The Awful Truth About 9/11

The guerrilla reporters of Infowars—last seen being broken up and hauled out of the spin room at CNN's Republican debate—nailed Michael Moore at a screening of Sicko and got him to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories. (Sorry, other theories of the events of 9/11.) The reporters clearly ask whether Moore thinks "9/11 was an inside job," and he implies that... it might have been.

The interview starts at 5:49 into the video. (If the video doesn't embed, the link is here.)

>

REPORTER: We want to get some ideas, your comments, on 9/11 being an inside job because since your last movie, which gave us a lot of information...

MOORE: Right, right, right.

REPORTER: ... we now are in possession of all other kinds of facts and evidence.

MOORE: Right.

REPORTER: And we know that 9/11 was an inside job.

MOORE: Right.

REPORTER: So we want to get your comments on that.

MOORE: Well, I've had a number of firefighters tell me over the years, and since Fahrenheit 9/11, that they heard these explosions, that they believe there is much more to the story then we've been told. I don't think the official investigations have told us the complete truth. They haven't even told us half the truth. And so I support, and I hope, you know, if there's a new administration or somebody could open up a new investigation of this before we get too far away from it, to find out the whole truth. Let me just give you one thing that has—I've asked for for a long time. I've filmed before, down at the Pentagon, before 9/11. There's got to be at least 100 video cameras ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come we haven't seen the straight—I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video, I want to see 100 videos that exist of this. Why don't they want us to see that plane coming into the building? Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.

REPORTER: The idea that the hole is about 8 feet wide...

MOORE: See, I'm not very good at the physics and all that. But believe me, the questions need to be asked.

REPORTER: So you have a lot of unanswered questions.

MOORE: Oh, and I intend in my own way to find some answers. So, thank you for whatever you're doing.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Stan & Kyle||

    What are you, retarded?

  • Sean||

    I like his new hipster glasses. I bet he'll be at the next Arcade Fire show.

  • ||

    I used to say that 9/11 is for my generation what JFK's assasination was to my parent's. I had no idea that that would mean that it had to include having an "inside job" conspiracy as well.

    I guess if Oliver Stone won't do it somebody's go to!

  • ||

    Uh, Moore, the Pentagon is a freakin gigantic and its also shaped like a giant bulls-eye.

  • ||

    I wouldn't read too much into MM's comments, he says whatever his admirers want to hear.

    The only principle he seems to follow was articulated in the title of his "Stupid White Men" book - if business people believe something then it must be evil. Thankfully that principle won't get you too far these days although he's probably making the most out of it.

  • SugarFree||

    What is it with liberals and documentaries? Can it really be they don't get enough "free" NPR that they have to go pay money to hear someone regurgitate "facts" they already believe?

    Documentaries = liberal church

    Moore and Limbaugh in an eating contest. When they both finish, we kick them in the stomach like the fat guy in Se7en.

    (By the way, the world record for eating mayonnaise is held by Oleg Zhornitskiy; he ate a gallon in 8 minutes.)

  • ||

    While I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it certainly might have been. I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the government is being 100% straight with us on this one.

  • ||

    I'm struck by how similar the thinking is of conspiracy nuts like Moore and creationists/ID proponents. There's a kind of infantile view of the world with both.

  • Russ 2000||

    The lesson learned from 9/11: All the biggest targets are government-built projects. Stay out of government facilities and you've got a much better chance of being safe. Renew your driver's license over the web if you can.

  • ||

    Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building [runway] that's only 5 stories high [a few feet wide] that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.

    Yea, that's a tough job...

  • ||

    The best thing that could possibly come out of the release of Sicko is a review penned by Christopher Hitchens.

  • ||

    Dan T. | June 19, 2007, 2:05pm | #

    While I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it certainly might have been. I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the government is being 100% straight with us on this one.


    Because, Dan T., this is the government that we elected. If we thought they were hiding something, we could simply vote them out.

  • ||

    Are you implying that the same government that you'd trust to decide what people eat, drink, smoke, watch on TV, or otherwise amuse themselves might not be 100% honest?

  • ||

    I'm struck by how similar the thinking is of conspiracy nuts like Moore and creationists/ID proponents. There's a kind of infantile view of the world with both.

    Yeah, I heard some bozo the other day talking crazy about how the CIA was running secret prisons in Europe...oh wait, nevermind...

  • ed||

    Especially since jetliners don't land at 500 mph.

  • ||

    Because all those clips I saw on the TV news on 9/11 of planes actually flying into buildings were obviously faked -- including the shots right afterwards of plane-shaped holes in the buildings.

    Stupid White Men indeed.

  • ||

    I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the government is being 100% straight with us on this one.

    We don't and didn't. We dissected the record and found out that the government missed a lot of warning signs. But an "inside job"? None of the conspiracy theories has stood up to logical or scientific evidence. In fact, every one of them has been roundly debunked. Read Popular Mechanics.

  • ||

    Considering that the current administration can't even cover up a plot to can a couple of US attorneys, you really have to be a retard to think they could have had anything to do with 9/11 or even covered up major facts about it and kept up the ruse for 6 years... No offense to retards....

  • ||

    The idea that 9/11 could have been an inside job doesn't necessarily mean the attacks were totally faked.

    It's more a matter of who knew what, who ordered what and who you want to consider on the "inside".

  • ||

    Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river.

    I'm not a pilot, but I spent many years building simulators. An air-transport aircraft in a landing configuration isn't all that hard to point at a target so long as you are not worried about a smooth landing and roll-out.

  • ||

    Let's see if people peg Moore to this statement.

    Hitchens is my heeeeerooooo

  • ||

    "Because all those clips I saw on the TV news on 9/11 of planes actually flying into buildings were obviously faked -- including the shots right afterwards of plane-shaped holes in the buildings."

    Don't you know??? Jew Bush in conjunction with the Five J00w Bankers of the New World Order set up a hologram on the International Space Station which made it appear there were planes.

    /sarcasm

  • LarryA||

    Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.

    Airline pilots don't seem to have too much trouble hitting the end of a runway, and they must do so at a precise landing angle and at minimum speed and without any do-overs and starting the first time they try.

    While I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it certainly might have been. I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the government is being 100% straight with us on this one.

    But, Dan T, you believe the U.S. government is competent enough to set up a conspiracy involving at least dozens of people and keep it a secret for half-a-dozen years. We libertarians don't.

  • ||

    Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore - two of a kind.

  • ||

    What's more frightening - that our government is involved in a murderous hoax, or that a group of random thugs could bring off something so audacious? Both count as conspiracy theories, by the way - it's just that the conspirators are different, and one theory supposes an all-powerful organization controlling our lives while the other supposes chaos and uncertainty at every turn.

    I need a coffee.

  • ||

    mediageek,
    can you provide a link to that review?

  • ||

    "It's more a matter of who knew what, who ordered what and who you want to consider on the "inside"."

    Show us some evidence, Dan, that Bush had anything to do with this. I'm no fan of Bush, but to make incredible claims, you need incredible proof.

  • ||

    Cesar, You told them about the five Jew bankers??!!?!?!?!

    Now they've all gotta be initiated...

  • Russ 2000||

    Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore - two of a kind.

    Michael Moore's a lesbo?

  • ||

    Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river.

    That's it! In flight refueling is impossible and must be part of some government misinformation campaign. The Blue Angels shows are all done with smoke and mirrors. MM is becoming a parody of himself.

  • Who Said It? (No GOOGLING!!!)||

    Like so many human conflicts-especially ones over group identity and tribal values, which is what the liberal v. conservative divide within the two-party context mostly is-arguments both within this movie [Fahrenheit 9/11] and between it and its detractors swirl not so much around verifiable specific facts but around overarching narratives and assumptions about motives. What was Bush thinking as he was told about the Twin Tower attacks while entertaining a room full of kids? What were the real motives behind attacking Iraq? (Little noted regarding this fiercely anti-Bush foreign policy film is the fact that the words "neocon" and "Israel" are not, in my memory, uttered once, and Moore is nowhere gonzo enough to engage in any specific conspiracy theorizing, as opposed to weirdly suggestive "links.") Are the financial links between the Bush family and Saudi interests, between the Carlyle Group and weapons manufacturers, between oil companies, pipeline schemes, and the war in Afghanistan, actually dispositive about the decisions the U.S. government has made, before and after 9/11?

    Well, I guess it's possible, but this movie comes nowhere close to proving it, or even shedding light down the paths one would have to walk to begin trying to prove it. I'd like to be able to pay the movie the compliment of saying that even by bringing such issues to the table, Moore has done a public service-a little public choice analysis when applied to government actions, whether domestic or foreign, is always welcome and should never be dismissed out of hand as "conspiracy mongering."

  • ||

    Considering that the current administration can't even cover up a plot to can a couple of US attorneys, you really have to be a retard to think they could have had anything to do with 9/11 or even covered up major facts about it and kept up the ruse for 6 years... No offense to retards....

    We couldn't keep the atom bomb secret for two years. Conspiacy nuts give WAY too much credit to the government for competence.

  • ||

    MOORE: See, I'm not very good at the physics and all that. But believe me, the questions need to be asked.

    HA HA HA HA HA! ROFL
    I want to live in world where a lot of other people find that as funny as I do.

  • ||

    David, was this just a slick way to fit in a Ron Paul reference? Nice work!

    I see you lost your job with YouTube and moved to the Google Video division. Bummer, man.

  • ||

    While I certainly don't believe 9/11 was masterminded by our own government, I completely sympathize with the theorists who suggest as much. These people see real fallacies in the official story and they jump to conclusions because of that. Most of their theories are wrong I'm sure, but I want the same questions answered that they do. One question stands out the most for me: Why don't they release footage of the plane hitting the pentagon? WHY? Give me one good reason they should not release at least some footage showing that plane. Seriously, if they did, it would take all the wind out of these people's sails.

  • ||

    He wants more video of the Pentagon crash? The physical evidence on site, such as the black box, an engine inside the building, the dead passengers, is not enough?

    I'm sure Michael Moore wants to investigate 9/11 again and again, only stopping when it's clear that Bush and Rove and Cheney did it all.

  • ||

    Show us some evidence, Dan, that Bush had anything to do with this. I'm no fan of Bush, but to make incredible claims, you need incredible proof.

    Well, I'm not really making such claims as I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. But I'm not 100% sure of it either.

    If nothing else, there is some reason to think that Osama Bin Laden was once a CIA operative. Does this make him something of an "insider"? Maybe.

  • ||

    Yes, the plane that hit the Pentagon was traveling far faster than planes do when they land. I think that it was around 400 mph based on FAA reports. When it flew over my head, I'm sure that it was traveling far faster than planes do when I've watched them land at Reagan National. The initial hole in the Pentagon (before the upper floors collapsed) went from the ground to just beloww the top two floors. Despite hundreds of witnesses like me and video evidence, somehow idiots still think that the simplest explanation must not be true.

  • ||

    "can you provide a link to that review?"


    Kwais-

    I was just hoping that Hitch writes a review of Sicko. His review of Fahrenheit 9/11 though, was great.

  • kohlrabi||

    Dan T,

    "Does this make him something of an "insider"? Maybe."

    Good point. Aren't we all insiders in a way?

  • ||

    Firefighters told Moore they heard explosions.
    Since it is physically impossible for two enormous fireballs to come into contact with any number of flammable materials and create random explosions, I say this case is closed. I'm off to the Loose Change site to hang with people who aren't afraid of the truth. Peace.

  • ||

    Well, I'm not really making such claims as I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. But I'm not 100% sure of it either

    In reality, can you ever be 100 percent sure of anything that has happened, anywhere? We aren't even 100 percent sure we understand gravity.

    Holding forth total certainty as a standard dooms 9/11--and just about any event--to endless investigation. Where do you stop?

  • Dave W.||

    He wants more video of the Pentagon crash?

    let's put the shoe on the other foot:

    You are glad that the videos (other than a couple of stills from one camera) have not been released because?

    I mean, I think the plane hit the Pentagon, but I can't figure out what they are trying to hide. Presence of anti-aircraft guns? Absence of anti-aircraft guns? The true flight performance capabilities of passenger jets?

    In the case of the Pentagon, I think the most likely thing is that they are trying to get us used to the idea that we don't get to see government and gov't confiscated footage, even when a big national tragedy happens. If that is the true "conspiracy theory" here, I also think it stinks.

  • ||

    The only thing more devastating to Michael Moore's credibiilty would be if he released five or six half-baked documentaries full of distortions and plays to emotion.

  • Truthiness Guy||

    I know the awful truth about 9/11, Michael. It's like this (better sit down):

    18 Middle Eastern terrorists hijacked four planes and successfully crashed three of them into three buildings.

    I know it's hard to believe, but there it is.

  • VM||

    A huge, raging tiger ran into each tower, thereby knocking them over.

    And another tiger got Kennedy.

    case closed.

    the EVIL MONKEY did it.

  • Eureka||

    I've finally figured it out! Dan T is just Oliver Stone on a mescaline binge.

    That explains everything.

  • Dave W.||

    18 Middle Eastern terrorists hijacked four planes and successfully crashed three of them into three buildings.

    1. I thought there were 19.

    2. Why were none of them shot down by the air defenses (both air and ground based)?

  • Truthiness Guy||

    Dan T.: The idea that 9/11 could have been an inside job doesn't necessarily mean the attacks were totally faked.

    It WAS an inside job: The terrorists were inside the planes, weren't they?

  • DM||

    well now its must be EVIL MONKEY Tuesday

  • Truthiness Guy||

    Dave W.

  • ||

    F the Bush Administration.
    That being said, while I have seen neither Fahrenheit 9/11 nor Loose Change (even know I know the guys who made it), I don't think the US government did it themselves because that would hardly make sense if you believe that we periodically stop planned terrorist attacks.

    I mean, really, isn't it EASIER to just LET someone else do it and not have to deal with the hassle of covering it up?

  • ||

    PCAS
    Popular Mechanic's? Isn't that the publication organ of the international workers of the world united we stand conspiracy? When I want to read half assed nonsense about the world I come to these electronic pages, if I want to find out how to do a brake job, then & only then do I go to Popular Mechanics.

  • ||

    You are glad that the videos (other than a couple of stills from one camera) have not been released because?

    i don't think "glad" is the term. i don't see the need. there's an airplane stuck in the pentagon. there were witnesses on the ground and in the plane. what need is there for even more evidence of what we already know happened?

    2. Why were none of them shot down by the air defenses (both air and ground based)?

    this ain't the cold war of the 1950s. we don't have nike sites and continental CAPs 24 hours a day.

  • Truthiness Guy||

    Why were none of them shot down by the air defenses (both air and ground based)?

    I know there are hundreds of anti-aircraft gun stationed all over Manhattan, but as luck would have it the gunners were all on a smoke break.

    IIRC, there were fighters scrambled and on the way to intercept Flight 93 when it crashed. The other three attacks came too close together for anyone to have a chance to react.

  • ||

    I mean, really, isn't it EASIER to just LET someone else do it and not have to deal with the hassle of covering it up?

    I think this is the more likely possibility.

  • KinkyCohibaBeretGirl||

    There is no way this administration could have pulled off 9/11. No way. (I still don't quite get how Bush could be such a stupid idiot and an evil genius at the same time. Alas. Such is the bewildering workings of the (il)liberal mind.)

    No administration could pull it off under the microscope of the US presidency.

    Why, poor Bill couldn't even get a little sumthin'-sumthin' without being found out!

    Michael Moore is a Leni Riefenstahl wannabe. Sadly for him, she was, and always will be the shit when it comes to political propaganda films.

    I can see why MM wants socialized medicine. His morbid obesity is gonna cost him plenty, if it hasn't already.

    http://www.therealcuba.com/MichaelMooreVaradero%20Beach1%20copy.jpg

  • ||

    I mean, really, isn't it EASIER to just LET someone else do it and not have to deal with the hassle of covering it up

    so, you're a LIHOPer, not a MIHOPer?

  • ||

    While I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it certainly might have been.

    Does not compute.

  • ||

    I know you all hate Michael Moore and all, but there's really not that much that should be controversial in what he actually says, above, which (as a review) is thus:

    A) He'd like to see a full investigation of the events surrounding 9/11, as he feels that the ones thufar have been insufficient, and he has met others who similarly feel that the investigations thusfar have been insufficient.

    B) He'd like to see video footage that we all have great cause to assume exists, and yet which none of us has ever been shown, for reasons none of us seems to understand.

    C) It's hard to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the side of a 5-story-tall building. (Note, by the way, that jetliners land at about 150 mph).

    Is any of those three statements really, truly beyond the pale?

    Can y'all put the ad hominems aside for the briefest of moments? And, yes, I know he was answering a question posed by someone who believes that "9/11 was an inside job," but perhaps y'all could shelve your Association fallacies for a moment, too, when evaluating the actual statements made above.

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • ||

    What is it with liberals and documentaries? Can it really be they don't get enough "free" NPR that they have to go pay money to hear someone regurgitate "facts" they already believe?

    Liberals : documentaries :: conservatives : talk radio

    I don't know why.

  • ||

    wow, I don't even know what those acronyms mean, but I'm guessing "let it happen on purpose" and "make it happen on purpose." Is that right?

    I'm only providing an argument against the MIHOP theory on the grounds that it's more difficult than it needs to be. I'm not making any claims about the liklihood of the administration having LIHOP.

  • ||

    but perhaps y'all could shelve your Association fallacies for a moment, too, when evaluating the actual statements made above.

    But they really aren't facts to be debated. They are:

    A) opinion
    B) speculation
    C) duh!

    What should we address, what opposing theories or explanations should we counter with?

  • ||

    I have to agree with Patrick Meighan.

    I don't see anything that MM is saying that is controversial. In fact, many of the things he is saying sound similar to Ron Paul. I think the problem for this crowd is the messenger. You hate MM so anything he says will be met with derision and disdain.

    But ultimately he was saying that the government hasn't done a thorough investigation and that they have been rather protective of any footage/info about what happened that day.

    OH THE HORROR of someone speculating that the government hasn't been completely forthcoming.

  • ||

    The Ron Paul campaign has officially told Truthers to STFU! Not in those harsh words, of course, but they did strongly urge that the message of the Ron Paul campaign to be that of the Ron Paul campaign. Check all other agendas at the door.

    p.s. Is the government covering something up about 9/11? Yes! They're covering their incompetent asses! This is the same incompetent government that bungled the planting of WMDs in Iraq.

  • ||

    ChicagoTom:

    To illustrate my glorious consistency, I think it is stupid when Paul says it, too.

  • TallDave||

    The man clearly knows his key demographic. (BTW, why does he think security cameras watch the sky all day? Are New York and D.C. plagued by flying petty criminals?)

    Seriously, what % of his stuff do you think he even believes himself? His career is mostly a scam to make himself rich off the passionately gullible.

  • ||

    albo,

    A) You could defend the sufficiency of the investigations thusfar undergone.

    B) You could explain why no video footage has been released.

    C) You could say, "I agree with Michael Moore that it must be exceptionally difficult to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the side of a 5-story-tall building," (which, I assume, is the rough translation of "duh").

    Or, possibly, you (and David Weigel) could've just ignored the whole thing.

    Any of the above would've been a more reasonable, logical course than resorting to the long stream of ad hominems and Association fallacies of which this comment thread is composed.

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • TallDave||

    C) You could say, "I agree with Michael Moore that it must be exceptionally difficult to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the side of a 5-story-tall building," (which, I assume, is the rough translation of "duh").

    Isn't the Pentagon the largest office building in he world?

  • ||

    The-administration-let-it-happen-on-purpose* assertions were also made about the sinking of the Lusitania and about Pearl Harbor. AFAIK, in all the decades since those events, no solid evidence has been found to support those theories.

    Not that such theories must always be false. But they do seem to accompany attacks that result in U.S. declarations of war, and they have not previously panned out.

    *By which I mean "the administration had the opporunity to prevent the attack and elected not to," as opposed to "the administration could have prevented the attack if the administration were not incompetent or negligent."

  • ||

    "The man clearly knows his key demographic. (BTW, why does he think security cameras watch the sky all day? Are New York and D.C. plagued by flying petty criminals?)"

    TallDave,

    He does not appear to believe that security cameras watch the sky all day.

    He does appear to believe that security cameras watch the Pentagon all day.

    Is that such a crazy, improbable thing to believe?

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • ||

    OH THE HORROR of someone speculating that the government hasn't been completely forthcoming.

    Dunno about you, but I operate under that assumption as SOP.

    That the guvmint could competently carry out such a event and leave behind no clear evidence as to its complicity, and do it with such precision (and convince sooooo many eyewitnesses)...now THAT's a conspiracy theory.

  • TallDave||

    Patrick,

    If they're pointing at the Pentagon itself, take a guess at their framerate and how many frames a plane hitting the building would appear in.

    How many cameras do you suppose are set up at the proper angles and framerates to monitor incoming planes?

  • ||

    "Isn't the Pentagon the largest office building in he world?"

    It may, perhaps, be. But it is not the *tallest* office building in the world, and was, purportedly, hit from the side, at 400-500 mph.

    The length and width of the Pentagon, it would seem, should be immaterial to the difficulty (or ease) of hitting a 5-story high building with a Boeing 757 at 400-500 mph.

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • Dave W.||

    this ain't the cold war of the 1950s. we don't have nike sites and continental CAPs 24 hours a day.

    1. I don't know about those defense systems specifically, but I think the US has air defense systems capable of shooting down slow planes over US airspace on very short notice. I imagine that these days surface to air missiles are the main thing. They are probably smaller than anti-aircraft guns, and more discreet.

    2. I think those defense systems are normally operational 24/7, Russkies or no Russkies.

    3. While you may not believe my guess in points 1 & 2, I don't think you have hard evidence to disprove it.

    4. It would take an investigation to really say one way or the other. there should be an investigation, a real one, so that we can say one way or the other.

    5. I am not very worried about a repeat of 9/11 at all. I still do think there could be an airplane attack of some type where the ability to shoot down planes (any planes, not just certain planes) in a timely fashion could save lives, perhaps even millions of US citizen lives. Therefore, an investigation of this aspect of 9/11 is worthy of resource allocation.

  • TallDave||

    Also, planes seem to manage to hit runways thousands of times a day without much trouble. A runway is a considerably narrower target than the WTC or Pentagon, and landing intact is obviously considerably harder than just crashing into something.

  • Dave W.||

    The length and width of the Pentagon, it would seem, should be immaterial to the difficulty (or ease) of hitting a 5-story high building with a Boeing 757 at 400-500 mph.

    Is there some reason it would have been important to hit the side, rather than the center?

    Could the fact that he hit the side be an indication that it almost missed the intended target?

    (Not that any of this would justify the failure to release footage.)

  • ||

    "If they're pointing at the Pentagon itself, take a guess at their framerate and how many frames a plane hitting the building would appear in. How many cameras do you suppose are set up at the proper angles and framerates to monitor incoming planes?"

    Now we're getting somewhere! You're the first person I, personally, have heard theorize that the Pentagon security cameras have a low frame-rate, and thus any security footage existant would feature the plane in very few frames. And you're certainly the first person on this thread to offer such a theory.

    That could very well be the explanation. Seriously.

    That said, it might help if the actual video footage (low frame rate and all) were released to you and me, rather than simple still photos. Then we could, maybe, confirm your hypothesis.

    Is it so unreasonable to ask that this video footage (which belongs to the public) be released to the public?

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • ||

    "Also, planes seem to manage to hit runways thousands of times a day without much trouble. A runway is a considerably narrower target than the WTC or Pentagon, and landing intact is obviously considerably harder than just crashing into something."

    As mentioned several times above, jetliners land on runways at about 150 mph.

    The 757 purportedly hit the Pentagon at 400-500 mph.

    "Is there some reason it would have been important to hit the side, rather than the center? Could the fact that he hit the side be an indication that it almost missed the intended target?"

    I dunno. Maybe. It's possible that we may have more evidence with which to answer these questions if the Pentagon would release the video footage of the impact. If only it would do so.

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • TallDave||

    They have released the gate camera footage. It shows exactly what you'd expect: a couple frames with the plane in low resolution. Here's one of a million sites that has the frames.

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

    Moore said:

    "To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released."

    That's just deliberately misleading fodder for his key demo. Given that he's built a career on deceptive video edits pandering to a certain point of view, it's overwhelmingly likely he already knows there's no answers there.

  • FOX TV producer||

    I dunno. Maybe. It's possible that we may have more evidence with which to answer these questions if the Pentagon would release the video footage of the impact. If only it would do so.

    You just wanna see that video, dontcha? I know your type.

  • ||

    "You just wanna see that video, dontcha? I know your type."

    Oh, an ad hominem. How fresh.

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • ||

    This is not the anti-Michael Moore smoking gun. He is skeptical that the government of President George W. Bush tells the truth and says to people who PRETEND to know more, I hope there is an investigation. Whether one hates Moore, loves him, or simply has not made up there mind, he seems to be acting with REASON, if not the web magazine then Reason itself.

  • TallDave||

    The 757 purportedly hit the Pentagon at 400-500 mph

    According to who? The simulations were based on around 350mph. That means they hit a target at least twice as wide as a runway going about twice as fast as landing speed. Sounds pretty easy.

  • TallDave||

    How responsive is a 747?

    Check this out:

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

  • ||

    Those of you calling for more investigations, although I'm not sure what a "real" investigation is, it seems to me you are assuming there is evidence--and significant evidence--not yet seen by the 9/11 commission. Do any of you have any evidence at all that leads you to believe this is the case?

    Again, as I said before, and I've debated this issue for 5 years over at Fark, and I've read all the literature, when are we going to stop? When we achieve a conclusion that meets everybody's agenda? When we know 100 percent of everythign that happened down to the second? When?

  • FOX TV producer||

    Patrick -- It's 4:10 pm. Do you know where your sense of humor is? :-) [for the avoidance of doubt]


    he seems to be acting with REASON, if not the web magazine then Reason itself.

    DRINK!

  • ||

    Interesting how the neocons are rushing to defend Bush against any hint of his malfaesance in 9/11.

    Most ordinary Republicans no longer trust the Republican elites. They are more in Michael Moore's camp than in that of the Kennebunkport Republicans.

    Thank you GW, you have succeeded in alienating not only the independents but your own Republican base as well.

  • kohlrabi||

    I agree with Patrick Meighan from Venice, CA. Everyone here is acting like there's some prior reason to be sceptical of what MM is saying. It's not like there's any record or documentation that might challenge his credibility.

  • ||

    "They have released the gate camera footage. It shows exactly what you'd expect: a couple frames with the plane in low resolution. Here's one of a million sites that has the frames."

    I don't see video there. I see a few still frames. Where's the video footage that includes those frames?

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • ||

    in response to the framerate argument...

    They also confiscated camera footage from the gas station across the street. Why would they have done that?

    Again, I really believe 18 or 19 muslim radicals did this. But I want to know why they don't release that footage. It would put an end to most if not all of this conspiracy crap.

  • ||

    Whoa...these infowars people actually buy this pigshit. I thought they were just trying to nail Moore for being an idiot.

  • Gahan||

    "I don't see anything that MM is saying that is controversial."

    REPORTER: And we know that 9/11 was an inside job.

    MOORE: Right.

    That's not controversial?

  • Dave W.||

    Again, as I said before, and I've debated this issue for 5 years over at Fark, and I've read all the literature, when are we going to stop? When we achieve a conclusion that meets everybody's agenda? When we know 100 percent of everythign that happened down to the second? When?

    I dunno, but I would be a JFK conspiracist if they were still sitting on the Zapruder film. They aren't so I am not.

    Some people are possible to satisfy.

  • ||

    Consider this: MM believes that the target of the plane was to hit the 50 foot facade of the Pentagon. He is too clever by half.

    Wouldn't the terrorist's purpose be served if the plane were to hit ANY part of the Pentagon? Ground-Zero Cafe? The far side, from inner-ring, out? When you think of it that way, the Pentagon is one whopping big target.

    Their purpose is served whether they drill the plane through the front steps, of if they crash it through the roof, across the center, and into the other side.

    As for the security cameras, think two things: 1. They are watching ground approaches, not the air.
    2. Ever think the room holding the video tapes might have been severely damaged?
    3. Would YOU reveal where your security cameras were?
    4. Maybe they shut off a lot of them, given the renovation work at that part of the building (think lots of heavy equipment tearing up the ground)

    Occam's razor. Use it, or be left bleeding on the side of the road.

  • ||

    They also confiscated camera footage from the gas station across the street. Why would they have done that?

    Some people are possible to satisfy.


    And they did release that gas station video recently, if I recall correctly. It reveals nothing that contradicts the "official story," but it hasn't shut up the truthers.

  • ||

    Dan T.,

    Your work here is finished. You've made the religious right look halfways respectable. Come home for a rest, and congratulations on a job well done.

    Karl

  • ||

    And one last thing. Who cares about the video? Video can be faked. There were parts of the airplane and the people found in the pentagon. The black box was right there. What could video from some unacknowledged pentagon camera possibly change?

  • ||

    Why do these conspiracy nuts keep getting blog time on Hit & Run?

  • ||

    Anyone who watched them fight the fire at the Pentagon would know that he hit in a good location for the fire fighters. The fire took many hours to control as it spread into the roof. If he'd crashed the plane into the middle, controlling the fire would have been far more difficult. I would guess, based upon the fact that he took out some street lights along 395, he came very close to crashing short of the building.

  • Gahan||

    I fail to see what the government would have to gain by staging an airplane attack on the Pentagon given that we all saw, in graphic detail, the very real airplane attack that took place at the World Trade Center. Is an attack on the Pentagon (a legitimate military target) really supposed to generate any extra moral outrage that wasn't already achieved with the twin towers (two skyscrapers full of civilians).

    Seriously, if you are an evil government planning to turn a phony attack into an excuse to go to war, don't you think you would choose a target people are a bit more sympathetic towards than the Pentagon?

  • ||

    C) It's hard to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the side of a 5-story-tall building. (Note, by the way, that jetliners land at about 150 mph).

    Please find your nearest FBO and pay $100 for an orientation flight to dispel your ignorance of flying.

    It is far easier to control a plane at maximum performance than at stall speeds. Jetliners land at 150mph because runways are short, not because it is easier for the pilots.

  • ||

    "Those of you calling for more investigations, although I'm not sure what a "real" investigation is, it seems to me you are assuming there is evidence--and significant evidence--not yet seen by the 9/11 commission. Do any of you have any evidence at all that leads you to believe this is the case?"

    Speaking only for myself, I'd simply like to see an investigation of the events of 9/11 that's not conducted by appointees of the people who benefitted (politically) the very most by the events of 9/11.

    I have no evidence that any element of our government had any involvement (passive or active) in the events of 9/11, nor that anything occurred on or around 9/11 that differs from the generally accepted narrative: that several Saudis and a few Egyptians hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, having been sent on that mission by al Qaeda, and that the attack was a complete surprise to our administration. In fact, that's what I, personally, happen to believe. But until there's an official investigation by folks who did not happen to be appointed by those who benefitted (politically) the very most by the events of 9/11, I can't bring myself to certainty on that score, and am bound, as an independent-thinking citizen, to be (at the very least) curious.

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • g3n3r1c||

    GWB our president can produce WMD or UBL but he can pull of the biggest terrorist attack in world history with all the ppl in the state and defense and CIA that constantly leaking information helping the people that attacked us.

  • g3n3r1c||

    that would be *can't produce WMD or UBL

  • ||

    I don't think the footage from the gas station was released as you say. I searched for it and I couldn't find it and I'm sure if it had been released i could find some mention of it. From what I've read, at least 80 cameras should have caught this on tape.
    In response to the argument about black box and parts found at pentagon: Once again, why not release the tape or even transcripts from that black box? And i can't find any credible evidence about parts being found. They covered up with tarps any parts they hauled off, and they will not show any pictures of those parts. Again, why be secretive? It would be so easy to dispell the myths about 911, either release the tapes from the black box, release some footage showing the plane hit the building, or show us pictures of airplane parts that can be positively identified.

  • ||

    "REPORTER: And we know that 9/11 was an inside job.
    MOORE: Right.
    That's not controversial?"


    Decontextualized (as you've done above), it's controversial. In context, it was clearly a case of Michael Moore acknowledging the "reporter"'s line of thought, rather than agreeing with the "reporter"'s statement.

    If you read the whole of the quoted piece, Michael Moore is clearly calling for further investigations and declaring that there are, in his view, questions that need to be answered, NOT that he *has* answered the questions, and the answer(s) is/are that 9/11 was an inside job.

    "I fail to see what the government would have to gain by staging an airplane attack on the Pentagon given that we all saw, in graphic detail, the very real airplane attack that took place at the World Trade Center."

    Though it's not my belief that the Pentagon attack was staged (as I said above, I believe it was hit by a Boeing 757 flown by an al Qaeda operative, just like you do), my understanding of the theory advanced by those who *do* believe that it was staged is that, in the wake of the horrific attacks on the WTC, the Boeing 757 filled with Americans was intentionally shot down by a U.S. military aircraft just off the Eastern Seaboard, and that the Pentagon was subsequently targeted by a U.S. missile and credited an another al Qaeda airplane attack, in order to prevent potential domestic outrage.

    Again, it's not my theory, but it's my understanding of their theory.

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • ||

    """I mean, I think the plane hit the Pentagon, but I can't figure out what they are trying to hide. Presence of anti-aircraft guns? Absence of anti-aircraft guns? The true flight performance capabilities of passenger jets?

    In the case of the Pentagon, I think the most likely thing is that they are trying to get us used to the idea that we don't get to see government and gov't confiscated footage, even when a big national tragedy happens. If that is the true "conspiracy theory" here, I also think it stinks."""

    As if they are saying, "just believe us", which has been this administration's mantra all along. That's why I agree with Dan T's first post. If you don't believe the government is honest with us anyway. Why start now? That doesn't mean you accept a conspiracy. I'm a believer of the obvious, 19 guys hijacked planes and flew then into buildings, and in one case, the ground. But I don't believe much of anything coming out of this administration's mouth, or previous ones for that matter.

    I know people who will tell you that everyone in government lies, and in the same breath tell you Bush has never lied. I guess they want to believe the status quo of government lying does not apply to the people they like.

    """ What could video from some unacknowledged pentagon camera possibly change?"""

    It would shut up the people claiming it wasn't a plane. So the video does have the potential to change something.

    There were plenty of eyewitnesses, that's good enough for me, But I guess not for others.

    I think Dave W is close to being right. It's part of the new "you don't have the right to see government" agenda so popular with the Bush admin.

  • ||

    Pinette:

    Look Pictures!

  • MattXIV||

    if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.



    This is particularly funny given that guided missiles steered by an operator using real-time video have been used as anti-tank weapons, which involves not only hitting a much smaller target than a building that is 5 stories tall and has a 29 acre footprint, but one that is often moving. Although I do think most of those bad boys are travelling at around 300 mph after the main engine kicks in.

    I've finally figured it out! Dan T is just Oliver Stone on a mescaline binge.

    That explains everything.



    Eureka wins the prize for most plausible conspiracy theory articulated in the thread.

  • Dave W.||

    What could video from some unacknowledged pentagon camera possibly change?

    Like I said above, I think they are withholding video (and/or releasing video very slowly) just to f**k with people. Same reason they withheld the Zapruder film -- to show who is in charge here.

    That said, what could the video POSSIBLY show? Off the top of my head: another aircraft in the vicinity, say an F-16. a soldier standing on the lawn with a surface to air missile launcher, but not making any attempt to fire it at the approaching jet. a soldier attempting to fire at the approach jet, but having her (shoddy) surface to air missile launcher fail to fire due to shoddy workmanship. A guard running for cover instead of for an alarm switch. There are many incriminating and/or embarrassing possibilities. Not that any of these possibilities are true, but if any one of these possibilities were true, then it would change our perception of 9/11 in significant ways.

  • ||

    I'm confused about a couple things. First, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, why has Bin Laden taken credit for it? Secondly, if Bush knew it was going to happen, why, when informed during his appearance at the elementary school, did he not heroically snap into action instead of sitting there looking like a deer in headlights?

  • ||

    Now we're getting somewhere! You're the first person I, personally, have heard theorize that the Pentagon security cameras have a low frame-rate, and thus any security footage existant would feature the plane in very few frames. And you're certainly the first person on this thread to offer such a theory.

    I recall making similar arguments in a similar thread weeks (months?) ago, but I'm pretty sure it was after the thread was way down the page.

    It's speculation about the quality of the security cameras, but it's at least very reasonable speculation. Frame rate, velocity of the object, and field of view of the camera (and at what focal depth the impact area was) are all variables that can tell you the maximum number of frames of video with an aircraft were even POSSIBLE to have. At that time, most security cameras (used for perimeter security) didn't NEED to have high frame rates so most didn't. I don't know if this applies to the Pentagon, but I wouldn't doubt it.

    Further things complicating number of "good" video frames are focus at distance and resolution, as well as ability to deal with blooming effects (security cameras probably don't deal with them at all).

    Michael Moore may be correct that there were 100 cameras looking at the Pentagon. But what he doesn't offer a guess at is how many were looking at the exact right place at the exact right time at a good resolution and a useful distance so that the event would be in non-pixelated focus.

  • ||

    Leland,
    thank you. great site with great technical detail. And yes it does definitively show that it was a 757 hit the pentagon. \
    Like I said in my first and second post, i don't, and never have, believed any of these conspiracy theories; i just can't stand the poor arguments made against them. And I really believe it would be easy for the government to end the argument by releasing footage, voice recorder tapes, and pictures.
    Plus I really really wanna see the plane hit the pentagon.

  • ||

    I dunno. Maybe. It's possible that we may have more evidence with which to answer these questions if the Pentagon would release the video footage of the impact. If only it would do so.

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA


    You mean like the video found in this story: US releases 9/11 Pentagon video.

    Note: this story is more than a year old

  • ||

    All good points, Timon.

    "Michael Moore may be correct that there were 100 cameras looking at the Pentagon. But what he doesn't offer a guess at is how many were looking at the exact right place at the exact right time at a good resolution and a useful distance so that the event would be in non-pixelated focus."

    Releasing all the video footage (as opposed to individual still frames) from the Pentagon's perimeter on the morning of 9/11 (no matter how poorly framed or poorly resolved they may be) would certainly relieve Michael Moore (and you, and me, and everyone) from having to make such guesses.

    Releasing *no* video footage from the Pentagon's perimeter on the morning of 9/11 seems to encourage us to make such guesses.

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • ||

    You know, it really is hilarious at some level. Leftoids hem and haw about how we don't know if a plane struck the Pentagon because the government won't release video footage. Then the video footage is released and ... Leftoids hem and haw about how we don't know if a plane struck the Pentagon because the government won't release video footage.

    One wonders if they simply aren't paying attention or if they don't want to pay attention because it might disturb (or shatter) their preconceived notions.

    Of course, it doesn't help that Michael Moore is a lying cad, which has been demonstrated more than once. Still, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..."

  • ||

    Pinette,

    No problem. I can't say I want to see the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon (again!), but it's out there. I do think we haven't heard the full story, but I don't think the full truth is protected by a hidden conspiracy.

    Keep in mind that even the evening of 9/11, many news organizations were already censoring video, because the images were considered too graphic. Within a month, many organizations decried the continual showing of 9/11 video because it would continue to "enrage" Americans. The conspiracy to hide information is obvious and hardly starts within the government.

  • ||

    Also being in the simulator business, I know that it's one hell of a lot easier to control a plane at 300-500 kts. as opposed to 150 kts. Especially an airliner.

    If that thing has an autopilot worth a damn, it's also not hard to pick a spot out on a huge, wide building to hit from several miles out. Minor corrections would be needed, but the plane could pretty much fly itself there.

  • ||

    "You mean like the video found in this story: US releases 9/11 Pentagon video. Note: this story is more than a year old."

    Thanks, Hand. Unfortunately, that particular camera is framed such that the plane (assuming, of course, that it's a plane) passes through frame so quickly as to be utterly indiscernable as a plane.

    Were there any other security video cameras filming around the Pentagon that morning? May we please see the video footage from each of the other cameras on the perimeter? If not, then why not?

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • ||

    Releasing all the video footage (as opposed to individual still frames) from the Pentagon's perimeter on the morning of 9/11

    Now we get to the agenda. The Pentagon should release all video of the perimeter for the day? Why the entire perimeter? Do you need to know the placement of all security cameras? Who goes in and out during the day and where they go in and out? What patrols exists and when they operate? How personnel and patrols respond to attacks?

    You may not want that information, but enemies of the country would love that information bonanza. Sure, cameras can be moved, personnel changed, patrols modified, but that's expensive. You don't need the entire perimeter of the Pentagon for the entire day of 9/11. It would take you months to view it all, and it would be useless to you.

  • ||

    it seems to me you are assuming there is evidence--and significant evidence--not yet seen by the 9/11 commission. Do any of you have any evidence at all that leads you to believe this is the case?

    Once again, why not release the tape or even transcripts from that black box?

    Didn't one of the guys who had access to the tape actually physically destroy it and throw it in a dumpster before anyone else could have access to it. I don't remember it now, but I am pretty sure I read a story about that and he had no good justification of it.

    THat was not a rational action

  • ||

    "If that thing has an autopilot worth a damn, it's also not hard to pick a spot out on a huge, wide building to hit from several miles out. Minor corrections would be needed, but the plane could pretty much fly itself there."

    Perhaps. Have we been told if the autopilot was on or not?

    If we have not been told, is that not something we deserve to know?

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • ||

    Releasing all the video footage (as opposed to individual still frames) from the Pentagon's perimeter on the morning of 9/11 (no matter how poorly framed or poorly resolved they may be) would certainly relieve Michael Moore (and you, and me, and everyone) from having to make such guesses.

    As I recall, those "individual still frames" were released that way because they were most likely CONSECUTIVE frames - it WAS the video, just in still form. This lends to the theory that the frame rates weren't worth a shit.

  • ||

    hand of vecna,
    wanting the government to release more footage does not make me or anyone else a 'leftoid'. I am as conservative as they come. I'm not saying that the footage they did release proves it wasn't a plane, but you act as if that footage should put an end to the argument. You really can't tell why that footage raises more questions than it answers? Have some empathy here buddy, it's very easy to understand why that footage lends credibility to the conspiracy theorists.

  • ||

    I think this was the story I remember reading:

    At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording a few hours later describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it, the Transportation Department said Thursday.

  • ||

    also HOV, i agree, michael moore is despicable.

  • ||

    Perhaps. Have we been told if the autopilot was on or not?

    If we have not been told, is that not something we deserve to know?

    The autopilot comment was simply a commentary on how fucking easy it is to control a jetliner to hit a monstrous building at speed. I don't know that the autopilot was on, and frankly it doesn't matter one bit.

    These guys were trained to fly airliners. Anyone with basic training would be able to fly manually or automatically into such a target. Much of one's training comes in learning to use the autopilot and especially the avionics. Basic flying is easy.

    Easy cheesy Japanesey.

  • ||

    Is this Reason? It appears to be Ad Hominem.

  • ||

    "Now we get to the agenda. The Pentagon should release all video of the perimeter for the day?"

    Not for the whole day. For the morning of 9/11, say 10 minutes prior to impact and 10 minutes following.

    "Why the entire perimeter?"

    Because it would relieve me (and many other Americans) of any residual suspicion that my government is hiding the truth from me.

    "You may not want that information, but enemies of the country would love that information bonanza. Sure, cameras can be moved, personnel changed, patrols modified, but that's expensive."

    The Pentagon spends more than $500,000,000,000.00 per year. I really believe that they can afford to move some cameras.

    "You don't need the entire perimeter of the Pentagon for the entire day of 9/11. It would take you months to view it all, and it would be useless to you."

    As an independent and free-thinking citizen, I'm not particularly interested in your assessment of what information I do and don't need.

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • ||

    ecause, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building [runway] that's only 5 stories high [a few feet wide] that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released

    Commercial Aircraft:

    1) Don't land at 500 mph
    2) Can land on the runway plus or minus SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET and still be okay
    3) Are landed by pilots with hundreds of hours of training and not by terrorists with no training in landing (or landing in ground effect)
    4) Have VASI lights, glide slope indicators, precision approach aids, not to mention altimeters, gps, radar, etc.

    Lots of military pilots have said that hitting the pentagon at that speed and given the tight overhead spiral was pretty damned tricky flying.

    But I appreciate the commenters at ad hominem for schooling us all. You guys are about as accurate as the folks at lgf and freerepublic.

    By the way, Michael Moore is fat.

    Not impressed Wiegel, not impressed.

  • ||

    Commercial Aircraft:

    1) Don't land at 500 mph


    But they are one hell of a lot easier to maneuver at that speed, thus, course corrections are a much, much more simple matter than when your AOA is in the neighborhood of 15 degrees.

    2) Can land on the runway plus or minus SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET and still be okay

    Yeah, so?

    3) Are landed by pilots with hundreds of hours of training and not by terrorists with no training in landing (or landing in ground effect)

    But we're not talking about landing, are we? We're also talking about terrorists who, it was widely acknowledged, learned to fly EXPLICITLY without learning to land.

    Ground effect doesn't do much with a small AOA, nose level or low and at speed.

    4) Have VASI lights, glide slope indicators, precision approach aids, not to mention altimeters, gps, radar, etc.

    You mean the terrorists flew without altimeters and radar on board? Wow.

    The approach aids help the pilot maintain optimal glide slope in the high AOA, low speed conditions of landing. They can still land the thing without all that and anyone can certainly hit a massive target like the Pentagon without VASI, PAPI or a localizer.

  • ||

    Everybody, copy and paste this:
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

    Then read. Then you can comment. Until then, STFU.

  • ||


    Go here
    if you have any questions. God, you people are dinks.

  • ||

    2) Can land on the runway plus or minus SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET and still be okay

    Yeah, so?


    I was responding to the comment above that says if you can land on a runway you can hit a 5 story building.

    And nothing in the popular mechanics debunking addresses the issue of how easy or hard it was to hit the pentagon or fly that aircraft.

    I am not arguing that the pentagon was not hit by a 757, I am saying all you freepers and lgfers and weigel here at ad-hominem don't have a shred of the authority you claim or even a reasonable understanding of the situation.

    You mean the terrorists flew without altimeters and radar on board? Wow.

    I am saying that terrorists that did not train in landings might find it hard to land on a runway that has many landing aids much less hit the broadside of a building that has no landing aids.

  • ||

    Patrick,

    As an independent and free-thinking citizen, I'm not particularly interested in your desire to spend taxpayers money for your pet agenda.

    Again, go spend your own $100 and learn something about flying. You are independent, therefore I'm sure you can afford it.

  • ||

    I am not arguing that the pentagon was not hit by a 757, I am saying all you freepers and lgfers and weigel here at ad-hominem don't have a shred of the authority you claim or even a reasonable understanding of the situation.

    I'm an aerospace engineer with flight time in multiple types and simulators. What's your understanding of the flying characteristics of airplanes, Jerry? Of was your comment just an adhominem attack made by a hypocrit?

  • ||

    I was responding to the comment above that says if you can land on a runway you can hit a 5 story building.

    And my response to that is "no fucking duh". Because it's way fucking easier to do the latter than the former to someone with no landing training.

    And nothing in the popular mechanics debunking addresses the issue of how easy or hard it was to hit the pentagon or fly that aircraft.

    That's probably right. But I'm not the one putting it forth as such. I'm not so sure anyone who HAS brought it up claimed it was supporting the ease of flying a 757. I'm pretty sure it's to address other points.

    I am not arguing that the pentagon was not hit by a 757, I am saying all you freepers and lgfers and weigel here at ad-hominem...

    I love the taste of Irony in the evening.

    ...don't have a shred of the authority you claim or even a reasonable understanding of the situation.

    I beg to differ. You, on the other hand...

    I am saying that terrorists that did not train in landings might find it hard to land on a runway that has many landing aids much less hit the broadside of a building that has no landing aids.

    And I'm saying, from industry experience and knowledge, it's many, many, many times easier to hit a relatively narrow office building (never mind the colossal Pentagon) at speed than it is to land. Landing takes a LOT of concentration and minor adjustments. Hitting a point at or near the ground that you pick out miles away is much easier when traveling twice or more landing speed.

  • ||

    C'mon, we all know it was the masons.
    Or the Jews.
    Or the Cubans
    Or the CIA
    Or the Trilateral Commission
    Or the Vatican

    Well, goddamit it must have been a conspiracy other than the official explanation.

  • ||

    It would be stupid to release video of the plane hitting the pentagon. Why not just hand out blue prints and engineering data on the defenses of the building so the attackers can do a better job next time. Why put them through all the trouble of analyzing footage?

    Some people match Gene Wilder's description of the people living in Rockridge.

  • Francois Tremblay||

    Innocent people do NOT hide all the evidence as fast as they can.
    Hundred-plus story buildings do NOT
    "pancake fall" at the speed of gravity.
    Air compression does NOT make squibs twenty floors below.
    The melting of iron does NOT produce explosion sounds.

    If anyone still believes the "official story" they have a few logic modules missing in their brain.

  • ||

    There was a 270 degree turn. There was no miles and miles to line up on building.

    One analysis:

    http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm

    Read it freepers.

  • ||

    http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

    Here's the NTSB flight path study. Note the very steep descending turn. Seems like a good pilot was at the controls that day.

  • ||

    cbs:

    Top government officials have suggested that American Airlines Flight 77 was originally headed for the White House and possibly circled the Capitol building. CBS News Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr reports that's not what the recorded flight path shows.

    Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, radar tracked the plane as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington. Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House.

    At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn.

    Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

    The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.

    The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph.

    Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives.

    At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way.

    "That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."

  • ||

    Moore, Franken, Sheehan, and celebrities Funny Girl, the guy with the phone scalding of his 11 or 12yo daughter, Rosie are the faces of the democratic party, and yuck.

    A landing jet would have had much more trouble hitting the building since a landing is a controlled fall and a slow plane loses stability in flight. With wheels up and at speed, the jet remained very stable until it hit the light poles, cars and other stuff on the ground. The plane is about like a mobile home size object hitting. 50 of them could hit a side of the Pentagon without hitting the same hole. So many people saw the airliner go down toward the pentagon, some saw it hit, that it would be a miracle to hire that many actors. Where is the plane and people aboard if it didn't hit the Pentagon? Did it rise up and fly away unseen after the pass? I thought to myself that the plane was hitting the ground as it hit the building. The pilot should have flown into the center of the building, I thought, but then it wouldn't ahve looked so good. If you've seen where jets have flown into mountains there is nothing much left buy little pieces of the body and come big hunks of landing gear. The videos shown back then really were just blurs. They don't even pick up the gate of a walker at 5mph. I'm glad he didn't hit the Capitol.

  • ||

    Hundred-plus story buildings do NOT
    "pancake fall" at the speed of gravity.


    Oh yeah, and at what fucking speed is something that is being PULLED DOWN BY FUCKING GRAVITY going to fall at?

    The melting of iron does NOT produce explosion sounds.

    For the last fucking time STRUCTURAL STEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT TO FAIL.

    Holy Lord Jesus Christ on fucking toast!!! More fucking proof of the ignorant JUST FUCKING KNOWING THE TRUTH. Now if only some of them had some fucking clue about the laws of mechanics and the properties of materials.

  • ||

    Last link for the Ad-Hominem crowd:

    http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

    I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. All I am saying is that you guys don't have a clue either.

    Moore's statements seem quite reasonable and restrained.

  • ||

    the tone of some of this seems to put forth that no one of intelligence could deny the evidence of a conpiracy unless they were blindly dedicated to the Bushies and the evil American empire. Noam Chomsky is the world's leading critic of American imperialism and Bush. As a pioneering linguistics professor at MIT, he is also considered one of the world's great intellects. Confronted with the idea that the government had foreknowledge of the attacks, he responded that this idea was "hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."

    Is he stupid? Is the world's most rabid critic of Bush and American imperialism lying... to defend Bush and America? Can any explain why he said what he said?

  • ||

    http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm

  • ||

    Damn...forgot to close the tag the first time...

    http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm

    Quote from the website itself:
    "Of course, this is all speculation, not facts."

    According to the NTSB flight path, there were about 5 miles to re-acquire upon rolling back out from the turn. That's plenty.

    A steep, descending turn (of radius ~1.5 miles) can be done by someone who has learned how to fly a plane like these guys. It's not recommended, but I don't think comfort and safety were top on their list.

    Last link for the Ad-Hominem crowd:

    You do understand irony, don't you? Do you have a script that you run to produce these posts, by the way? When have I dealt with your posts like a "freeper" or launched any ad hominems?

    At least you're playing the part very faithfully - posting links to pre-ordained stuff and sniffing "take THAT government lackeys! All will be revealed by my stable of links and videos!"

  • ||

    Hundred-plus story buildings do NOT
    "pancake fall" at the speed of gravity.


    1. Gravity isn't a speed.
    2. How many 100-story buildings have fallen?
    3. How many buildings of that construction and wounded in that way have ever existed?

    Air compression does NOT make squibs twenty floors below.

    It doesn't?

    Squibs also travel/expel debris one hell of a lot faster than what happened that day. How many buildings falling with associated "squibs" have ever - EVER - fallen top down (with squibs going DOWN the building)?

    The melting of iron does NOT produce explosion sounds.

    I'm sure it doesn't. Structural steel melting probably doesn't either. But then again, the steel didn't have to melt for the building to fail. Not by a long shot.

    What MIGHT make "explosion sounds" (your term, and a good one), is the structural steel catastrophically failing, especially when the concrete canyon effect is considered. What also might make "explosion sounds" are small fires of any of a number of materials, large/heavy things falling, gases, and a host of other things.

  • ||

    Leland said: "As an independent and free-thinking citizen, I'm not particularly interested in your desire to spend taxpayers money for your pet agenda."

    And yet here we are, in a democratic republic, in which taxpayers' money is spent all the time on agendas to which not every taxpayer assents (Exhibit A: the war in Iraq, which costs orders of magnitude greater than the cost of moving around some cameras at the Pentagon). It all comes down to priorities.

    Personally, I believe that full and free availability of public information must be one of the very highest priorities in a democratic republic, so its citizens can make informed choices when determining the republic's course.

    Patrick Meighan
    Venice, CA

  • miche||

    Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building [runway] that's only 5 stories high [a few feet wide] that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.

    Yea, that's a tough job...



    I've not read through all the comments yet, but I wanted to say that yes, it would be a tough job. I was nearly finished my training for a private pilot's license when my husband pulled the plug on it, so I'm by no means an expert. What I do know is that the training the terrorists were purported to have would not allow that type of precision and speed. The little Piper that I flew wouldn't beat my 911 Turbo in a street race and my husband reminded me of that little fact everytime I went up.

    According to the (9/11 commission.gov) doc linked, only one terrorist had multi-engine training. Flying a plane ain't hard, but I know how difficult it can be to fly a plane at a target (think runway) with limited experience even at speeds far less than the one quoted.

  • ||

    A Piper != A Boeing 757.

    At higher speeds, it's pretty easy to fly to a target with a 757, as it's a heavy, stable airframe.

  • ||

    has anyone ever thought that THIS IS DAVID BLAINE'S GREATEST TRICK EVER!!!!!!

  • Christie||

    It was the guy at the end that made me dizzy with his idiocy. Gee, when a huge aircraft with tons of fuel plows into a skyscraper and produces temperatures hot enough to melt steel, (and by the way Rosie, how is steel made?), then you can bet your sweet bippy that when that structure comes down, all 100+ stories of it, that the freakin concrete would be pulverized.
    The only investigation that needs to be made is into the sanity of the man at the podium and those who agree with him. A physics class might help, but without common sense these people are doomed to live in Psycho Town forever, no matter how many scientists they allow themselves to listen to..

  • miche||

    A Piper != A Boeing 757.

    At higher speeds, it's pretty easy to fly to a target with a 757, as it's a heavy, stable airframe.



    Don't be a jackass. I neither compared a 757 to a Piper, nor claimed expert. My personal experience is that flying a small plane is not difficult, but managing control of any craft can prove difficult in current. (I say that because I've always likened small plane to boat.) Nobody here can even speculate what that day was like from a pilot's perspective- we were too glued to the tube. But considering that nearly every pilot involved had, at most, a single engine pilot's (and no instrument rating) perspective, this would be overwhelming. The fucking cockpit would be overwhelming. I'm a human and don't need to know the handling info on a 757, 777, or S80 to know that.

  • ||

    YOU MOTHERFUCKING CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.

    I want you to die. I want you to die in a fire. Why?

    Because you market in fear. Oh, I hear that "teh evil BushCo uses the threat of terrism to keep the population afraid," but it's YOU who are the real fear-pushers making the world miserable.

    What kind of fear? The fear that thousands upon thousands of your fellow countrymen - soldiers, politicians, everyday folks - would be so _evil_ to willingly partake in a massive conspiracy to massacre their fellow civilians, and not one of them would feel enough remorse to go public.

    Oh, then you say that all the mainstream media and internet service providers are in on the conspiracy and snuffing the story? If you're willing to go down that route, join the line to have your alien mind control removed.

    I got a pair of links for you:

    http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
    http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html

    The first one pretty much explains why you're an asshole.
    The second one goes into dramatic detail of why you're a GIGANTIC ASSHOLE.

    You are scum. You are a boil on the ass of mankind, so pathetic and miserable that the only joy you have is a desperate attempt at convincing others to craw down and wallow in your misery.

    So keep "asking questions," fuckers.

  • ||

    According to the NTSB flight path, there were about 5 miles to re-acquire upon rolling back out from the turn. That's plenty.

    Do the math Timon.

    5 miles * 60 min / hour * 1 hour / 500 miles = 36 seconds to not just re-acquire but to fly those 5 miles after the rollout into the building.

    Where's the ad-hominem? Read the posts where everyone is attacking moore. Oh, and he's fat.

    A steep, descending turn (of radius ~1.5 miles) can be done by someone who has learned how to fly a plane like these guys.

    If your number for the radius is right, and it's at 500 mph, and my excel fu is right at 1am, then that's a 1 minute turn. A standard turn taught in a class would be a level turn that takes two minutes in a small plane and four minutes in a large aircraft.

    A steep descending one minute turn seems to be some pretty good turn fu.

  • ||

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

    fatmouse.

    Your hatred, desire to kill and abusive language are not very good examples of the psychological stability you think those of us who can entertain difficult ideas are lacking.

    Aristotle also pointed out: "There never was a genius without a tincture of insanity." Which probably fully applies to Noam Chomsky.

    The first link suggests that by tearing down Loose Change, all other hypotheses about what caused the buildings to collapse are thereby refuted.

    The second is mostly a long rant with a few comments that pertain to this discussion.

    Rosie may have misstated the melting issue, or you may have misquoted her.

    The maximum heat of a hydrocarbon in a diffuse flame fire producing black smoke is barely enough to soften structural steel, let alone cause it to fail. Keep in mind the ambient air temperature does not quickly (56 minutes for WTC 2, 102 for tower 1) become the steel temperature - especially not when you have a heat sink as large as the steel structures of the towers. The testing of actual steel beams from the areas of impact and fires failed to produce one that even reached that temperature. Pictures of the area of impact and flames do not show any windows blown out by heat - also indicating the fire temperatures were not hot enough.

    The reality Rosie referred to is that in the century history of steel frame buildings, many have had fires - the Empire State Building was hit in the upper floors by a bomber and had a fire- but none have collapsed like the WTC towers and WTC 7 (which was not hit by a plane) did on 9/11. The towers were over designed to withstand plane impacts and the fires that would inevitably ensue.

    From your own link:
    "An airplane is a hollow, extremely light-weight tube of aluminum, cunningly designed to lift not one ounce more than is necessary for safe flight in rough weather. An airplane is as fragile as a hollow-boned bird, and for the same reasons. The Pentagon, on the other hand, is a fortress, ..."

    The towers were also structurally engineered - a rather well established field- as fortresses that could easily withstand the impact of those 'hollow, extremely light weight tubes'.

    The official NIST report was clarified with the following comment:

    "In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."

    The NIST report also did not address the large amount of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings for weeks after 9/11. Or the ground temperatures from 600 to 1500 degrees F for six months after. Where did all the energy to create that heat come from? Not from the energy of the falling mass and all other sources combined - that can and has been calculated- it wasn't enough to continue the collapse that the impact and fires were insufficient to start to begin with, let alone the pulverization of everything but the steel beams. (The NIST report is only one of the rebuttals of the NOVA show and the pancake collapse hypothesis.) NIST only addressed WTC 7 by admitting that they needed help, issuing an RFP for someone else to study its collapse - but only floors 8 through 46 (WTC 7 had floors 1-7, sub basements and was 47 stories total).

    FEMA had this to say about WTC 7: "The best hypothesis has a very low probability of occurring." Usually, that means you look for a better hypothesis.

    The Pop Mech article was published in 3/2005. One rebuttal is here http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html. There are others at the links below.

    The article does essentially what is done on your first link. It refutes SOME of the alternative explanations of that time period. Your implication is that all are refuted, even those that have come out since the article was published. And you think I'm nuts and have no ability to think scientifically?

    Unfortunately for Popular Mechanics, the NIST report did not come out until Sept/Oct of 2005. That report fails to support the official hypothesis beyond the hijacking of 4 planes, of which three were flown into three buildings. The total, rapid, symmetrical collapses of the Towers and WTC 7 (not hit by a plane) are still unexplained. This is partly because the NIST report is actually only the official 'pre-collapse hypothesis'. The study did not examine the ACTUAL collapse of the towers. As Dr Jones' deadpans: "For 20 million dollars, one would think NIST could have carried the collapse analysis 15 seconds further."

    Another critique of the NIST report is in New Civil Engineer, 10/6/2005, from a structural engineer:
    "the software used by NIST has been pushed to new limits. There have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations, and judgement calls." This particulary applies to extrapolating the UL test results of the floor assemblies for warping, from 3 (THREE) inches to 40 (FORTY) inches. Warping is not failure. Now there's an example of the scientific work the Bush Administration has built a reputation of.

    Enter more very respectable scientists who have added analysis, research, data, etc to some valuable work already done. You are right, engineers are very smart. My daughter was fortunate enough to take 8th grade science from Christa McAuliffe's back up for that fatal flight. My uncle was a physicist on the John's Hopkins team that developed the nuclear sub missiles. My father a PhD in physical chemistry who developed the first fire retardant ceiling tile, my ex an Environmental Engineer in hazardous waste (MS), his father a wing commander for NORAD, his brother the civilian head of the Elmendorf AFB fighter jet electronic repair shop, my son and daughter majors in engineering (nuclear physics and mechanical). Me, I'm an RN. I work with firefighters and have cared for burn patients. And Veterans from WWI to the Gulf war. Aside from the heavily scientific childhood, I took physics, chemistry and ethics, in high school and college. It really bothers me that the EPA knew full well how dangerous the air was (the dust had PH levels as high as 12) when they told ground zero workers and residents it was safe to return to the area.

    For anyone who is not consumed with their emotional reaction and interpretation of the events of 9/11, try these sites. If you are struggling with the psychological barriers, they are very normal - check out Manwell's paper on "Faulty Towers of Belief" at the Journal of 911 Sudies. The second is links to other reputable, scientific sites from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/

    http://stj911.org/resources/index.html

    I highly recommend the paper "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method" by Stephen Jones PhD, at the first link . You will get an understanding of the physicist Jones' contributions to muon-catalyzed fusion, and an excellent refresher on how to evaluate the scientific method of other papers and articles you read.

    It's a tough journey and there are many moments of "How can this be true?" Feasible answers - even how the cutter charges for detonation could have been placed WEEKS before 9/11- are out there. (There are also many pictures of the steel core beams with totally improbable, unexplained 45 degree cuts)

    The final questions become:

    If the Joint Chiefs and the CIA could seriously develop and present "Operation Northwoods" (Google and read, its a declassified official document) to Kennedy and McNamara in '63, would WTC in 2001 be a piece of cake, or a piece of pie?

    If we don't find out what brought the buildings down, will it make any difference if we stop hijackers in the future?

    How much of the news you get from profit centered sources will you continue to accept without more careful consideration, fact checking and finding sources for the news you could use but they won't give you?

  • ||

    Just because these accusations are based on such ridiculous assumptions.

    The perpetrators of whatever brought down the towers may well have been as much outside the Government as inside. Very few people inside may have been in the top loop of probably fewer than 10 people.

    The idea that thousands of '..our fellow countrymen - soldiers, politicians, everyday folks - would be so _evil_ ' is not mine.

    It would take fewer than a hundred who are:

    Ideologists of the hijacker ilk - willing to die for their cause.

    Mercenaries who have no national affiliation and are very likely sociopaths - but smart enough to act like engineers and place cutter charges in the towers while the security was down and everyone had been told that electronic upgrade work was being done. The charges could be placed in areas they would not be seen, have been calculated as to how much weight, etc would be involved, and are routinely set off by radio controlled detonation.

    The more you check out the stories, the more whistleblowers you will find. Ignored by the 9/11 comission, the media, NIST and FEMA.

    Another possibility to check out is a movie that doesn't go into the alternative hypotheses.

    9/11 Press for Truth is primarily about the family members who lost loved ones and are still trying to get answers. It traces their efforts to get the Comission, to get it to do its job and now to get another investigation. The supporting information comes from Paul Thompson's Terror Timeline which he developed entirely from news articles with world wide sources, American standards (NYT, WaPO, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN etc.) and web sites. The implications from these stories still create the same conclusion:

    We need a scientific, forensic investigation of the 9/11 events. Miami CSI does a better job every week than was ever done at Ground Zero.

  • ||

    Again, the MORONS with THE MELTING FUCKING STEEL.

    Go read a fucking book on the subject.

    Repeat, STEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT IN A FIRE TO FAIL. It loses almost all its strength at around 800F and begins to lose strength well below that. Steel structures regularly fail in sustained fires. Fortunately failures of highrises have been rare.

    The serious compromise caused by knocking out enough columns in the outside frame combined with a sustained fire on the relatively light floor trusses were quite enough to cause catastrophic failure.

    Also the WTC did not have interior columns like the Empire State and other conventionally framed buildings do. It was a unique design - one that its designers were, rightfully, proud of.

  • ||

    Personally, I believe that full and free availability of public information must be one of the very highest priorities in a democratic republic, so its citizens can make informed choices when determining the republic's course.

    Hey you communist, it's not free!!! It costs money. Now I repeat, go spend you own $100 and learn something about flying. Then you will be a little more informed. Right now you are ignorant, and I see no reason to continue to support you if you are unwilling to do a little leg work on your own. Quit reading the freakin' Internet and go get some real world experience. I realize $100 will cost you 3 months of WOW, but you will be infinitely better for it.

  • ||

    This thread may have depressed me more than anything Balko has written yet about the SWAT assassinations.

    So many new names have posted here; so many folks who have obviously been lurking here for quite some time; and almost without exception, they ALL believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

    America is doomed. Drop the bomb.

    CB

  • Dave W.||

    So many new names have posted here; so many folks who have obviously been lurking here for quite some time; and almost without exception, they ALL believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

    Actually, the division seems to be more between those who passionately believe the Official Story, and those who are open to the idea that there was a "conspiracy" without having a strong affirmative belief on the matter.

    Even my belief that Flight 93 was shot down is somewhat tentative, but, still, I would like to repeat for the record:

    Flight 93 was shot down.

    I think its funny that people who get on my for unorthodox beliefs about corn syrup (now discarded btw), and gently bumped guns having a tendency to fire (never a belief of mine) never mention my "wacky" belief that Flt 93 was shot down. I think it is because deep in their hearts I think they suspect (lookin' at you, Darkly)

  • ||

    36 seconds is plenty of time to reacquire and aim the plane. It's a long damn time, actually.

    But you assume that the turn was taken at a sustained 500 mph. That's almost impossible. A turn like that will bleed a significant amount of speed (guessing that he ended up around 300 mph at the end of the turn). The 5 miles post-rollout was where the plane gained the speed observed at impact (450-500 mph), easily accomplished in a moderate dive with the throttle pushed up.

  • ||

    One last thing: I was asking where I had launched an ad hominem. I was also pointing out where you had done the exact same fucking thing.

    This thread has truly gone down the shitter with members of both sides engaging in ad hom warfare, and it's almost completely from non-regulars. Big surprise on both counts.

    I'm out.

  • just me||

    It may, perhaps, be. But it is not the *tallest* office building in the world, and was, purportedly, hit from the side, at 400-500 mph.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    How do we know the target was the *SIDE*? Did the guy come back from the dead and tell us it was the side? I do not think it would be hard to hit a building that huge. The guy just nailed it on the side.

  • ||

    If you understand that there is no conspiracy you don't need an explanation, if you believe there is a conspiracy no explanation will suffice.
    Why not just forget it?

  • ||

    There is nothing in Moore's comments to indicate that he believes the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.

    "Right" is what you say when someone else pauses in the midst of their harrangue to check and see if you are going to start a fight with them, and you don't want to start a fight just then. It means, "I gotcha."

  • ||

    "Repeat, STEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT IN A FIRE TO FAIL. It loses almost all its strength at around 800F and begins to lose strength well below that. Steel structures regularly fail in sustained fires. Fortunately failures of highrises have been rare."

    That's right! Extreme heat changes the chemical composition of metals and reduce their tensil and yield strenths which could aid in the collapse of the building.

  • ||

    "Right" is what you say when someone else pauses in the midst of their harrangue to check and see if you are going to start a fight with them, and you don't want to start a fight just then. It means, "I gotcha."

    That's how I read it as well, joe. Though he does lend them a fair bit of credibility with his wordier answers.

  • hmmmmmm||

    RE: the flight being shot down.

    When all this was going on the people at a forum I visit were screaming "That fucking Bastard!!! Why did he not have the planes shot down!"

    Then, when the 'theory' that it was shot down started to get popular it quickly turned to "That fucking bastard!!! He had the planes shot down!!"

    Amazing, huh?

  • One more thing.....||

    A flight was shot down off the US coast to cover up for a missle attack on the pentagon?

    Could we have just solved one of the mysteries on Lost??

  • ||

    | June 20, 2007, 8:02am |

    This peer reviewed paper discusses the fire and steel issues thoroughly." Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?" @ http://journalof911studies.com

    Page 21 Covers the multiple quotes from reputable sources that no previous steel frame high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire like the WTC buildings did on 9/11.

    PP 6, 32 and 35 cover the temperatures needed to soften the steel, and the temperatures determined by tests on beams from the area showing those temperatures were not reached, and problems with the NIST report on the steel temperatures and testing.

    According to NIST "The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes." The office contents would have burned up in 15 to 20 minutes - not long enough to bring the steel temperature to 800 degrees. Structural steel has to sustain it's load for 2 hours of sustained fire to meet NYC code. UL tested the steel at the time of construction and it passed.

    This paper at the same site also discusses the issue: NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire.

    The ranter now claims:
    "The serious compromise caused by knocking out enough columns in the outside frame combined with a sustained fire on the relatively light floor trusses were quite enough to cause catastrophic failure."

    Sorry dude. The 240 perimeter columns were overdesigned to take on live load from other columns that failed. At 2000 x their load each.

    PP 37 of the paper "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?" discusses the UL testing of the floor truss models - that all sustained the maximum design load for 2 hours, with 3 inches of warping that NIST extrapolated to 40 inches.

    Finally, the most incredible piece of ignorance immaginable:

    "Also the WTC did not have interior columns like the Empire State and other conventionally framed buildings do. It was a unique design - one that its designers were, rightfully, proud of."

    http://stj911.com/press_releases/blueprints.html

    "...the newly released blueprints show what analysis of independent investigators have long held on the basis of construction photographs and scattered reports in journals, such as the Engineering News Record, from the era of the Towers' construction: "The Towers contained 47 large core columns, more than a dozen of which retained dimensions of 54 x 22 inches through the 66th floor, and tapered in stages on higher floors. The core columns around the South Tower's crash zone were about twice as heavy as those in the North Tower's crash zone."

    Those 47 core columns that were 54X 22 inch rectangles were constructed of 4 inch thick steel. WTC 7 had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns.

    So how the hell did THOSE columns ALL fail? If the smaller perimeter columns did not get hot enough to soften and fail, how did the these huge center ones? Did the ones with the 45 degree angle cuts give a clue? Does the molten metal in the basements of all three buildings hold information? Like the standard signature chemicals and metal transformations arson experts normally look for to see if thermite was used to set a building on fire?

    I'm sorry to crash your site and impose this fact based, bunch of information - some of which has been around for a long time. I made the mistake of reviewing "9/11 Press for Truth" at the Dem Daily awhile back and another blogger apparently attracted attention to that post here. It's the first time I've been here. Not likely I'll be back.

    My daughter has had what most people would consider to be an awful childhood. Illness, deformity, more illness, pain, disability. From a wheel chair she keeps racking up 4 point GPAs on her way to a mechanical engineering degree. Her motto:

    Life sucks. Get over it.

  • Dave W.||

    That's how I read it as well, joe. Though he does lend them a fair bit of credibility with his wordier answers.

    Back on the original topic of this thread:

    I remember in 2002 (before the Iraq War, probably before Septemeber 2002 even) when Moore was first planning Fahrenheit 911, I saw some kind of news or publicity story about it. I wish I had paid more attention (I am not that much of a Moore fan). From what I can remember:

    - it was much more of a "conspiracy theory" movie back then (although I am not sure they were as quick to use those words back then), especially with no Iraq War;

    - they had the stuff about the Bush family / Bin Laden connection;

    - don't think they had anything about the Patriot Act; and

    [b]- they had this diagram of the flight paths and where the Air Force bases were.[/b]

    I put this last point in bold for a couple of reasons. One reason is that I recall this as being the centerpiece of the promo -- maybe because Moore talked about it a lot -- can't remember, but I remember it being prominent. Also, I never saw F911, so I don't know if this diagram or discussion made it into the movie at all -- did it -- anyone know?

    At the time, in 2002, my reaction was that it was ridiculous that he was barking up this tree at all. I just assumed that the standard Air response had happened and that if it had not, then we would have heard about it -- I figured people must have been on that. of course, this is funny because it was at some point later in 2002 that I looked at how long Flight 93 was up after the first plane hit and gradually started coming to the conclusion that Flt 93 was shot down based on the timeline.

    I guess my point is that Moore has probably been much deeper into these "conspiracy theories" for a much longer time. He probably *gasp* even knows stuff we (and INFOWARS) don't. With all this as background, I thought his comment about "seeking answers in his own way" was interesting and cryptic. i also thought it was kind of unfair that Doherty was taking him to task upon the release of F911 for [i]not[/i] making a conspiracy theory movie -- because I think he was, and then changed directions in 2003 for whatever reason.

  • hmmmmmmm||

    Your daughter has WHAT to do with this discussion?

    If I talked all about my disabilities and how sick I am, will that give me 'extra credit' in my POV?

    Life does suck, but what sucks more is people who use their suffering like it makes them somehow more 'enlightened' than everyone else.

  • Dave W.||

    Then, when the 'theory' that it was shot down started to get popular it quickly turned to "That fucking bastard!!! He had the planes shot down!!"

    Speaking as the only person on this thd who has come and and said he believes a plane (specifically Flt 93) was shot down, let me clue you in to my attitude about the shootdown.

    1. I think they should have shot the plane down.

    2. Even if the passengers had gotten control of the cockpit.

    3. That fucking bastard didn't have the guts to level with the public about it afterwards.

    4. Sometimes it is better to ask "conspiracy theorists" what they think instead of announcing to everybody what they think. Cause you have a tendency to get my thoughts wrong.

  • ||

    The comment about my daughter's attitude had to do with the comments about strangers to the blog coming by and bringing stuff into the discussion that was so - not welcome. The intention was to illustrate that not welcome stuff happens in life. We choose to deal with it - or not.

    This was one comment:

    Cracker's Boy | June 20, 2007, 9:26am | #

    Gotta go.

  • hmmmmmmmmmm||

    Dave, my post was not about you, was it? Go back, reread. It was about the 'flip flop' of the people on another forum I used to post at.

    One minute it was "why did he not shoot the planes down." then it was "How dare he shoot it down."

    It was an aside showing that no matter what hapens, people will not be happy. I can't help you if you can't see that.

  • _||

    From a wheel chair she keeps racking up 4 point GPAs on her way to a mechanical engineering degree.

    I hope she learns that steel fails at temperatures above about 800F or she may have problems in her practice.

    Or she can confine her efforts to "peer-reviewed" "journals" like the one you referred to.

    If your peers are all crackpots then your crackpot shit will pass review.

  • Dave W.||

    It was an aside showing that no matter what hapens, people will not be happy. I can't help you if you can't see that.

    It is an aside that you see all the time. "Conspiracy theorists think this, conspiracy theorists think that." the Popular Mechanics article (linked above) is probably the most egregious example of this rhetorical technique of picking out the most ridiculous thing any "conspiracy theorist" has ever said and then repeating it all over the place like it is supposed to mean something.

    I have met quite a few people who believed both: (i) the Official Story; and (ii) that the world is only 6,000 years old. You don't see me coming on the these kind of thds and saying that anyone who believes the Official Story is probably a credulous creationist though. It is better to take people as you find them, and not carelessly lump them all together. especially when you have some actual, sincere "conspiracy theorists" right there in the virtual room and willing to answer your questions about their own attitudes on the relevant questions.

    Oh, yeah, and another technique tat really bugs me that has popped up on this thread:

    some anonymous poster is claiming to have seen Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. This means nothing. If you want to be a witness, then go on record under your real name and say what you saw. Anonymously telling all about what you saw (or a family member or whomever saw), when there is a controversy about the true facts, is worse than useless. I mean, it is good to speak about personal anecdotes and thoughts anonymously -- there is never going to be a conspiracy theory about whether your Cousin Ernie tried to kiss your Aunt Mabel at your family reunion. When it comes to 9/11, though, factual observations should be by non-anonymous witnesses. Another example of this is where the Commission report reports "an engineer" on the scene at the world trade center as predicting the first tower would fall before it did. "An engineer"?!?!?!?!? You mean Congress could not get this guy to go on record?!?!?!? it is almost like they are trying to make people disbelieve the Official Story with this reliance on nameless, faceless witnesses to critical events.

  • ||

    You know, maybe these conspiracy theorists have something...

    Who has really gained, and stepped out of the shadows due to these attacks? Who has made money and fame from these attacks, where before they had nothing?

    Yes, I'm postulating that Michael Moore and the Loose Change guys are responsible for setting up the 9/11 attacks.

    This theory is at least as plausible as blaming the Government, and it has the benefit of targetting people I dislike (which seems to be a driving criteria of the conspiracy theorists) so I think it's good enough to run with.

    Really, Haliburton didn't gain enough to cover the costs here, neither did the Bush/Cheney Government of Neo-cons... but Michael Moore went from a nobody to international stardom, and nobody had heard of the Loose Change guys before. So who really gained? Therefore who really had the motivation?

    Hey this is fun, I don't even need proof; I can just attack people with fiction. Wheeee

  • Seer||

    The 9//1 Truth guys turn out to be useful after all, now we have proof that Moore is a crazy on top of stupid (and he's an MSU fan)!

  • hmmmmmmmmm||

    Wow, Dave, just Wow.

    Way to make everything about you.

  • ||

    June 20, 2007, 1:16pm | #

    It's really interesting how folks will NOT focus on the issues and facts. I KNOW steel has to reach 800 degrees to fail. And I have enough guts to GO READ the peer reviewed journals I refer to so I can make informed judgements on the work and the events. I have a strong science background and medicine is heavily based on science - in case that missed your microscopic brain. "EVIDENCE BASED OUTCOMES" has been the driving force of health care for over five years. Without statistical and other scientific support that the treatment is, in fact, consistently giving the desired outcome, it is modified or dropped.

    The fact is there is a lot of evidence from 9/11 and ground zero that can and has been tested, analysed, evaluated, etc by scientists and others who can use their brains for what they are designed for. The results of that testing - some of it by FEMA and NIST- not only do not support the accepted answers that the fires were hot enough to cause this, they completely fail to provide any reason for the towers to have failed and fallen they way they did - except for the controlled use of high tech explosives. Using scientific method, there simply is no way to support the idea that the terrorist's use of planes was sufficient to bring about that much damage and destruction.

    The temperatures in the areas of the fires did not reach 800 degrees nincompoop. No one who has studied this will make that claim anymore. Only the dimwit fringe who are convinced that if they scream loud enough with expletives and derogatory labels, they have made a scientific fact disappear. Do tell us master metal workers, how do you get the steel that hot, in that short a time, when the ambient air temperature never reached 800 degrees? I want to see it done, and be able to have the results reproduced over and over - as required by scientific method to prove a hypothesis. And if you can find a peer reviewed journal to publish your work, it may be a bunch of crackpots in the group. The Conservative Think Tanks (an oxymoron supreme) have been doing just that for years.

    There's a point here that some people don't get. Reality is not forgiving. It makes no allowances for anything. Science is a means of trying to figure out what the limits are. How to keep from getting caught in a reality that is avoidable. Or to get out if you do get caught. The Neocons were SO convinced they didn't have to believe what the realists were telling them about Iraq they went right ahead and did what they were convinced would work. It was a University professor working for the CPA in Iraq who summed it up: "I'm a Neocon who's been mugged by reality."

    The big issue some of us have with their whole scheme is that they aren't really the ones who have paid for their errors in reasoning. Hundreds of thousands have lost their lives, been maimed, etc. Millions have lost their homes, their country, and would trade the future they had under Sadam for the one they have now in a nanosecond.

    You don't get the point of my daughter having enough guts to get over her disability and make it in life because you don't have enough guts to go to reputable sites and read something that might actually break through your infantile view of the world and make you GROW UP. If you can't go there, fine. It takes a tough person with a lot of intestinal fortitude to deal with it. If you are tough enough to defend your beliefs, GO READ THE PAPERS AND REFUTE THEM - with REAL facts, not made up ones that suit your 'the USA is just peachy' perspective.

    If you can't do that, could you just explain why it is so important to you to deny the firefighters and victims (the ones who were there for months cleaning up and are now getting sick and dying) a follow up forensic investigation? These are the people whose lives were on the line then and still are.

    If not, the reality of that choice may mug you or someone you love someday: when there is no firefighter to get you out of a burning building. Or another building fails around you for no reason you would have expected or could have avoided/prevented.

    Here's another thought. Go take a physics class. Or sit in on one. Not to learn the physics per se. To listen to the physics teacher go off on 9/11 like my daughter's does. His issue is the pulverization piece. It's not the only one but it is his field.
    Try to convince the physics professor you understand it better than they do. There are plenty of scientists who still have not been able to look at this and are steering away from it because of what it might do to their jobs, careers, reputations.

    That is the course of science through out history. The folks that fought Galileo, Newton and even the use of ether in surgery (for 400 years) have plenty of courage deficient counterparts today.

    When we all get mugged by reality again, some of us are going to be well past "hell hath no fury".

  • ||

    I would like to congratulate the world. A 9/11 truth thread didn't even break 200 posts.

    Ginny... skepticism is an important piece of science. However, you are not doing a very good job of making the case for the skeptics. I have also read the peer reviewed articles. When taken together they make a strong case that the combination of impact from a heavy liquid filled jet at high speeds (which weakened the structures) followed by a fire further weakening the structures led to the collapses.

    I was also an eyewitness and can tell you that no controlled explosions occurred. Standing on the streets of NYC, I discussed the unfolding events with a man who was a steel worker. He explained (before the events occurred) that the towers were likely to fail completely due to the combination of damage and heat (I was skeptical) . After the first tower fell (remember the second hit, but hit at a lower point and across a corner), from our vantage, we were able to predict within a minute or two when the second was going to fall. It was not the result of some mysterious other cause.

    No explosions. Sorry. There just weren't. Trauma can result in very strong need to have a satisfactory explanation. If that explanation doesn't resonate emotionally, it is easy to reject it and look for something more satisfying. This need can seriously skew judgment. There is plenty of data for years of study, but the basic explanation fits the data well. At this point the need to include extraordinary causes is past. It is really something you need to get over at this point. I have moved on. I hope you can soon.

  • ||

    And for Dave W.

    Neu Mejican is my legal name, and here is my face(^_^).

    I am going on record.

    I don't know the name of the steel worker whom I was talking to that predicted the collapse. I am sure he would go on record is someone asked him...

  • ||

    Lawzy me.

    ah giss ah jest wasted all that time taking all o' them there enjimifeerin' classes. ah could o' jest axed a high school fizzicz teechur

  • ||

    "We need a scientific, forensic investigation of the 9/11 events. Miami CSI does a better job every week than was ever done at Ground Zero."

    Oh My God. Did I just read that.
    You want someone to do as good a job as the writers of a fictional TV series?

  • ||

    We need a scientific, forensic investigation of the 9/11 events. Miami CSI does a better job every week than was ever done at Ground Zero.

    I bet this is a true desire. A fictional forensic team investigating a fictional plot were the faux evidence leads to an obvious conclusion.

    Otherwise stated: I want a witch hunt to investigate the President's conspiring with terrorists to destroy the WTC and hit the Pentagon, so that BusHilter wouldn't have to use the old "Saddam violated UN security council resolution" meme as an excuse to invade Iraq. The witch hunt should follow the prescribed script and come up with the logical conclusion. That would make for great TV during a Presidential campaign cycle.

  • chris||

    Oh my God! You people need to wake up. The evidence that 9-11 was an inside job is conclusive. I can't believe there are people who haven't bothered to look at the evidence. There is no doubt about it. Google "building 7 bbc" and after watching that video start your investigating.

  • chris||

    "Repeat, STEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT IN A FIRE TO FAIL. It loses almost all its strength at around 800F and begins to lose strength well below that. Steel structures regularly fail in sustained fires. Fortunately failures of highrises have been rare."

    That's right! Extreme heat changes the chemical composition of metals and reduce their tensil and yield strenths which could aid in the collapse of the building.

    BUT THE POINT IS THERE WERE POOLS OF MOLTEN METAL FOUND AT THE BASE OF ALL 3 BUILDINGS AND THEY FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED IN SPITE OF THE 40 + CENTRAL COLUMS.

  • ||

    40 + CENTRAL COLUMS

    There were no central colums or columns in the WTC towers. Pardon me for discounting your crediblity when you obviously don't know the facts.

  • ||

    Pinette,
    To borrow from one of Al Pacino's characters, "Empathy was yesterday. Today, you're wasting my motherf&*%ing time!"

    I'm sorry, but that video pretty much does remove doubt about a missile or drone, or even the "remote fighter jet" theory. The profile of the object in the video is too big for any of those. It is about the size you'd expect for a passenger airliner, in this case a 757. Besides that, no missile, unless fired from right across the lawn could hit the Pentagon at that trajectory. So, though you can't read the writing on the fueslage, that video, coupled with the fact airliner debris were found at the site by MANY non-government witnesses, and that there were plenty of witnesses who saw a low plane heading in the direction of the Pentagon that morning pretty much removes reasonable doubt about alternatives.

    CNN has a better video to go with their story here: First video of Pentagon 9/11 attack released


    And I won't get into wack-a-mole right now. But I love this:

    "I have a strong science background ... I want to see it done, and be able to have the results reproduced over and over - as required by scientific method to prove a hypothesis."

    (Emphasis mine) Anyone with a "strong science background" should know you do not prove a hypothesis using the scientific method. You can falsify it, but you can't prove it.

  • GeoK||

    Its awful , but not as bad as u think, its worse, i.e.

    If you want to understand the ongoing manipulation of the "9/11 Truth" movement , watch this video and read the information slides (PRESS PAUSE IF THEY GO BY TOO FAST), It shows how Robert Baer, who claims fore knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, made different contradictory explanations of 9/11 on famous left wing shows like Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, and Air America, as well as on various MSM shows, as part of an evolving set of lies to conceal the real conspiracy covered up by the President, and the 9/11 Truth movement itself. Decoding the lies points the investigation not at the Pentagon, but at a private transnational criminal syndicate, allied with the Gulf States, and located in London, true heirs of the Saudi funded Iran-Contra Terrorist group.

    WATCH THE VIDEO:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6714641053340946546

  • ||

    I happened to be at UL's Northbrook Il facility, on business, a few months after 9/11. Their fire lab was doing all sorts of fire testing on insulated steel collumns - thermocouples everywhere. It was pretty cool, but sad.

    One thing I recall around that same time was someone talking about, and unfortunately I can't remember if it was at UL or from other source at the time, how the insulation would protect the building steel from fire - unless it was physically damaged, such as by a fully load commercial aircraft ramming into it. Somehow I don't think the doubters have run sophisticated analysis on this.

  • Daniel Bland||

    Want to wake up American's to the truth of 9/11? Here's how......

    http://blandyland.com/?p=388

    Make it go viral! Thanks!

    Daniel Bland

  • John||

    “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” -- Arthur Schopenhauer

    "1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation "

    More than 1,000 worldwide architects and engineers now support the call for a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. After careful examination of the official explanation, along with the forensic data omitted from official reports, these professionals have concluded that a new independent investigation into these mysterious collapses is needed.

    www.thetruthnews.info/census.html#911

  • Henry Massingale||

    This was never a inside job, the date of 9/11 is a echo in our minds and the why all ways haunts us. For 15 months i watched and studied the whys and it was in front of us all the time through News reports, so I followed the paper trail and what I found out made me sad....
    join Us International Boycott Of The Arabic Drug Empire Phase 2

    YouTube - State of Disrepair
     - 6:22am
    Jun 7, 2010 ... The whole justification for this war was 9/11 and that was a false flag attack. ... What if they sold the opiom to the Purdue pharmaceutical company to make oxycontin. ... money & not replace it with something else that will also make money. ... queue Off the Grid - 62min Documentary30411 views ...
    www youtube com/watch?v=ta8vt8LRlEY - Cached

    Web search catch / pharmaceutical company purdue linked to 9/11
    web search catch / 52 states filed lawsuits against the pharmaceutical company purdue

    Lets just say all of this is true, and supported with News Reports by ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, and Official FBI investigations. I did note after 9/11 that the failures of of Home Banking Financing, And the cost of these failures was at the cost to Tax Payers. The crash of the Stock Market at $980 Billion dollars in one day disappeared and I do not remember the firm that lost the most invested dollars, but I think it was the AARP.
    At any rate this takes me right back to the 2 different attacks against the World Trade Center. Why this one Building ?
    Over a year ago I asked , why is there a hands off policy that prevents the destruction of the poppy fields. One year later I was still asking why ? I had no idea that Heroin was being sold in the USA as health care pills, for pain.....
    My whole concept with my Boycott Of The Arabic Drug Empire, went south and north and to what is now called the source. The Purdue Pharmaceutical Company, so please note this..

    OxyContin: The Giuliani Connection - The Blotter
    May 10, 2007 ... The Web site for Giuliani Partners lists Purdue Pharma as one of its current ... good oldE daddy warbucks just back from making money off 9/11 expands .... Drug companies started running all these TV ads in 1997 when the ...
    blogs abcnews com/theblotter/2007/.../oxycontin_the_g html - Cached - Similar

    The Purdue Pharmaceutical Company, invested Billions of dollars into different companies through different sources, in order to cover the billions per month earned from selling heroin addiction. This is called a paper trail. These, hundreds of investments were done to launder this money in case of a addiction epidemic takes place in the United States. Now I am willing to bet, a name, a company name through this paper trail will lead to other insider trading and making money from the death of the People on 9/11.

    1.Eddie Vedder, Iraq War Vet Team Up For 'No More' Video - THINK MTV
    Mar 17, 2008 ... Why is there a hands off policy that prevent the destruction of these poppy plants ? ... Who are the investors of the Pharmaceutical Company Purdue that makes ... Purdue is responsible for the deaths on 9/11 and the on going ... built that wall and even as of today China makes money from that wall.
    www mtv com/news/articles/1583509/.../vedder_eddie jhtml - Cached - Similar

    A lot of people handle this information carefully because they fear a link to Organizes Crime Figures in America. I assure you this, I am after one company that failed these Crime Figures, I am after the poppy fields and to end this Damn War Based on a lie, in part, of why we are at War. These Organized Crime Figures, from the Streets to the Families, do not want any part of this because it is a insult to the whole world of Man, and this Attack was a statement to pin point, of being betrayed within a deal made to sell Heroin.
    You do not make deals with the Family or Drug Lords and think because you may have the support of a Official of Government to back you up that you are safe.
    I will tell you all this one more time, I am dyslectic and because of this curse, I can see into the truth and lies of issues and People. I stay far from the connection of Man because of this curse, and I have never opened my mouth for over 30 to 40 years. Now I am in this Matrix, and I allow my mind to see that of which I do not wish to see.
    The Matrix of the Internet is buzzing as this truth unfolds before all of the People of the United States Of America. And All I wish for is to go back to work as a painter, and be within the hills of Tennessee, where I belong. My whole web site was built for President Obama, my love for all my children, my faith in God and Country.
    My mind is tired of seeing this world of betrayal because of a Dollar. And I am one of few to betray my Faith, I will use this Faith and this War has ended and the connection that all men and women sense to a past that is ancient in origin flows through this world as we look at the sky or a tree. My task is all most completed....

    Henry Massingale / FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward covers the web post on google Drop by and see why we built a anti crime / war form in a Health Care Reform Concept. To strategically Rebuild America www.fascmovement.mysite.com on google look for page 1 american dream official site

  • JohnBank||

    happened to be at UL's Northbrook Il facility, on business, a few months after 9/11. Their fire lab was doing all sorts of fire testing on insulated steel collumns - thermocouples everywhere. It was pretty cool, but sad.

    One thing I recall around that same time was someone talking about, and unfortunately I can't remember if it was at UL or from other source at the time, how the insulation would protect the building steel from fire - unless it was physically damaged, such as by a fully load commercial aircraft ramming into it. Somehow I don't think the doubters have run sophisticated analysis on this.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement