of a “hippy” / “liberal” bent.

      That’s not as true as you imply. Conservative versions of JFK have generally been angled on New World Order, Freemasonry and the like. Liberal versions have been angled on Right-wing extremists, military-industrial complex and the like. But there has been more of the former than you seem to think.

      > The truthers are more libertarian or republican-leaning.

      Alex Jones is the leading cause for that. On a more general level, the conservative movement was very fractured in the 1930s and this accounted for their lack of effectiveness as an opposition to FDR. FDR’s base of support was not always as firm as one might think in retrospect, but the conservatives tore each other apart more than the members of the New Deal coalition did. With the onset of the Cold War the Right-wing began to fuse together and this culminated in Reagan’s victory in 1980. The end of the Cold War has witnessed a revival of that older tendency towards fracturing among conservatives, and Alex Jones is the epitome of this. It’s because of those trends that AJ was positioned to spearhead a future 911-movement at the same time that Bush was taking office.

  100. belgium says:

    Yey! The Thruthers are here!

  101. strangefriend says:

    I find some of the Truthers’ arguments bordering on racist. “Hail, no Ay-rabs could plan something like 9-11! It must be a guv’mint job!” (I’m a Texan, so I get to use redneck stereotypes, comprende?)Except during the 60s &70s, Palestinian Arabs were doing a good job of hijacking planes, cruise ships, & kidnapping Israeli athletes. Which lead to the blockbuster BLACK SUNDAY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sunday_%281977_film%29).

  102. Kevin Kenny says:

    What’s really important here?

    27 February 1933. The Reichstag building in Berlin burns. A naked Marinius van der Lubbe, a Dutch Communist, is found still alive in the wreckage. He is later found guilty of murder, arson and insurrection, and guillotined. (Four alleged co-conspirators, Bulgarian communists, are acquitted.)

    Hypotheses abound about who set the Reichstag fire – van der Lubbe, acting alone; a German Communist conspiracy; or the National Socialist party, preparing to seize the reins of the government. But the question of who set the fire is relatively unimportant in history. Rather, history was changed by the reaction of the German people and their government – all too willing in its aftermath to pass constitutional changes to hand absolute power over to Hitler. Nobody knows for certain who set the Reichstag fire – whoever did, carried the secret to his grave. But the fire was the opening salvo of the Second World War.

    11 September 2001 – A disastrous fire brings down the World Trade Center. A panicked US people demands new legislation of their government. The government passes acts that severly impede civil liberties, and launches two foreign wars. Elections are allowed to proceed, and the party in power changes; yet the wars continue, the laws that constrain liberty are renewed, and the new President still claims the absolute power that his predecessor seized.

    Will the ultimate outcome be any better for the US than for Germany? Who can say? But what’s important is not “who felled the Towers,” but “how do we react?” Whether a handful of crazies cooked up the scheme themselves, or a conspiracy in Afghanistan arranged it, or a conspiracy of our own government executed it, the key way in which the attack will be remembered is for how we let it change our society.

  103. teapot says:

    118 of the 503 fire fighters mentioned what, to their perception, seemed like some kind of explosion occurring inside the building.

    This is a fair point, but as has already been mentioned earlier in this FFA – testimony of witnesses is often innacurate. Furthermore should we simply discount that 385 fire fighters didn’t mention an explosion sound? Seems like a leap of faith.

    I would also like to find out how many of the 118 who reported the ‘explosion’ sound had, previous to 9/11, been in the proximity of two 110 storey buildings collapsing due to structural failire. Clearly none – hence how would they know what it ‘normally’ sounds like? With no point of reference, how can they definitively say it was an explosion? They can’t.

    The cameras on the Pentagon grounds, as well as the cameras outside the Pentagon that filmed it (gas stations etc.) – what is the purpose of them being secret?

    People who ask this question are clearly not versed in the importance of visual material as propaganda. The recent celebrations of the fall of the Berlin Wall should be a fresh reminder of how images are used to promote ideas. Video of that moment has come to represent far more than a bunch of concrete falling over.

    If these videos were released, can’t you imagine how they would be used and re-used by enemies of the US? The potential benefits of releasing the videos (finally silencing the truthers who perpeturate the insane ‘no, it wasnt a plane’ story) are miniscule in comparison to the benefits of keeping the material out of the hands of people who would use it to ill ends.

    Also I have failed to see anyone who upholds questions about the pentagon crash pay any regard to the comments of happy mutant “Honour” (#108):
    Folks:
    My brother is a volunteer fireman.
    He was on the roof of the Pentagon on 9/11.
    He says there was a crashed plane.
    _His boot soles melted and stuck to pieces of a crashed plane._
    …In case you think he could somehow have been too pig-ignorant to know the difference between a plane and a missile:
    1: He was a Smokejumper.
    2: Before that, he was in the US Air Force in Vietnam.
    He’s seen hundreds of different planes, and dozens of different missiles. He knows which is which.
    – and he and I _both_ are Conscientious Objectors with no love for Gov’t shenanigans by any or all parties, so don’t bother claiming we’re part of the cover-up.

    I am still confused as to how so many otherwise rationally-thinking people can get caught up in believing this madness.

  104. Brainspore says:

    And you completely dodged my question, meaning that you’ve already made up your mind what happened and all the evidence in the world won’t change it. Good day.

  105. Anonymous says:

    > I don’t necessarily believe these guys were Mossad or said “we were sent to document the event,”

    They did not. What they said was “we were there to document the event.” Many eager-beaver truthers have interpreted this to mean “we were there [across the Atlantic Ocean because our bosses in Israel knew all about 911 ahead of time and wanted] to document the event.” But the more simple interpretation would just “we were there [with our camera and van at the site where the woman saw us and called the police because like any everyone else who possessed a camera within a 10-mile radius of the Towers we wanted] to document the event.” They actually do not say anything which implies pre-knowledge of 911. For the record, the woman’s description suggests that they acted like real jerks and seemed to be gloating over the whole thing. But that still does not allow us to conclude that they actually knew in advance about it.

  106. Anonymous says:

    Because it shared a footprint with two buildings that just fell next to it you tool. When your best experts don’t even have degrees it’s time to grow up and accept what happened.

  107. Arthur Goldwag says:

    WTC7 wasn’t struck by an airplane–it was pounded by burning debris from the 110 story tower which was directly across the street. By some accounts the wound in WTC7′s facade was twenty stories long. Firemen were pulled from the building at 11:30 am in anticipation of its collapse (hundreds of firefighters and policemen, including many top commanders, had just been killed–it’s not surprising that they would have proceeded with an abundance of caution). The fires had been burning for seven hours when it finally gave way. “Surgical” does justice to neither the collapse (the building “kinked” visibly in several places just before it fell) or the scene, just yards away from a burning mountain of twisted steel and concrete. An article in Structure magazine describes how computer modeling isolated one column, #79, as “the critical structural component that led to global collapse.” (http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf)

  108. failix says:

    Yes, that’s what I tried to explain. It’s unreasonable and there’s no point. Basically this camera issue all comes down to whether or not you believe a plane hit the pentagon. If you don’t, there’s nothing I can do for you. If you do but still think it’s necessary to see the tapes, you need to explain why.

    You also need to be honest, and imagine the government released those tapes to the public. (They’d obviously show nothing relevant, or just the crash from another angle in a worse quality than we already have.)
    Don’t you think truthers would then say that the tapes are fake? If logic doesn’t stop them from requiring the tapes, do you really think that a bunch of uploaded videos showing nothing new would convince them?
    Such a gesture from the government would imply the truthers have a point, and they don’t. It would also imply there’s not enough evidence for the crashing of a plane, the death of hundreds of passengers, and a big hole in the pentagon.
    The mere fact that I’m taking the time to explain this to you gives some people the illusion that what we’re talking about is an issue when it isn’t. I’m just trying to be nice, and not thinking for one second that this conversation will change anything. I can afford the risk to respond to such nonsense, the government can’t.

    Now I responded to your same question twice. It’d be nice, if to end this conversation, you responded to my following question with yes or no: Do you think a plane hit the pentagon?
    If you say yes and understand what I wrote above, then this is settled. If you say yes but don’t understand, I’m sorry I couldn’t make you understand. If you say no it shows me you don’t care about evidence, which makes your request to see the videos for evidence useless anyway. So one way or the other I will check out your answer but won’t respond any longer to the camera “issue”.

  109. Arthur Goldwag says:

    PERFECT SOLDIERS: The 9/11 Hijackers, Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry McDermott (2005) “A reporter for the Los Angeles Times who has been on the story of the September 2001 terrorist attacks since the day they occurred, McDermott has talked to everyone — everyone who will talk, that is — and read everything, the result of which is what may well be, for now at least, the definitive book on the 19 men who brought such devastation and terror to this country nearly four years ago.”–The Washington Post

  110. Talia says:

    Well thank goodness we have you with your magic psychic connection that gives you the TRUE STORY!!11!!11!!11 that no one else can see. I feel so much more enlightened now.

    Tell me, can the magic psychic voice also predict next week’s winning lottery numbers? :P

  111. failix says:

    “Just find ONE instance where Mr. and Mrs. (insert name of alleged hijacker here) are known to have lost a son, and are now living in shame.”

    What’s your point? Are you implying that the hijackers didn’t have parents and are inventions of the u.s. government? Or are you saying that the hijackers aren’t dead?

    “Sivan Kurzberg and his buddies with Urban Moving Systems? Why the celebratory dances and snapshots with the burning WTC in the background?”

    So, what’s your question and what do you conclude from these stories?

    “and maybe some more info on Odigo”

    Again… what’s your question? Here’s an interesting take on Odigo if you’re really interested: http://www.911myths.com/html/odigo.html

    “…why none of them showing any plane hitting the pentagon have been released”

    Simple, because only one camera captured the impact, the footage is widely available.

    But I have the feeling this is useless. Nobody can counter the fact that there have been stories claiming stuff. Most of them have been debunked, just google it. If you really want responses and want to be convinced of the truth, you need to say what you want to prove with these stories, what’s your thesis?

  112. Osprey101 says:

    Interview with family of 9/11 hijackers on Dateline NBC from 2002:

    http://ro.getalyric.com/asculta/w9KkUVEwUr4/brother_of_911_islamic_jihad_says_sorry

  113. Daniel Edd Bland III says:

    Keep it coming Mojave! The truth is contagious! Keep spreading it!

    Daniel Edd Bland III

  114. Brainspore says:

    Mojave: Can you think of any evidence that would convince you that the basic account of 9/11 (i.e. terrorists with hijacked airplanes, not government agents with bombs and missiles) is accurate?

    If not, I don’t think there’s really anything for us to discuss.

  115. Tony Lambregts says:

    Brainspore wrote: “Unless conspiracy theorists can present a statement along the lines of “this is the kind of evidence that would prove us wrong” then their theories are just statements of faith, not testable hypotheses.”

    You are using a false logic here. Using the scientific method we look at the evidence (facts/phenomena) and come up with a theory based on that evidence if the theory does not explain the evidence we revise the theory, We do not devise a theory and the pick which evidence to use and and ignore other evidence. If we had a proper forensic investigation in the first place we would not have to be asking for one now. There is evidence that exists that directly contradicts a collapse due to fires + gravity alone ie: free fall. What we need is an explanation (theory/hypothesis) that takes into account all of the evidence.

  116. failix says:

    “Come on, if there were 83 or 87 cameras in the area, and only one captured the impact, please let us take a peek at the 80-odd other videos that purportedly show nothing. Or do we have to take the government’s word when it says “Move along. Nothing to see here”?”

    What do you think these cameras could’ve captured that we aren’t allowed to see? UFOs, jets, Missiles? If so, why did they release the video of a plane hitting the pentagon then? Was there also a plane and the missiles were just in case the plane didn’t hit? Why is there only the impact of a plane with debris of that plane all over the place then?
    You could say the video we have is fake, but if this video is fake why didn’t they just fake some other videos with better quality and release them too?

    Anyway this is just silly. You either deny the fact that a plane hit the pentagon, or imply there is something bigger and more important that happened that day to this building, that exterior cameras could’ve filmed and we aren’t allowed to see. In the first case you’re denying evidence and need to explain where this plane and its passengers could’ve gone to. The second case just doesn’t make sense, remember, a plane flew into the pentagon!

    And by the way, I doubt the fact that there were 80 cameras in the right angle to capture the plane, let alone the impact.

  117. oclupak says:

    In my haste to write my previous post, I made a small mistake which I wish to correct here. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess were already in mayor Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of wtc7 when the second tower was hit by Flight 175. Shortly afterwards, they were told on the telephone that they should leave the building right away.

    The first brief interview in the video posted by Dylan Avery at http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.com/ was conducted on the street, by a local TV newsman, as Mr. Jennings had just emerged from wtc7, and he was accompanied by what seems to be the firefighter who saved his life and who, to my knowledge, has remained unidentified. Mr. Hess similarly did a radio interview at about the same time at another location.

    Barry Jennings, who was only 53, died of undisclosed causes in August of 2008. It would therefore be interesting to find out the identity of the firefighter who saved Barry’s life on 9/11 and ask him to corroborate Barry’s testimony. It is not in my power to locate him and to ask him to testify under oath, if he is still alive. Similarly, it would be interesting to hear what Mr. Hess has to say. As far as I know, he is still alive. The TV newsman of ABC channel 7 might also have some interesting things to say. Furthermore, Barry mentions near the end of the LouderThanWords video that News 12 came to his home and interviewed him. What did he say then? There were also some other news organisations who contacted him. Even if they didn’t publish a story afterwards, I’d surely like to hear whatever bit of information the reporters could remember from their interviews. These are the kinds of questions a properly set up inquiry should endeavour to answer.

    As we know, it was only much later that, reluctantly, the Bush administration finally gave in to the victims’ families’ request for an investigation and that the 9/11 Commission was set up, some 400 days after the event. When they finally got around to questionning Barry Jennings, they appear to have been annoyed by his testimony and he clearly gives the impression that they tried to intimidate him. Strangely enough, not a single word of the 9/11 Commission Report mentions Mr. Jennings’ unique experience. As time goes by, I and many others feel it is urgent that a real investigation gets set up before one by one all eyewitnesses of the events of 9/11 die off, of natural causes or otherwise.

  118. zyodei says:

    There’s something quite telling in the fact that you think that people need to justify being able to view what should be public knowledge.

    The cameras on the Pentagon grounds, as well as the cameras outside the Pentagon that filmed it (gas stations etc.) – what is the purpose of them being secret? Don’t we live in a Democracy, with a system based on openness?

    You ask, in effect, for the public to justify wanting to see this footage. But shouldn’t openness be the default? Shouldn’t it be the Pentagon that has the burden of argument to keep them secret?

    They certainly shouldn’t release the videos to placate the truthers. They should release them, and they should have released them eight years ago, because there is no good reason to keep them secret.

    Same with the NIST computer models that demonstrate that it was possible for the WTC7 to fall due to fire alone. What possible public good could be served by keeping it secret?

    ——————————

    I know this thread is stale, but I would be quite curious about anyone’s response to my #181 above.

  119. Brainspore says:

    I asked what evidence would falsify your THEORY, not an individual STATEMENT. (FWIW there have been computer models created by highly trained structural engineers which showed the buildings collapsing just as they did in real life, not that you’ll accept them).

    Unless conspiracy theorists can present a statement along the lines of “this is the kind of evidence that would prove us wrong” then their theories are just statements of faith, not testable hypotheses.

  120. Brainspore says:

    Using the scientific method we look at the evidence (facts/phenomena) and come up with a theory based on that evidence if the theory does not explain the evidence we revise the theory

    You can’t test a theory using the scientific method unless there is some way to falsify it. Otherwise all the evidence in the world is useless because you haven’t yet established which data will support that theory and what data would refute it.

    Applied to a forensic examination, the process should go something like this:

    1) I see some preliminary evidence that makes me think X may have happened.
    2) I will test this theory with further examination. If X happened, I should find result A. If not, I should find result B.

    In this case, B is the falsification of theory X.

    OK, I’m officially sick of repeatedly trying to explain one of the most basic concepts of logical discourse. ‘Night, all.

  121. stanleyk says:

    And when the next claim you present as stridently as you did the claim that “no family members of the hijackers have EVER EVER EVER been talked to !!1!!1″ is similarly shown to be false, will you again say “Excellent. Thanks for the info. Now WHAT ABOUT OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM XYZ?!?!”

    …repeating ad infinitum? I think an earlier poster asked you what evidence would make you rethink your position. I put that question to you again, in my own way: What could you be shown that would make you *at least consider it possible* that the standard explanation of the attacks *might* be true?

  122. stanleyk says:

    After a few minutes of casual web browsing….

    re: “Now could you also enlighten us on Sivan Kurzberg and his buddies with Urban Moving Systems? Why the celebratory dances and snapshots with the burning WTC in the background?”

    This stuff makes me think that *if* these stories are real (and it’s just people saying stuff–talk is cheap), then it’s _possible_ that Mossad was anticipating some sort of attack, on some high-profile US target, sometime in the Fall of 2001. In that scenario, who knows how many teams might have been watching how many monuments and prominent structures, for how long. When one of the teams actually did capture the footage, they reacted as you would expect them to react under the circumstances.

    Now like I said, talk is cheap–I don’t necessarily believe these guys were Mossad or said “we were sent to document the event,” but even if so, I still don’t see how this supports the “inside job” theory. As for the question of whether Mossad might have had intelligence predicting an attack on the US in Fall 2001…well, we know that the CIA did, so why would it be surprising if Mossad did?

    re: “maybe some more info on Odigo”

    If you haven’t read the link failix posted, please do so. The Odigo thing certainly isn’t what it was made out to be by Alex Jones–i.e., he said people working in the building were warned to get out/not go in, whereas in reality it was just two guys in Israel who got the text…of which we don’t know the content, but from the reactions of people who did see it, it seems unlikely that it was a specific prediction of the 9/11 attacks.

    re: video from the Pentagon

    Yeah, I found a series of stills from a pentagon camera showing the impact. Like, with one google search. This is not hidden stuff.

  123. Tony Lambregts says:

    During Building 7′s descent it underwent at least 2.25 seconds of free fall. That means that 8 stories or 100 ft of the building exhibited the resistance as air which is inconsistent with the scenario described by NIST. NIST describes a senerio in which the frame of the building was deformed and this deformation precludes a state of free fall.

    Even NIST understands what free fall really means. At one time NIST was denying free fall and as part of that denial Shyam Sunder of NIST had this to say about free fall “a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it”

    If you understand physics then you can understand that NIST’s explanation for the collapse of building 7 is not correct. You can ask yourself why NIST presented an explanation that does not conform to reality or you can ignore the laws of physics. Your choice.

    I put my trust in physics.

  124. oclupak says:

    Barry Jennings was summoned to the mayor’s Emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor of wtc7 immediately after a small Cessna plane was reported to have crashed into one of the towers. When he arrived, the place had just been evacuated, with coffee still steaming in abandoned cups. The second plane had not yet crashed when he proceeded to climb down the emergency staircase in the company of Michael Hess, the city attorney, who had arrived at the same time. They had reached the 6th floor when an explosion destroyed the lower part of the staircase so they climbed up to the 8th floor, where both towers could be seen, still standing. What caused the emergency staircase to desintegrate? Certainly not the falling debris from Tower One which occurred some thirty minutes later. The Barry Jennings story is indeed a mystery. You can learn more at http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.com/

  125. Daniel Edd Bland III says:

    Keep it Mohave! We are having an effect, more people are awakening to the truth everyday! The truth is contagious! So keep spreading it!

    Daniel Edd Bland III

  126. oclupak says:

    failix wrote: “…why none of them showing any plane hitting the pentagon have been released”
    Simple, because only one camera captured the impact, the footage is widely available.
    ________

    Come on, if there were 83 or 87 cameras in the area, and only one captured the impact, please let us take a peek at the 80-odd other videos that purportedly show nothing. Or do we have to take the government’s word when it says “Move along. Nothing to see here”?

  127. oclupak says:

    Hi, failix. I’m glad to see you’re still here. So, do you really feel it is unreasonable to want to take a peek at every single video that was captured by the 83 cameras at the Pentagon or should we all be content of being shown the videos that were disclosed and that didn’t show very much?

  128. zyodei says:

    I see your point, but surely you must agree that 118 of 503 is statistically significant.

    Undoubtedly, the building falling was tremendously noisy, and it was a very chaotic day – so the fact that the majority did not report this does not disprove it.

    But some accounts, such as that of Police Officer Sue Keane, seem totally incompatible with simply hearing the sounds of the building collapsing.

    The important thing is, despite the fact that these accounts (118 firefighters does not include the many similar accounts from police, EMTs, civilians, etc.) seemed to indicate at least the possibility of some sort of explosive in the building, that the 9/11 commission and NIST did not ever explore this as a possibility. They basically ignored it completely, and never studied anything other than the fire and structural columns hypothesis.

    As to the Pentagon, well, I agree. I feel that there is a good chance that it was indeed a plane that hit the Pentagon, and that that whole argument may be a red herring, a false lead.

    It’s rather tantalizing, because clearly the photos don’t seem to indicate a hit from a wide body jet, there are neither wing or tail punctures in the building, nor are they detached on the ground, so where did they go?

    And what about that crazily difficult and precise flight path, or the fact that they seemingly went out of their way to hit an under construction wing of the building?

    But, eye witness accounts are compelling. It’s entirely possible that the wings folded into the plane, and that the barely trained pilot was just extraordinarily lucky with his flight path, as were the occupants of the building.

    In fact, 80% or more of the “911 truth” issues are red herrings. That is why the most valuable 911 sites are those like 911review.com or 911research.com, that spend a good deal of their time investigating and yes, debunking many 911 theories.

    The problem is that the 20% that cannot be adequately explained is damning.

  129. Arthur Goldwag says:

    The thing is, they didn’t use the box cutters to bring down the towers; that really would be a stretch. They used planes, which doesn’t require anywhere near as large a leap.

    Someone wrote that David Ray Griffin isn’t an engineer, he’s a prophet. I think that’s very much to the point. David Ray Griffin is the author of a score of distinguished books on process theology; I believe his 9/11 Truth advocacy is very much motivated by his political and religious beliefs as well.

    The quote below comes from Griffin’s rejoinder to his fellow theologian Ian Markham, who had reviewed his 9/11 book THE NEW PEARL HARBOR in the journal Conversations in Religion and Theology.

    “At the center of our own nation’s propaganda since its inception has been the myth of American ‘exceptionalism,’ according to which America is free form the sins and weaknesses that led the nations of the Old World into corruption, war, and imperialism. One expression of this myth has been the widespread idea….that enormous power in American hands is not dangerous because our nation, unlike others, uses its power to promote freedom, democracy, and human rights, not selfish interests. Although this myth was traditionally based on the idea that America is a uniquely Christian nation, it is actually, from a Christian perspective, a heretical idea, because it contradicts the doctrine of original sin…..no task is more important for theologians today than the attempt to make that conflict clear….One of the most effective ways to do this would be to expose the truth about 9/11.”

Leave a Reply