Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
You Can't Handle the 9/11 Truth!
Hit and Run comment heroine Jennifer Abel (just plain Jennifer to us) does what few do: without pre-deciding one way or the other who has to be right and who has to be wrong, she dips into the world of moderate 9/11 Truthers for the Hartford Advocate.
She starts by noting why it might be valuable to take a dispassionate look at the topic:
According to a 2006 Scripps-Howard poll, over a third of Americans believe high-ranking officials either helped commit the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or at least allowed them to happen.
The whole thing is worth reading, but an interesting excerpt that sheds some light on why competent adult professionals get involved in thinking about this stuff:
Michael Neuman is the unfortunate bureaucrat whose name and number grace the contact information of that NIST report [a National Institute of Standards and Technology 2005 report on the metallurgical realities of steel as related to what happened to the buildings on 9/11].
We called and (somewhat apologetically) explained we were doing a story on 9/11 conspiracies.
“We don’t want to get into a debate,” Neuman said. “Certainly people are entitled to their opinion … [but] we’re staying away from debates with these groups.”
We assured him we didn’t belong to “these groups,” though we admitted some of the groups’ members made points we could not refute. We hoped Neuman could. The first thing we mentioned was [former Brigham Young University physicist Steven] Jones’s claims of finding explosive residue in the debris.
“We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of explosives,” Neuman said.
We know, we said (even more apologetically), but what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?
“Right, because there was no evidence of that.”
But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?
“If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time … and the taxpayers’ money.”
Neuman really didn’t want to talk to us. Depending on your preference, you could interpret that as further proof of a government cover-up, or as a legitimate time-management technique from a bureaucrat who can’t be expected to persuade every single doubter who finds his phone number on the NIST report.
My linking to this story, I will spell out for the evidence-based community, does not say anything about what I know, think, or think I know about controlled demolition or how steel melts or collapses when doused in airplane fuel. Neither have I ever tried to shoot a Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight seconds nor detonated 4800 pounds of ammonium nitrate.
some dude|2.1.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Neuman really didn't want to talk to us. Depending on your preference, you could interpret that as further proof of a government cover-up, or as a legitimate time-management technique from a bureaucrat who can't be expected to persuade every single doubter who finds his phone number on the NIST report.
Both!
Episiarch|2.1.08 @ 3:41PM|#
I can fire a Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight seconds. How do I know? Because I was the guy on the grassy knoll.
|2.1.08 @ 3:46PM|#
I can fire a Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight
seconds.
Oh yeah, Episiarch? I scored 721 on "JFK: Reloaded." Got the fucker
good, too. Too bad there isn't a rape command in the game, or
else I'd have been up in Jacqueline's guts.
Sulla|2.1.08 @ 3:46PM|#
I'm waiting for Forrest Gump II, to see how he helped those nice men from the guvmint carry all those heavy box-ez to the top of the World Trade Center, while waiting to be honored for his role in negotiating the anti-trust settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ.
drawnasunder|2.1.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Conspiracies aside, can we all at least agree that LBJ did, in fact, stick his pecker in JFK's neck wound?
Episiarch|2.1.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Too bad there isn't a rape command in the game, or else I'd
have been up in Jacqueline's guts.
The cheat for that is "Patrick Bouvier Kennedy".
|2.1.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Somehow I haven't seen an article yet confronting people about the visible explosions going off at the side of the buildings while it's collapsing. I would love to read about some official being asked about explosions which are visible on video. It's always this bull about temperature and residue.
|2.1.08 @ 3:54PM|#
This is already a batshit crazy thread and it's still just the regulars. Wait until this gets linked to at some truther sites.
Joe Allen|2.1.08 @ 3:57PM|#
We live in a world that has secrets, secrets that have to be
uncovered by men with guts.
Who's gonna do it, you? You? You, Fonzie Gillespie? You weep for
the victims and curse the Truthers. You have that luxury, the
luxury of not knowing what I know, that their deaths, while tragic,
sell magazines. And my existence, while detestable and
incomprehensible to you, generates web hits. We use words like
"cover-up", "inside job", and "conspiracy." We use them as the
backbone of a life spent avoiding responsibility. You use them as a
Headline! I have neither the time, nor the inclination to answer to
someone who rises and sleeps undet the very blanket of paranoia I
provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I
would rather you say "thank you" and print your shitty magazine, or
invest a couple of quarters and read the Washington Post. Either
way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to. You
want the Truthers? YOU CAN'T COVER THE TRUTHERS!!
|2.1.08 @ 3:58PM|#
JESUS!!! Why do you waste your time with a "Could the "truther"
be right?" piece. They're not right...they're idiots. You want to
delve into the science of why they're wrong? Here's a site for
you:
http://www.debunking911.com/
This site debunks every major aspect of the "truthers" claims and
it actually has peer-reviewed papers to back what they say, unlike
the "truthers". Or go dig up that History Channel piece where they
completely humiliated the truther "scholars" by illustrating their
complete ignorance about explosive demolitions and their overall
level of insanity.
"According to a 2006 Scripps-Howard poll, over a third of Americans
believe high-ranking officials either helped commit the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or at least allowed them to
happen."
No sh!t? Could it possibly be because a third of Americans are
morons who like to respond to polls about topics that they have no
substantiative knowledge or experience on? Could that possibly be
it?
The fact that Reason humors crap like this should be embarassing to
any sane libertarian because these 9/11 conspiracy "theories" are
completely groundless.
|2.1.08 @ 3:59PM|#
I'm waiting for Forrest Gump II
"He's back, he's more fucking retarded than ever, but this time
he's running not just for the hell of it, but for his life. In a
world without hope, in a collision of civilizations, one low-IQ
fuckwit dares to take a ping-pong paddle to the ass of the most
potent enemy of our time ..."
|2.1.08 @ 4:00PM|#
I have very little doubt about the twin towers. Number 7 WTC is
a different story. The CIA does have a need to conceal. So the
concept of them bringing the building down is not as far fetched as
bringing down the towers. Larry Sliverstein, the owner of the
property, is on video saying they ordered #7 pulled. I'll find the
link when I get home. Even if #7 was pulled, that still doesn't
mean the towers were part of a conspiracy. If it's true I would
think that it was a reaction, not part of a plot.
I know two right-wing liberal haters that recently converted to the
conspiracy crowd. My reply was how crazy did you have to be to vote
for Bush twice?
Paul|2.1.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Did you guys know that 55% of Americans believe that God created humans in their current form? Schfifty five percent. Schfifty five.
|2.1.08 @ 4:07PM|#
"Larry Sliverstein, the owner of the property, is on video
saying they ordered #7 pulled."
The explanation I read about that was that the firemen were to be
pulled from the building because it was collapsing. Debriz from the
Twin Towers had left a big gash in the side of the building.
|2.1.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Did you guys know that 55% of Americans believe that God
created humans in their current form?
If only NASCAR and the UFC had their headquarters in the World
Trade Center that fateful day.
Episiarch|2.1.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Paul, Dave only says that because Flight 93 was serving real sugar soda and we all know that Archer Daniels Midland asked the government to shoot it down in retaliation for not serving HFCS soda. Those weren't Al Quaeda highjackers, they were crazed Iowa corn farmers hopped up on pure HFCS.
Robin|2.1.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Perhaps we should be discussing why "Allah hates retards:
BAGHDAD - Remote-controlled explosives strapped to two mentally
retarded women detonated in a coordinated attack on Baghdad pet
bazaars Friday, Iraqi officials said, killing at least 73 people in
the deadliest day since the U.S. sent 30,000 extra troops to the
capital last spring.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_080119205348
Paul|2.1.08 @ 4:10PM|#
I thought he said he ordered a #7 from the deli before pulling out. So much lost in translation.
|2.1.08 @ 4:10PM|#
"is on video saying they ordered #7 pulled."
He ordered the fire-recuse teams "pulled". If he actually blow it
up and somehow slipped up in this interview, why would you say you
"pulled" a building down with explosives?
|2.1.08 @ 4:10PM|#
"According to a 2006 Scripps-Howard poll, over a third of
Americans believe high-ranking officials either helped commit the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or at least allowed them to
happen."
So the lowest quartile thinks this? No big surprise.
|2.1.08 @ 4:13PM|#
TrickyVic,
Structural engineers have looked at the collapse of WTC 7 and
concluded that damage from falling debris from WTC 1 and 2 and
uncontrolled fires were the likely cause of the collapse of WTC
7.
STRUCTURE Magazine - November 2007
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 4:15PM|#
My linking to this story, I will spell out for the
evidence-based community, does not say anything about what I know,
think, or think I know about controlled demolition or how steel
melts or collapses when doused in airplane fuel.
Funny.
No sh!t? Could it possibly be because a third of Americans are
morons who like to respond to polls about topics that they have no
substantiative knowledge or experience on? Could that possibly be
it?
Given the number of people who seem enthused about Obama, I'd say
it's a hell of a lot more than 1/3, speaking of no substantive
knowledge or experience, and adding in a bit of no substantive
statements about anything.
Mark|2.1.08 @ 4:15PM|#
"I know two right-wing liberal haters"
I hate right-wing leberals too, which is why I will never vote fo
John McCain.
|2.1.08 @ 4:16PM|#
"If only NASCAR and the UFC had their headquarters in the World
Trade Center that fateful day."
If only the Twin Towers had been filled with "truthers" instead of
real people...I can't imagine that the country would have been
willing to go to war in Iraq over 3,000 abrasive jackasses who
can't stay on their meds.
Where are Penn & Teller to rip on Reason for furthering this
crap?
Gilbert Martin|2.1.08 @ 4:17PM|#
This is nowhere near as interesting as the "Why Russian women are hot" thread.
|2.1.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Other Matt,
"Given the number of people who seem enthused about Obama, I'd say
it's a hell of a lot more than 1/3, speaking of no substantive
knowledge or experience, and adding in a bit of no substantive
statements about anything."
I hear you there. I'm also thinking that more than a third of the
country thought at the time that "Pretty Woman" was one of the best
films ever made.
Honestly, it's like Jennifer Abel never heard of argumentum ad
numerum.
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Hat tip to Crawford, thanks for the link. This was particularly interesting, to someone with an engineering background.
jackanapestarian|2.1.08 @ 4:23PM|#
If you spell-check Truthers the suggested alternate is
Struthers.
Coincidence?
adrian|2.1.08 @ 4:24PM|#
i don't think the government played an active role in anyway but man what a great false flag operation it would have been (or was).
|2.1.08 @ 4:26PM|#
"If only NASCAR and the UFC had their headquarters in the
World Trade Center that fateful day.
Surely you mean the WWE. UFC is totally sweet, bro.
|2.1.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Other Matt,
By all mean, feel free to spread that link far and wide. Whenever I
run into "truthers" I don't even bother discussing their stupidity
with them anymore, I just throw that link at them until they go
away. None of them has ever been able to bring up any real evidence
to dispute it.
The guy who runs that page, by the way, is a liberal who probably
hates Bush more than any of the "truthers" but at least his reasons
are grounded in reality.
|2.1.08 @ 4:28PM|#
I do not subscribe to 911 conspiracy theories. I do however, completely blame the US government for their existence. every time there is any event whatsoever the administration and the DOD suddenly classify everything and become so damn secretive in an attempt to hide their own incompetence; it's no wonder these nuts believe these theories.
|2.1.08 @ 4:29PM|#
You people have got your heads in the sand! The Shadow
Governments and CONSPIRACIES control our
daIly lives and Foreighn Affairs to an extent that
you fools are too deluded to realize! Their aim has always been the
same, ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!!! Fortunately
there are a few of us who have removed the
BLINDERS from our eyes, and recocognize the
DANGER to Freedom and our
NATIONAL SOVREIGNITY!
Wake up People! ARMAGERDON, THE APOCALYPSE, is at
hand!!
You can join the valiant efforts to wrest back control of our
lives, but first you must KNOW THE ENEMY!!!
Our enemies are -
International Jewry
Freemasons
The Trilateral
Commission
The Council of Foreign Relations
The World Council of
Churches
|2.1.08 @ 4:29PM|#
You will forgive me, I trust, if I say that I have a very hard
time believing that the idiots in charge could pull off a 9.11
conspiracy.
If they could do that, there's no reason why they couldn't plant
some WMDs or nuclear material in the middle of Iraq and surprise us
all with Saddam's secret stockpiles.
|2.1.08 @ 4:29PM|#
"""The explanation I read about that was that the firemen were
to be pulled from the building because it was collapsing. Debriz
from the Twin Towers had left a big gash in the side of the
building."""
I saw that at the link that UCrawford posted. Well they offered
conflicting information. At first they say the building was pulled
down, as in hooking up cables and bringing the rest of the building
down for saftey reasons. A few inches down the page they change it
to pulling the FDNY out of the building.
|2.1.08 @ 4:30PM|#
notatruther,
"I do not subscribe to 911 conspiracy theories. I do however,
completely blame the US government for their existence. every time
there is any event whatsoever the administration and the DOD
suddenly classify everything and become so damn secretive in an
attempt to hide their own incompetence; it's no wonder these nuts
believe these theories."
Agreed.
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Honestly, it's like Jennifer Abel never heard of argumentum
ad numerum.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I understand the
latin, it's not that, I'm just not grasping what your point is
(long day today).
I just throw that link at them until they go away. None of them
has ever been able to bring up any real evidence to dispute
it.
Probably it's the technical calculations. It's much easier to
believe something simple and devious.
J Sub-Don't mess with the Freemasons, we still need to find their
treasure.
|2.1.08 @ 4:32PM|#
The conspiracy has even reached Hit and Run. The website
tried (Please limit the number of links in your
comment to five or fewer. Hah! I'm on to you, Nick
Gillespie!!!) to prevent me from posting this link, but I
have fooled them.
A SUMMARY of the threats we all face is HERE!!
BlueBook|2.1.08 @ 4:32PM|#
The towers are still there. The whole planes operation was just a (literal) smokescreen to cover the activation of the cloaking devices. And all that work at the site now? That's the visible part of the construction of the rocket ships inside the towers that will be used to evacuate the wealthy elite to the moon colonies when Armageddon hits in 2012. It's all quite obvious, really.
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 4:33PM|#
"I do not subscribe to 911 conspiracy
theories....
The problem is that the govt really is out to get us, they just
don't operate in that way. The govt responds to big things by
taking away individual liberty ("Patriot" act). They'll react to
one, but not create it. In the absence of one, they'll rely on
smaller things, and take away personal liberties (the "fatty"
thread, any Democratically controlled state's gun laws, etc). So,
people probably feel that, and it allows them to believe silliness
more readily.
|2.1.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Ugh, I hesitate to even wade into this stuff... First, as others
comments have noted, the truthers silly claims have been thoroughly
debunked. But aside from that, there's another angle that ought to
be mentioned. Simple logic is all anyone needs (and what apparently
far too many lack) to realize that there is no way this was some
government orchestrated inside job. Ask yourself why the same
government that could pull of the amazingly complex, technically
demanding and logistically intricate conspiracy right under the
noses of literally millions of witnesses while leaving nothing but
a few vague "clues" for these truthers to stumble upon, could also
fail to do the one really simple conspiracy that would have forever
justified the war in peoples' minds: find WMD and documented plans
of a plot for Saddam to help al-Qaeda use those WMD in the
US.
That conspiracy, done on the other side of the world, in a
country under our military control, with no witnesses to get in the
way, with literally complete control of the press, and with no
chance anyone would ever see them, would have been many
many orders of magnitude easier to pull off. Had they done
so the President would probably be considered a hero for saving
millions of lives, the Democrats would never have won control of
Congress and Bush would have likely been able to hand select a
successor republican president. With all that at stake, how the
hell did they fail to do the one very simple conspiracy after
wasting all the time, effort, expense, and certainly not least,
thousands of innocent lives, to pull off the first insanely complex
one? Of the total complexity needed for ultimate success, the
truthers would have you believe after accomplishing 99.9% they
somehow failed to take the last easy step to neatly wrap it all up.
To accept that you'd have to believe these people are, at the same
time, evil geniuses and utter imbeciles. You simply can't have it
both ways.
Shannon Love|2.1.08 @ 4:36PM|#
"We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence
of explosives,"
I think this comment is being misunderstood.
Explosives create shockwaves of a much higher intensity than even
accidental explosions (such as exploding fuel) can create. These
shockwaves in turn leave distinct physical effects on the materials
they impact. Investigators can tell by visual inspection whether an
explosive generated shockwave occurred in a structure.
Since no one ever saw evidence of an explosive generated shockwave
and did not see any evidence of any explosives in the video (which
looks different than a fuel explosion). They never bothered to
chemically assay megatons of debris for something they had no
expectation would be present.
|2.1.08 @ 4:37PM|#
This is already a batshit crazy thread and it's still just
the regulars. Wait until this gets linked to at some truther
sites.
I expect you're right. I have my popcorn.
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 4:38PM|#
I expect you're right. I have my popcorn.
Who's running the pool on how many comments? I'm looking for,
413?
|2.1.08 @ 4:39PM|#
"To accept that you'd have to believe these people are, at the
same time, evil geniuses and utter imbeciles"
Like Dr. Evil! Maybe they've just seen Austin Powers too many
times.
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 4:39PM|#
TrickyVic,
"I saw that at the link that UCrawford posted. Well they offered
conflicting information."
No, they didn't. Go back and read it again.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Building 6 was pulled down with cables. In building 7 they "pulled"
out the firefighters and waited for the building to collapse on its
own because of fire and the damage it incurred. Occasionally the
same word has more than one meaning. The "truthers" also did a
little selective editing with their clips because they figured that
people who listened to them would be too stupid to recognize they
were being blatantly played.
Sulla|2.1.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Wake up People! ARMAGERDON, THE APOCALYPSE, is at hand!!
You can join the valiant efforts to wrest back control of our
lives, but first you must KNOW THE ENEMY!!!
Our enemies are -
International Jewry
Freemasons
The Trilateral Commission
The Council of Foreign Relations
The World Council of Churches
You forgot:
The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel
Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee
*beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face.
(I watch too many movies)
Windypundit|2.1.08 @ 4:41PM|#
I took Michael Neuman's apparently contradictory position to mean that they didn't bother to look for high-explosive residue because they didn't see any signs of high-explosive damage. A trained engineer should be able to see the difference between a steel beam severed by an airplane hitting it at 500 miles per hour and a steel beam cut with a high-explosive shockwave at 15,000 miles per hour.
|2.1.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Other Matt, I think that's more of the issue that should be
exploited. If the buildings were dropped for the purpose of
enslaving us, they can attempt to prevent said enslaving by
focusing on the actions of the government after the fact.
As for myself, I think the government has taken advantage of
opprotunity. Just because they are using 9/11 to alienate us from
unalienable rights, it's not evidence that they caused the event
for that purpose.
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Other Matt,
"I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I understand the
latin, it's not that, I'm just not grasping what your point
is."
No worries. Argumentum ad numerum is the logical fallacy of an
appeal to numbers. It's used to give false credibility to a
proposition based on the claim that a lot of people believe it,
which doesn't actually have any effect on whether a proposition is
right or wrong because all of those people could be mistaken. The
only thing that matters is the evidence supporting the proposition
and the "truthers" don't have any evidence...at least none that
isn't doctored or made up.
Russ 2000|2.1.08 @ 4:43PM|#
I've never been to New York, so as far as I'm concerned, the city's entire existence is questionable.
BakedPenguin|2.1.08 @ 4:44PM|#
I'm waiting for Forrest Gump II
It's already been done.
J sub D, how could you forget the Lonewacko
theories?
Windypundit|2.1.08 @ 4:46PM|#
Oops, looks like Shannon Love beat me to it (If that IS your real name???)
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 4:46PM|#
Other Matt,
Basically I was just saying that Jennifer Abel's column was based
on a fallacy and it was stupid and irresponsible of her to humor
the "truthers'" delusions simply because there's a substantial
number of them...especially when she works with a publication
that's supposed to be about finding out the real story.
|2.1.08 @ 4:51PM|#
I can fire a Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight
seconds. How do I know? Because I was the guy on the grassy
knoll.
I have seen my dad fire a Weatherby 4 times in so many seconds...He
has no military training...and it is a bolt action rifle. I can't
say he was a dead on bullseye but he hit the target all 4 times at
100 yards. Of course he was 60 years old at the time and was fairly
(still is) out of practice. Is the Mannlicher any more difficult to
ready then other bolt action rifles?
|2.1.08 @ 4:53PM|#
My wife believes in all this truther nonsense. She showed me a u-tube site which showed light flashes in the windows which the narrator said was explosions. Does anybody have an explanation for that?
Episiarch|2.1.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Is the Mannlicher any more difficult to ready then other
bolt action rifles?
Any bolt action rifle can easily be fired 3 times in 8 seconds. You
can fire it 3 times in 3 seconds. The main issue is how is your aim
if you are shooting that fast.
I would hazard a guess that people who freak out about shooting the
Mannlicher 3 times in 8 seconds don't know shit about guns. Or how
Marines are trained.
BakedPenguin|2.1.08 @ 4:56PM|#
That conspiracy, done on the other side of the world, in a country under our military control, with no witnesses to get in the way, with literally complete control of the press, and with no chance anyone would ever see them, would have been many many orders of magnitude easier to pull off.
Very good point, Brian. As little as I care for our illustrious
leaders, I will also grant them this: they would be much more
willing to commit a conspiracy that did not result in the immediate
deaths of thousands of American citizens, and billions of dollars
in economic damage.
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Basically I was just saying that Jennifer Abel's column was
based on a fallacy and it was stupid and irresponsible of her to
humor the "truthers'" delusions simply because there's a
substantial number of them...especially when she works with a
publication that's supposed to be about finding out the real
story.
This was more on point with what I was asking, previous answer not
so much.
Just a point of note, she's taking a large amount of crap from the
"truthers" (using that as a label for all the different flavors
combined) who hold the opposite view. In other words, they think
that she was most assuredly NOT trying to humor them, but villify
them. You take it as her humoring them means that she perhaps
reported from a neutral place. Personally I can't say if she was or
wasn't.
I believe the purpose of the paper is a local focus, so I don't
believe she was so much trying to analyze their claims as to
document a local happening.
|2.1.08 @ 4:58PM|#
This is a secret directive to all Conspiracy members: please
maintain your silence until further notice. This directive applies
to the following persons:
a. those who transported and installed in the towers the massive
amounts of explosives in the months prior to 9/11 without anyone
noticing;
b. those who waited on standby with truckloads of plane parts near
the Pentagon and placed them about the scene after our Missile
struck;
c. those who removed all evidence of our Missile from that
site;
d. those who murdered the passengers of Flight 77 in a Nebraska
cornfield;
e. those who lied and said that the DNA of the human remains found
at the Pentagon matched the flight list of Flight 77;
f. those who rigged the missiles to the bottom of the planes that
hit the towers, and those airline passengers who saw this occurring
at Logan;
g. those who recorded the fake conversations onto the black box of
Flight 93;
h. those who faked the handwritten notes of the highest-ranking
officials of the Administration to make it appear like they were
surprised by the attacks;
i. the person who placed a terrorist's wallet among the debris from
the planes' crashing into the twin towers; and
j. all persons who studied the sites of the attacks.
End of Transmission
|2.1.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Basically I was just saying that Jennifer Abel's column was
based on a fallacy and it was stupid and irresponsible of her to
humor the "truthers'" delusions simply because there's a
substantial number of them...especially when she works with a
publication that's supposed to be about finding out the real
story.
Did her story conclude that the truthers are right?
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Sugar Jack,
I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically because I don't
know what clip you're wife saw so I don't know what building she's
talking about, but it's very likely addressed at this site:
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 4:59PM|#
I would hazard a guess that people who freak out about
shooting the Mannlicher 3 times in 8 seconds don't know shit about
guns. Or how Marines are trained.
Wholeheartedly concur with that statement. The same crowd came up
with the nonsensical term "assault weapon", as if anything used for
assault wasn't a weapon.
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 5:00PM|#
End of Transmission
Forgot the guys that recorded all the fake cell phone calls and
placed the calls playing the recordings.
Just trying to help.
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Did her story conclude that the truthers are
right?
She doesn't conclusively say "They are wrong", or "They are right",
but my reading is that she doesn't agree with them, personally.
|2.1.08 @ 5:03PM|#
I hear you there. I'm also thinking that more than a third
of the country thought at the time that "Pretty Woman" was one of
the best films ever made.
In 1973 I listened to a radio countdown of the listener selected
100 best R&R songs of all time. #1 was Joy to the World by
Three Dog Night. Prove to me my fellow citizens aren't stupid. I
dare you.
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Other Matt,
This was more on point with what I was asking, previous answer
not so much.
Yeah, I realized that after I posted the first reply. Sorry, long
day here too :)
she's taking a large amount of crap from the "truthers" (using
that as a label for all the different flavors combined) who hold
the opposite view. In other words, they think that she was most
assuredly NOT trying to humor them, but villify them.
I don't doubt it. She should have known better anyways considering
how they've been making asses of themselves for the past six years.
There's no discussion with "truthers", partly because they're
zealots but mainly because the sole requirement for membership in
their group is that you be either a liar or a fool. There's no such
thing as a "moderate truther".
I believe the purpose of the paper is a local focus, so I don't
believe she was so much trying to analyze their claims as to
document a local happening.
I always agree with questioning the government, but unless she had
actual proof to back what she was saying she should have kept her
mouth shut about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Putting that article out
there was irresponsible of her and she deserves to get blasted all
around for it. And I'm disappointed in Reason for regurgitating it
here.
|2.1.08 @ 5:07PM|#
You forgot:
The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel
Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee
*beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face.
Yeah. I realized after posting that I omitted the obligatory
reference to black UN helicopters as well.
That was a difficult post to type with all the tags and links. Took
me 1/2 an hour to get it right.
|2.1.08 @ 5:08PM|#
J sub D, how could you forget the Lonewacko
theories?
Hey, I gave the CFR shoutout.
El Esdee|2.1.08 @ 5:12PM|#
"In 1973 I listened to a radio countdown of the listener
selected 100 best R&R songs of all time. #1 was Joy to the
World by Three Dog Night. Prove to me my fellow citizens aren't
stupid. I dare you."
It was the 70's, man. Everyone was stupid.
|2.1.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Ah thanks, I wonder why they put #6 stuff on the WTC 7 page
unless they were trying to related it to what happened at #7.
Also Silverstein was quoted as saying pulled it. As in one thing,
not pull them or pull 'em like you would hear when someone is
talking about a group of people. That could be a mis-use of word by
Silverstein.
|2.1.08 @ 5:15PM|#
"If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're
wasting your time … and the taxpayers'
money."
Am I the only one who laughed out loud at this last?
|2.1.08 @ 5:15PM|#
A reason for suspicion is the selection of Dick Cheney for VP. He offered no electrol advantage (Wyoming) in a race that was forcast to be as tight as it turned out to be. I remember when he was picked, pundits were saying, what, but why!?
|2.1.08 @ 5:18PM|#
She showed me a u-tube site which showed light flashes in
the windows which the narrator said was explosions. Does anybody
have an explanation for that?
Fluorescent lights blowing out as the building collapsed? Drywall
popping out of the framing?
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 5:19PM|#
Actually, I went back and gave it a more thorough read and Abel's column really did rip on the conspiracy theorists, so I take back my harsher comments towards her, although I think Reason still did a pretty terrible job of presenting her article. She wasn't illustrating the "truthers" as particularly competent or sane at all, but often as panicky, paranoid, often anti-Semitic fools who jumped to conclusions without bothering to even look for solid evidence. I'm all on board with her conclusions there.
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 5:23PM|#
I always agree with questioning the government, but unless
she had actual proof to back what she was saying she should have
kept her mouth shut about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Putting that
article out there was irresponsible of her and she deserves to get
blasted all around for it. And I'm disappointed in Reason for
regurgitating it here.
I think this is where I respectfully disagree. I don't think she
was putting anything out as such. I think she was reporting on a
local group, discussed how she felt herself spun around a bit, then
discussed why someone would have a view like that. I didn't read
her as saying it was A or B, myself. Perhaps I need to reread
it.
The objections from the seminar participants is that it makes them
look crazy, which I don't think you'd take issue with. I understand
your objections to be that she put the material out there and
didn't say "but this is incredibly wrong" or something akin. Sorry
if I'm misreading you. I would agree that she didn't do that, but
the focus of the story was not whether they were right or wrong so
much as why they would have a conspiracy theory viewpoint.
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 5:23PM|#
I'm all on board with her conclusions there.
Ok, we doubled, but I think you see what I was saying.
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 5:27PM|#
TrickyVic,
Also Silverstein was quoted as saying pulled it. As in one
thing, not pull them or pull 'em like you would hear when someone
is talking about a group of people. That could be a mis-use of word
by Silverstein.
That's about the sum total of the "truthers" quest for
evidence...they look for somebody to misspeak or they edit the
clips to put things in the worst possible light then they claim
they've proved their conspiracy true. The problem is that when you
take a step back and look at how impossible it would be to carry
out the logistics of such a plan and not have a single person out
of the hundreds, if not thousands, needed to bring it to pass come
out and spill the beans in six years the 9/11 conspiracy theories
are some of the most ridiculous b.s. imaginable.
That's why I keep tossing out that link...it just demonstrates,
using peer-reviewed science, how everything the government said
happened actually happened without needing to resort to wild
speculation. If you were to ask the "truthers" where their hard
data comes from, they can't give you anything. They just point to
their own speculation or speculation by other "truthers" and claim
that qualifies as concrete evidence.
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 5:31PM|#
Other Matt,
Ok, we doubled, but I think you see what I was
saying.
I do...you'd think I've have realized by this point in my life not
to go off half-cocked over a story I speed-read through when I was
pissed, but every once in awhile I have my relapses. :) The 9/11
conspiracy "theories" just have a way of really setting me off so
sometimes that can be a bit of a weak spot with me.
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 5:33PM|#
....life not to go off half-cocked over a story I speed-read
through when I was pissed, but every once in awhile I have my
relapses.
Sometimes I wish that kind of reaction was located, within the
human body, in the functioning hair follicles. That way I'd be done
with it. Unfortunately, I can relate.
...how everything the government said happened actually
happened without needing to resort to wild speculation.
By the way, you'll see me saying much the same thing as "A Moose"
over at the Advocate's site. I just didn't have your link as it
isn't really something I have spent a lot of time with.
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Other Matt,
By the way, you'll see me saying much the same thing as "A
Moose" over at the Advocate's site. I just didn't have your link as
it isn't really something I have spent a lot of time
with.
I just happened to dig it up about a year ago when I got into a
heated argument with a couple of particularly dim bulbs and was
looking for something to shut them down (without having to dig up
the technical arguments myself). It's the most comprehensive site
I've found so far and I actually wrote the guy who runs it just to
thank him for putting it up. Nice guy, he appreciated the traffic.
Plus it helps thin out the "truther" herd when they start clogging
up real discussions. It's the quick equivalent of going "Look,
idiot, science, real evidence, now go the f*** away!!!" Saves a lot
of time and frustration so that we can move on to cheerier topics.
:)
Other Matt|2.1.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Ok, fun's over, I have to run out for dinner now. However, one thing before I go, if you read Jennifer's writings you'd probably pick up on the "apologetically" when she's talking to govt officials. That is kind of code that she's embarrassed to even bring the subject to them. When she's in top form, you get stuff like this where you can imagine the face of the govt official in the third and second paragraphs from the bottom, respectively.
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 5:49PM|#
Other Matt,
I'll check it out. Too bad nobody just slipped her that link first,
then she could have just grabbed a couple of qualified engineers to
validate the work for her and she wouldn't have had to piss off
anyone but the "truthers". :)
|2.1.08 @ 5:58PM|#
Like the folks that "proved" the conspiracy wrong aren't on the govt payroll to "say" the right things. Sheesh!
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 6:09PM|#
brotherben,
"Like the folks that "proved" the conspiracy wrong aren't on the
govt payroll to "say" the right things. Sheesh!"
Can't tell if you're joking, but the day the "truthers" show me any
hard, peer-reviewed scientific evidence or non-fabricated testimony
from one of the actual "conspirators" to back up their claims is
the day I won't automatically laugh at them and call them idiots.
Otherwise they're just a bunch of fools and liars calling everyone
else fools and liars.
Nick|2.1.08 @ 6:13PM|#
"We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of
explosives," Neuman said.
We know, we said (even more apologetically), but what about that
letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of
explosives?
"Right, because there was no evidence of that."
But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it
first?
Just read that over again and you can tell that question is stupid.
They searched the aforementioned number of steel pieces and found
no evidence. So they did look. This isn't evidence-based learning,
its a frightening willingness to suspend intelligence and embrace
an impossible undertaking. The mere posting of this thread does
imply something about your beliefs. You can be anti-government, but
still support your country, and you can be critical of authority
while still realizing there is no way 9/11 is a conspiracy.
Even giving an de facto acknowledgment of right-minded thought
process to utter stupidity is in fact an abandonment of reason. You
lost a libertarian looking for a smart voice....
Nick|2.1.08 @ 6:20PM|#
I would like to congratulate the Conspiracy Coordination Sector Bravo Leader, nicely put. If anything, this best illustrates the reason to not acknowledge the stupidity as a serious possibility.
|2.1.08 @ 6:21PM|#
UCrawford,
yes I was joking, but using the most common rebuttal to good
science on the subject.
Just like us christians, these folks vote. I wonder how the
christian conspiracy theorists rectify the "Bush chosen of God,
Bush brought down the towers" dilemma?
|2.1.08 @ 6:33PM|#
As for the poor bastard and "looking for evidence of
explosives."
I expect there's a lot of different ways to do that. You probably
don't send it out for some kind of molecular-level analysis if you
don't see any gross evidence that explosives were used.
Kind of like how you don't biopsy every 40 year old woman's breast
without finding a lump first.
I'm just trying to give the guy a break, here.
|2.1.08 @ 6:35PM|#
"""That's about the sum total of the "truthers" quest for
evidence...they look for somebody to misspeak or they edit the
clips to put things in the worst possible light then they claim
they've proved their conspiracy true. The problem is that when you
take a step back and look at how impossible it would be to carry
out the logistics of such a plan and not have a single person out
of the hundreds, if not thousands, needed to bring it to pass come
out and spill the beans in six years the 9/11 conspiracy theories
are some of the most ridiculous b.s. imaginable"""
I'm not a 9/11 truther by any standard. I agree that as a whole the
operation of loading and placing explosives would be tooooo big of
a task, and close to impossible to do without being seen. And
that's a small task compared to hiding everyone on the planes, like
Ted Olsen's wife.
My conspiracy friends keep sending me links. I try to give them a
fair shake.
|2.1.08 @ 6:40PM|#
You can be anti-government, but still support your country,
and you can be critical of authority while still realizing there is
no way 9/11 is a conspiracy.
But that way lies ... sanity.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 6:43PM|#
Neither have I ever tried to shoot a Mannlicher-Carcano
three times in eight seconds
I have one of those bolt action babies and I'm not sure that you
could get three accurate shots off in the space of eight
seconds.
Conspiracy theories are valuable in that you can have loads of fun
with them, write books, and make movies, but most fall apart like a
cheap suit.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 6:50PM|#
Joy to the World by Three Dog Night. Prove to me my fellow
citizens aren't stupid
WTF? I resemble that remark. Joy to the World is a great song, one
of Hoyt Axton's best!
How many times have you ever gotten to drink wine with a bullfrog?
And he drinks RED WINE! Come one, man. We're talking red wine here,
not Tyrolia or Boones.
Actually, I liked Mama Told Me Not To Come better.
Besides rock in '72 had begun it's downward spiral into the madness
of disco.......
Never mind.
I'll go you one better. My HS graduation class voted Sugar Sugar as
the best song of '69. Now those kind of dopes are just the kind
what would vote for St Hillary.
|2.1.08 @ 6:51PM|#
I saw a show about Air Force One on PBS, I think. There was a Secret Service agent talking about the sadest mission Air Force One ever flew, the return of JFK's body. He said JFK's motorcade's route was changed at the last moment. I'm not sure what he meant by moment but I wondered if it was true, how did Oswald know 2 weeks in advance of a route yet to be designated?
|2.1.08 @ 7:02PM|#
Sure you could fire a Mannlicher-Carcano 3x in 8 sec or
less...you're cocked and safety is off as your target approaches,
so, you'll just need to cycle the bolt 2x.
Gun control is hitting your target.
|2.1.08 @ 7:14PM|#
I'll go you one better. My HS graduation class voted Sugar
Sugar as the best song of '69. Now those kind of dopes are just the
kind what would vote for St Hillary.
I really admire the courage it took to come out and admit that you
wer associated with a class that tasteless. It must have took a lot
of soul searching. Sugar Sugar, the horror.
tarran|2.1.08 @ 7:15PM|#
You can be anti-government, but still support your country, and you can be critical of authority while still realizing there is no way 9/11 is a conspiracy.
But that way lies ... sanity.
What?!? Sanity lies in believing that the 19 hijackers
spontaneously decided to engage in an ad-hoc hijacking?
Of course there was a conspiracy! It involved the 19 hijackers and
other members of Al Queda, It may not have involved the U.S.
government, but a conspiracy did exist.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 7:15PM|#
Grump, good point, but even so, the bolt action is manual so
you're cycling it by hand, the mechanism is crappy, the clip isn't
a magazine and it's a bit sticky, and then you gotta get the thing
back up into your shoulder, and then sight your target again.
If you have a telescopic sight it would go faster and if the gun
was newer and well oiled, that would help as well. And I'm probably
not as quick as a guy like say, Lee Harvey, or you, for that
matter.
Not saying it can't be done but I'm saying it would be difficult
for me to do it.
Mine is deadly accurate though, so you'd not likely miss. Don't
know if they are all that way or if it's just that my grandfather
tweaked mine right.
LevStrauss|2.1.08 @ 7:16PM|#
I think people are missing the point of this story. I think the author is telling us in a nice way that we are dealing with a vulgar "know it all" and a "bullshitter" when we discuss 9/11 truth and the Federal Government. If you look into the commission and some of the evidence, along with recent history you can tell there is a coverup, but that doesn't mean that the government was complicit, that the explosives were in the building, or laser beams brought those buildings down. I am not an engineer and don't pretend to be one either.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 7:20PM|#
I really admire the courage it took to come out and admit
that you wer associated with a class that tasteless. It must have
took a lot of soul searching. Sugar Sugar, the horror.
Oh the 49% of us that voted for something else were quite out front
about our outrage. There was a near riot over it. We figured the
vote was fixed. That and a couple of other "voted best by the Class
of '69". Which, incidentally is way cool. How many times in a
century is there a class of 69?
Wait. I think I just dated myself. But, I was the youngest kid in
the class.
|2.1.08 @ 7:32PM|#
Molten metal.
There was molten metal in the basements of the buildings.
Molten for days.
Jet fuel and office supplies do not turn steel to liquid.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 7:33PM|#
According to Billboard Sugar Sugar was # 4 best song of 1969.
Number 1 was that insipid piece of crap called Aquarius/Let The
Sunshine In.
So, apparently the bozos at Pacifica High School were not worse
than the bozos buying 45 rpm records.
Couple decent songs in the top 10, including Everyday People by
NotSoSly & The Stoned Family, Stones, Beatles, Temps, and
Crimson & Clover.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Eli, it is easier for me to believe that Giancana had JFK killed
for boinking Phyllis McGuire than to swallow the story that our
government secretly planned the destruction of the twin
towers.
Is it possible? Yes, we pulled off Normandy on the sly. Is it
plausible? Not in my eyes. Even in the twisted little minds in DC
there is no way to see the sense in a plot so complex.
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Eli,
Molten metal. There was molten metal in the basements of the
buildings. Molten for days. Jet fuel and office supplies do not
turn steel to liquid.
Explained here:
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
The Ron Paul Political Report|2.1.08 @ 8:03PM|#
Now I don't know if the WTC was brought down by Al Qaeda or part
of some Mossad black ops but we need to keep an eye on the Lobby. I
do know that Larry Silverstein was generously compensated for his
"loss".
It seems ever since 9/11 that those "bankers" have been printing
money like crazy. Also don't forget that Phillip Zelikow was the
head of the 9/11 Commission because Kissinger had business ties to
Bin Laden.
Paul|2.1.08 @ 8:15PM|#
UCrawford:
Nanothermite can! And so can a light saber! Take that,
denier!
TWC:
Is it possible? Yes, we pulled off Normandy on the
sly.
We pulled off Normandy before we required public commentary for six
months and environmental impact plans to take a whiz outdoors. The
government couldn't remove a small metal shed and keep it a secret
for five minutes.
thoreau|2.1.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Like somebody said on Unqualified Offerings, if the Bush crew were behind 9/11 the Towers would still be there and the operation would be several years behind schedule and several billion dollars over budget.
Kolohe|2.1.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Yes, we pulled off Normandy on the sly.
But, by June 7, the French and the Germans were pretty aware of
what was going on and who was doing it.
Joe Allen|2.1.08 @ 9:15PM|#
Winey wrote:
"WTF? I resemble that remark. Joy to the World is a great song, one
of Hoyt Axton's best! "
For a pretentious, elitist fuck, you sure have great taste in
music.
Joe Allen|2.1.08 @ 9:18PM|#
Winey also wrote:
"According to Billboard Sugar Sugar was # 4 best song of 1969.
Number 1 was that insipid piece of crap called Aquarius/Let The
Sunshine In.
So, apparently the bozos at Pacifica High School were not worse
than the bozos buying 45 rpm records.
Couple decent songs in the top 10, including Everyday People by
NotSoSly & The Stoned Family, Stones, Beatles, Temps, and
Crimson & Clover."
Everything I just said times ten. Hell, if you're ever in West
Texas, come on down to the watering hole and I'll buy you a box of
your favorite vino, amigo.
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 9:21PM|#
RPPR,
Now I don't know if the WTC was brought down by Al Qaeda or
part of some Mossad black ops but we need to keep an eye on the
Lobby. I do know that Larry Silverstein was generously compensated
for his "loss".
It seems ever since 9/11 that those "bankers" have been printing
money like crazy. Also don't forget that Phillip Zelikow was the
head of the 9/11 Commission because Kissinger had business ties to
Bin Laden.
I have no idea if you're just screwing around but honestly it's
whackjobs who spout crap like that who helped convince me that Ron
Paul belongs nowhere near the White House. Personally, I like
bankers...they helped me buy my house, which I enjoy a great
deal.
UCrawford|2.1.08 @ 9:24PM|#
Paul,
Nanothermite can! And so can a light saber! Take that,
denier!
Only if it's a lightsaber +12 wielded by an Angel of Death wearing
enchanted armor with +15 strength capability. Nerd.
:)
Brandybuck|2.1.08 @ 10:36PM|#
Why look for explosives? That's the real question to ask. The
burden of proof rests with those making the extraordinary claim.
The claim that the WTC towers came down because of controlled
explosive demolition is absurd to anyone who knows the first thing
about demolitions. Yet these so-called libertarians [drink] want to
spend millions of the taxpayers dollars looking for evidence that
every rational person knows is not there.
Truthers are victims of confirmation bias. And not just any
confirmation bias, but a virulent strain of it. Once they get a
conspiracy into their head, everything they see confirms it. If
there actually were a re-investigation, and it found no explosive
residue, they would somehow use that as evidence FOR their
conspiracy! Their stupid "fire can't melt steel" argument has been
refuted so many times it's no longer funny, but they keep making
it.
They're the biggest enemy Ron Paul has. Everytime a 9/11 Truther
opens his mouth, Romney or McCain get another supporter.
Dave W.|2.1.08 @ 10:37PM|#
My linking to this story, I will spell out for the
evidence-based community, does not say anything about what I know,
think, or think I know . . .
what do you know, think, or think you know about secret 9/11 info,
Brian Doherty. I cannot tell from your post. Do you even care? Does
it matter?
Brandybuck|2.1.08 @ 10:45PM|#
Some debunking links for you:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.911myths.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/
penxv|2.1.08 @ 10:47PM|#
Whether explosives were planted beforehand or not... it's
actually a trivial detail (though I think that the collapse of the
buildings was an important visual and explosives probably were
planted in order to ensure its effect).
False flag operations commonly serve as a pretext to wars. So much
so that it would be out of the ordinary if 9/11 was a genuine act
of war. Plus they were Saudis... why didn't we attack Saudi
Arabia?
Are we still supposed to believe that the American empire can't
find 1 (very famous) guy? I'm sure the reward is high enough that
he would have been turned in by now.
Aaron Russo was warned of an event beforehand... it was a
ruse.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609
|2.1.08 @ 11:00PM|#
Anyone who thinks that "burning of jet fuel and office supplies
can't cause molten metal" is invited to a) read up on the physics
of combustion, b) read up on "flash point", and c) go and talk to
some fire departments.
Dimwit.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 11:13PM|#
But, by June 7, the French and the Germans were pretty aware
of what was going on and who was doing it.
The coolest part was setting up an entirely fake invasion force
across from Calais.
Old guy I knew years ago rehabbed & sold used heavy equipment.
He got hold of some of that stuff. Some still in the crate. He set
up a rubber half track in his sales yard and I'm telling you, you
would have trouble telling it from a real one from five feet away.
It was pretty amazing. Course I wanted one but being I was broke
and lived in an apartment I was down on two strikes.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.1.08 @ 11:25PM|#
Hell, if you're ever in West Texas, come on down to the
watering hole and I'll buy you a box of your favorite vino,
amigo.
Cool. Thanks.
Might be sooner than you think. Looks like I got some in-laws
headed for Dallas. Pretty sure you gotta pass through West Texas to
get to Dallas. At least from my place anyway.
|2.1.08 @ 11:33PM|#
Just to throw some gas on the fire, apparently a new book is
claiming the head of the 9/11 committee tried to bury some
embarrassing info.
See here.
Bob Abooie|2.1.08 @ 11:36PM|#
First of all, Bush had nothing to do with it. All the evidence points to Pakistan. The real question
is, why has our government let Pakistan off the hook? Why did they
not do anything when one of the hijackers turned himself in to the
FBI and confessed to the entire plot a year before the
attacks?.
Happy Jack, Old News. The story ABC mentions was covered
extensively in the documentary linked above. It was made in
2005.
Kolohe|2.1.08 @ 11:38PM|#
And in other conspiracy wackjob news, Wesley Snipes was
found *not* guilty of all the felony tax evader charges against
him.
I wonder if the 16th amendment deniers will use this despite the
fact that he was still convicted of three misdemeanor charges and
still has to pay all the money he owes?
Bob Abooie|2.1.08 @ 11:40PM|#
penxv, it sounds like you're talking about the declassified
Operation Northwoods. The plan was to generate U.S. public
support for a military invasion of Cuba.
The proposal supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff was destroying
an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly
full of "college students off on a holiday". Here's the relevant
text...
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate
convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a
chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica,
Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen
only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers
could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any
grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a
non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an
exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA
proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time
the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft
and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be
converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft
will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the
rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to
minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin
AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the
passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The
drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight
plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the
international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is
under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be
interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered
by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western
Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead
of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
Bob Abooie|2.1.08 @ 11:52PM|#
You know why you need to test for explosives? Because no one has
answered the question, "how can a eutectic reaction occur naturally
in a burning building?". We know eutectic reactions can be
explained by demolition but, until they can be accounted for in a
fire based collapse, I can not accept that theory. Maybe Grumpy,
UCrawford or Brandy can explain.
After the attacks, FEMA called Professor Jonathan Barnett (an expert in
civil and structural engineering with a Ph.D. in fire protection
engineering) to join the Building Performance Assessment Team
(BPAT). Even though the removal and destruction of steel samples,
in Barnett's own words, "hindered FEMA's BPAT
investigation", Barnett still identified findings that
required further investigation and examination. Topping that
list were the findings of R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr.
(professors of materials science and engineering) who conducted
metallurgical studies on steel samples brought back from WTC
Building 7. Their findings, which the NY Times called the "deepest mystery
uncovered in the investigation" revealed that a eutectic
reaction had occurred, causing intergranular melting capable of
turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. Being the
experts they are, they were "shocked" by this and,
along with FEMA, called for further metallurgic
investigations, NIST funding and access to more samples. Barnett
said, "Before you spend millions of dollars [on further
investigations], you need to know what to spend it on" and
identified this as topping the list. Their calls went unanswered by
NIST who, to this day, haven't explained the phenomenon.
To date, the only research I can find where someone has tried to
find a potential source for these eutectic compounds is Dr Stephen
Jones. The only person who has even attempted to touch the issue
from NIST is Dr. Frank Greening who suggested that aluminum from
some source (since a plane didn't hit building 7) could melt, and
that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces
inducing violent thermite explosions." Dr. Jones tested this
hypothesis and was able to eliminate it (as well as many
others).
Bob Abooie|2.2.08 @ 12:03AM|#
All of those debunking links provided are pathetic. They
"debunk" a couple of nutjob ideas to avoid having to address
legitimate questions by intelligent people, including over 300 Degreed and Licensed (Active & Retired)
Architects and Engineers.
The NIST investigation on the collapses of WTC buildings 1 and 2 is
utterly incomplete. It only focuses on the factors that led to the
initiation of collapse and not the sequence of events that led to
the complete collapse. An acceptable theory has to take into
account the energy necessary to expel steel beams
horizontally, pulverize all of the concrete (and other solid
matter) into dust and break through each on the unweakened lower
floors at the rate seismic and video evidence shows.
Dave W.|2.2.08 @ 12:12AM|#
Bob,
I am sort of considered as the 9/11 resident conspiracy "nut" here
at HnR. The reason that I believe that the plane impacts
brought down the twin Towers is because the collapses seemed to
start at the impact floors.
How do you respond to that?
Bob Abooie|2.2.08 @ 12:38AM|#
Dave, I guess I'd respond... you're talking about WTC 1 and 2,
not 7. 7's collapse clearly started at the bottom and was
not hit by a plane. But, even as far as 1 and 2 go, I hope that
isn't the only piece of evidence you're basing your belief
on.
WTC7 was a very sound and structurally redundant
building and collapsed so perfectly, it appears to be a
controlled demolition. I mean, even if you don't believe it was,
you certainly can't deny that's what it looks like. So much so that
a demolition
expert was sure it was a controlled demolition.
Paul|2.2.08 @ 12:50AM|#
The reason that I believe that the plane impacts brought
down the twin Towers is because the collapses seemed to start at
the impact floors.
Uhm, because the impact floors had the most...impact, therefore the
most structural damage and, because of the jetfuel those floors had
the highest concentration of heat, which causes any metal to lose
50% of its strength at 50% of the melting point. Considering a
cigarette butt burns at 400deg, I wonder what temperatures a fully
fueled plane burns at?
Paul|2.2.08 @ 12:56AM|#
including over 300 Degreed and Licensed (Active &
Retired) Architects and Engineers.
Which, according to polls are very likely to believe that the earth
is 6,000 years old.
If we could please quit turning science into a popularity contest
and use stuff like...evidence.
But, by June 7, the French and the Germans were pretty aware of
what was going on and who was doing it.
But I bet you can still find Germans who believe the jews were
invading Omaha beach.
CB_Brooklyn|2.2.08 @ 1:02AM|#
Court Cases in the US District Court, Southern District
of New York, with Attorney Jerry Leaphart:
** Dr Judy Wood, suing on
behalf of the United States of America and
demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that
Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in
the destruction of the World Trade Center.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html
Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
Title: Wood v. Applied Research Associates, Inc.
et al
Judge: George B. Daniels
** Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of
the United States of America and demanding a Trial
by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted
cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case
Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GEL
Title: Dr. Morgan O. Reynolds v. Science
Applications International Corp. et al
Judge: George B. Daniels
PRESS RELEASE: Scientists See WTC - Hutchison
Effect Parallel - On a Washington DC local radio station, WPFW,
Scientists discuss true nature of destruction of WTC Complex on
9/11 and conclude it was related to a known effect.
http://www.prlog.org/10048184-scientists-see-wtc-hutchison-effect-parallel.html
The 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover
up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were
orchestrated by people associated with directed energy
weapons and the media:
9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression
Timeline
The Wine Commonsewer|2.2.08 @ 1:10AM|#
Jesus Chrysler, there's enough red type on this thread to qualify it as the New Testament.
Bob Abooie|2.2.08 @ 1:18AM|#
"Which, according to polls are very likely to believe that
the earth is 6,000 years old."
Huh?
"If we could please quit turning science into a popularity
contest and use stuff like...evidence."
Who is talking about a popularity contest (except you)? Do you
think people should keep their credentials secret? As for evidence,
you are the one who believes a theory that is contradicted by the
available evidence. Unless you can account for the proof of a eutectic reaction in a fire-based
collapse, you're willfully ignoring evidence that contradicts your
belief. I'm not claiming to know it was demolition. I'm just
claiming that no one has presented evidence that eliminates
demolition as a theory. It's nice to meet you Pot. Later,
Kettle.
Ignore CB_Brooklyn.
cb_brooklyn|2.2.08 @ 1:33AM|#
There was no "fire based
collapse".
Let's use some common sense here!!
Check the following three pictures:
One
Two
Three
The towers were turned to DUST.
|2.2.08 @ 3:07AM|#
CB - John Hutchison is not a scientist. There is no "Hutchison
effect". Just check out his wiki bio with references from the UFO
Research Center, Tom Valone, and Nick Cook. Your idea is what, that
the aliens have the proof that the gubmint was responsible for
911?
Brian I agree with previous posters that we already have our quota
of lovable eccentrics here and we don't need to advertise for
more.
WAY TO GO JEN! That must have been some interview. Keep up the good
work.
CB_Brooklyn|2.2.08 @ 3:21AM|#
johnL - Your comment "There is no "Hutchison effect""
seems like a hopeful wish on your part, but is totally contradicted
by the evidence:
Anomalies at the WTC
and the Hutchison Effect
|2.2.08 @ 4:02AM|#
Neuman really didn't want to talk to us. Depending on your preference, you could interpret that as further proof of a government cover-up, or as a legitimate time-management technique from a bureaucrat who can't be expected to persuade every single doubter who finds his phone number on the NIST report.
There is a third alternative: Perhaps, as is all too common with
many government employees, he simply didn't care to do any more
"work" than what he just had to do.
Brandybuck|2.2.08 @ 4:22AM|#
Shit, you guys don't even know what "eutectic" means. You hear a
bunch of fancy words and excited. You discover 300 architects and
engineers and start worshipping them, despite the thousands upon
thousands of architects and engineers who think you are all a bunch
of nutbags.
You call my debunking links pathetic. Wow! No one can possibly
argue with that kind of logic! But you cannot deal with the facts
presented, and so you belittle them. You declare Popular Mechanics
to be a part of the conspiracy, based on nothing more than their
disagreement with you. You ignore their facts and presentations,
and throw out bullshit like "eutectic reactions" hoping to baffle
you opponents into submission. It is YOU who are pathetic!
You have gone far beyond conspiracy, and are now full fledged
raving cultists hostile to anything that doesn't stroke your
engorged delusions.
Episiarch|2.2.08 @ 8:35AM|#
It took quite a while for the real nutbags to come out. But they showed up. Maybe we could call it Giuliani's Law: if you have a conspiracy thread, and even if you write in big fucking letters something about nutbags showing up, they will show up anyway.
|2.2.08 @ 10:56AM|#
In defense of truthers:
I am not talking about the ones selling the videos. I am talking
about the boots on the ground who believe the conspiracy theories.
They are not idiots, many do good things besides or despite
believing in conspiracies. Their worldview is slightly off kilter,
but not so much that we should dismiss them as simply idiots. We do
share common goals (less government, more transperancy in
government, against Iraq war, and yes, for Ron Paul). So, I work
with them but I do speak out and criticize their conspiracy
theories, and try to introduce alternative explanations for why the
things we all despise exist.
|2.2.08 @ 11:18AM|#
I wonder if the 16th amendment deniers will use this despite the fact that he was still convicted of three misdemeanor charges and still has to pay all the money he owes?
I am glad Wesley Snipes got off easy, sad it was a mixed verdict,
and sad that the state can steal your money in direct violation of
the taxing clauses in Art 1 sec 8 US Constitution.
To my knowledge, the US has no "extradition" treaty with Panama and
Eddie Kahn was simply kidnapped with no due process.
The word "income" in the 16th Amendment had the common usage in the
early 20th Century of "profit". There are several references to
that in the Congressional record. If you substitute "profit" for
"income" when you read the 16th Amendment you begin to see the
intent of the Amendment.
for more information on the "861" tax argument, go to
www.theft-by-deception.com. You can either purchase the DVD or
download the analysis for free.
Larken Rose is an anarcho-capitalist, if that means anything to
y'all.
|2.2.08 @ 11:24AM|#
How many people
know the first people arrested arrested on 9/11 were not Arabs or
Muslims, but Israeli intelligence officials
Or how many people know that an Israeli software company with
offices next to the WTC complex was warned several hours before the
attacks on 9/11??
The 9/11
High Fivers
I think the American people have a right to know.
|2.2.08 @ 11:46AM|#
You Can't Handle the 9/11 Truth!
Just as a porch light attracts moths, that post title is guaranteed
to attrct the truthers. If only somebody could devise a 9/11
truther zapper, analogous to the bug type. Attract them to the post
and hit 'em with a couple of KVs of electricity. I'd pay to watch
the show.
UCrawford|2.2.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Bob Abooie,
All of your questions can be answered at this site:
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
The physics of everything relating to 9/11 are explained. If you
can't be bothered to dig through to find the specific explanations,
or if you don't actually know anything about physics or
engineering, you can contact the site's author and if you're polite
and refrain from personal attacks he will probably discuss your
questions with you in detail.
|2.2.08 @ 12:22PM|#
How many people know the first people arrested arrested on
9/11 were not Arabs or Muslims, but Israeli intelligence
officials
Or how many people know that an Israeli software company with
offices next to the WTC complex was warned several hours before the
attacks on 9/11??
I would guess zero, since something has to be true in order to know
it.
|2.2.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Make no mistake, it is true!!!
Well, that's good enough for me!
William R - You truthers are more fun than astrology believers,
young earth creationists and Raelians combined. It says a lot about
the freedom and tolerance of our society that you folks are allowed
to spout such nonsense without being involantarily committed.
Mick|2.2.08 @ 12:55PM|#
They shouted out, "Who killed our liberties?!" when after all it was you and me.
|2.2.08 @ 1:00PM|#
9/11 Truthers think the WTC was brought down by controlled
explosions. That's nonsense. But on Sept 11 2001 the first people
the FBI arrested were Israeli intelligence officials. The
Washington Post, New York Times and even the Jewish Weekly "The
Forward" all reported this.
Over the Next several weeks after 9/11 over 60 Israeli citizens
were arrested by the FBI. Some were held close to a year.
FOX News, Brit Hume and Carl Cameron in Dec of 2001 ran a 4 night
report dealing with the arrest of the Israeli intelligence
officials on 9/11. I linked to the story above. You can see it on
You Tube.
|2.2.08 @ 1:15PM|#
All of your questions can be answered at this site:
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
I went there to look at the WTC7 stuff because that is the only
tower collapse that really interests me at this point. A
critique:
1. the wtc7 part is pretty sparse on the physics. alot of that part
is about the Landlord Silverstein quote. I don't find
debunker-man's parsing of the Silverstein quote
to be convincing, but, suffice it to say, that part is not a
physics debate.
2. More than the Siverstein quote, what makes me suspicious about
WTC7 is the way it fell. Specifically, I don't like the idea that
one column coming down, starts a chain reaction that brings them
all down. That would be bad design for obvious reasons. I can kind
of accept that this near synchrous collapse happened at the impact
floors of the Twin Towers, but under most conditions, I would hate
to think that taking one or a few columns of a skyscraper out
automatically and immediately leads to complete catastrophic
failure. To put these, thoughts more briefly: wtc7 fell too quickly
and too straight for it not to have been a controlled
demolition.
3. As far as the "too quickly" issue, debunker man says that the
building actually took a few seconds longer to collapse than some
people think. This is poor debunking because, when I say that the
building fell too quickly, I mean the fact that it fell in less
than a minute is what I mean. Debunker-guy's arguing that the
collapse took 18 seconds instead of 12 (or whatever) is missing the
point. the building didn't fall piecemeal -- damaged facade first,
other portions later -- rather the columns gave as fast as a
falling cascade of dominoes.
4. Debunker guy also said that the building didn't fall perfectly
straight. He has lots of photographs. Once again, he is missing the
point. No building falls perfectly straight down. This building
fell as perfectly straight as any demolished building.
5. finally, on the physics of WTC7 collapse, debunker-man makes a
big point of the fires. Sure enough his photos are interesting, but
they miss the point. Designers expect fires when they design. that
is why they coat columns with thermally insulative material. This
fire did not seem to be so big that it would be outside of what was
expected fire-wise. Also, the fire seemed to affect maybe a quarter
of the building, concentrated on one wall. The fire shouldn't have
wekened even the columns in the quarter where it was burning, much
less ALL the columns.
6. To sum up, debunking site not that impressive on the physics of
wtc7.
|2.2.08 @ 2:22PM|#
I somehow get the feeling that people who believe there was a
9/11 government conspiracy NEVER worked in, or was intimately
involved, with the governmewnt. They ascribe these intricate
machiavellian abilities to the same folks who can't pay the
wiretapping bill on time. The geniuses that brought us the
Transportation Security Administration pulled off deluding the
public about 9/11 attacks? These are the same folks who couldn't
keep atomic bomb secrets for 3 years.
Sheesh cubed!
penxv|2.2.08 @ 2:33PM|#
I somehow get the feeling that people who believe there was
a 9/11 government conspiracy NEVER worked in, or was intimately
involved, with the governmewnt. They ascribe these intricate
machiavellian abilities to the same folks who can't pay the
wiretapping bill on time. The geniuses that brought us the
Transportation Security Administration pulled off deluding the
public about 9/11 attacks? These are the same folks who couldn't
keep atomic bomb secrets for 3 years.
The pawns are useful, I would imagine.
Scrotch Limbuck|2.2.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Shit, you guys don't even know what "eutectic" means. You hear a bunch of fancy words and excited. You discover 300 architects and engineers and start worshipping them, despite the thousands upon thousands of architects and engineers who think you are all a bunch of nutbags.
------------------
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
|2.2.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Bob Abooie, Dave W.,
Again, the collapse of WTC 7 has been investigated and the collapse
is fairly well understood.
STRUCTURE Magazine - November 2007
|2.2.08 @ 6:32PM|#
Or how many people know that an Israeli software company
with offices next to the WTC complex was warned several hours
before the attacks on 9/11??
That claim is complete bullshit. I spent a little time looking into
it a couple years ago when it was brought up and it turns out, like
virtually all conspiracy claims, to totally fall apart under the
slightest examination. The events that were distorted into that
claim are so far from anything you say as to make your claim a
bald-faced lie. That you and others have so much emotional
connection to that story that you're willing to distort and
out-right fabricate "evidence" to support your pet theory not only
discredits anything you say but raises serious questions about your
underlying motives. I mean why are you so wedded to this story that
you won't risk having it fall apart by making even the slightest
effort to validate your outrageous claims?
anonymous|2.2.08 @ 7:16PM|#
You can be anti-government, but still support your country,
and you can be critical of authority while still realizing there is
no way 9/11 is a conspiracy.
I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from ... beyond our borders, but from our own government.
I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.
But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy....
...The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong....
...How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny....
...[T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.
-The President of the United States
Michigan State University (May
5, 1995)
So if somebody believes someone who is working for the government has mistreated them, take it to the appropriate authority, make it public if you want to, but be specific. But do not condemn people who work for the government. That's the kind of mentality that produced Oklahoma City.
-The President of the United States
Billings, Montana (June
1, 1995)
We recognized, once again, that we can't love our country and hate our government.
-The President of the United States
Weekly Radio Address (December
30, 1995)
If bombing the Oklahoma City federal building managed to save Bill
Clinton's presidency, eventually pushing his approval ratings up to
127%, why wouldn't George Bush try the same thing on a grander
scale?
MK|2.2.08 @ 8:15PM|#
Can we agree that those who are mind-bogglingly stupid enough to buy into these goofyconspiracy theories shouldn't be allowed to own firearms? Probably not, huh?
anonymous|2.2.08 @ 8:19PM|#
Can we agree that those who are mind-bogglingly stupid
enough to buy into these goofyconspiracy theories shouldn't be
allowed to own firearms?
See panel #17 at http://www.reason.com/news/show/117833.html
cb_brooklyn|2.2.08 @ 9:14PM|#
WTC 7 did not "collapse"; it was mostly turned to
dust.
See the evidence before
discounting it.
Jennifer|2.2.08 @ 9:18PM|#
Dear regulars: I am so sorry about this, y'all.
That's all I'll say on the matter. Carry on.
cb_brooklyn|2.2.08 @ 10:12PM|#
Jennifer: I'm not a regular, but certainly noticed the 9/11
article. As a true American who knows it's my responsibility to
remove corrupt elements in the government, I decided to post some
factual information about the obvious inside job attacks. I
certainly hope others will find it their responsibility too.
Basically, there were no hijackings on 9/11, no plane crashes, the
media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower,
and the Towers were turned to dust with directed energy
weapons.
This is what the actual evidence shows. People need to start
looking at evidence for themselves instead of believing whatever
the government/media tell them to believe.
As
former Assistant Secretary the US Treasury, Dr Paul Craig Roberts,
said:
Americans never check any facts. Who do you know, for example,
who has even read the Report of the 9/11 Commission, much less
checked the alleged facts reported in that document. I can answer
for you. You don't know anyone who has read the report or checked
the facts.
And, by the way, when I say evidence, I'm not talking
about the "propaganda evidence" put out by the government and
media. See my article here for full information on this:
9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression
Timeline
Have a great day!
|2.2.08 @ 11:37PM|#
@Jennifer
Dear regulars: I am so sorry about this, y'all.
Taint nothin' to be sorry about; it's been a fun thread so far.
;-)
The Wine Commonsewer|2.2.08 @ 11:39PM|#
You know, in the end it don't matter if teh government turned my
mother's husband's office at the Pentagon into an inferno or not.
In the end it doesn't matter a bit. Truth remains that, the feds
are out of control, and whether Art Bell wins or not is
irrelevant.
And in 50 billion years the sun will burn out. Regardless.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.2.08 @ 11:43PM|#
9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression
Timeline
At the height of my vagrant yoot the US moon landing occurred.
There was an amusing interview of an old black woman who lived in
rural Georgia south of Atlanta. When asked what she thought of
putting a man on the moon she was quite skeptical and, in fact,
replied that her TV couldn't even get Atlanta so how in the
heck could it get the moon?
The Wine Commonsewer|2.2.08 @ 11:45PM|#
And, no matter what Epi and Grump sez, I have one of those rifles and I'm skeptical that you can fire three accurate shots in 8 seconds. Two in less two seconds.
Gene Callahan|2.3.08 @ 12:33AM|#
Re Silverstein quote:
Good God, conspiracy folks, had you ever, ever heard anyone
anywhere use the word "pulled" to talk about blowing up something
before 9/11?
"Now he's gonna pull the safe"?
"The volcano -- she's a-gonna pull"?
"The Maine pulled sky high"?
No -- then why would Silverstein suddenly have begun talking this
way on 9/11?
|2.3.08 @ 12:39AM|#
@ My Penis did 9/11
Hm. Ya know, when I was growing up cool people like Masters and
Johnson, Hugh Hefner's crowd, etc. used to make fun of that old
myth that said playing with oneself could make you insane or at
least, goofy. I used to laugh, too. But after watching that video
you just linked to I'm not so sure anymore that the myth doesn't
have some basis in reality.
David|2.3.08 @ 1:27AM|#
Thank god reason is on the case. Let's look at that Mikey/Pop Rocks thing again, too.
UCrawford|2.3.08 @ 2:46AM|#
Dave W,
To sum up, debunking site not that impressive on the physics of
wtc7.
Really? Because most of the people I've talked to with a background
in those subjects completely disagree. You should tell the site
author (who I believe is also an engineer) that the physics of his
site and the peer-reviewed studies he linked to for support are
lacking. I'm sure that he'll be swayed by your arguments and
correct his site accordingly...assuming of course that you actually
have an educational background or expertise of some sort in either
engineering or physics and aren't just talking out of your ass
because you like to spout off about topics about which you're more
or less completely ignorant.
As for building 7, it collapsed because of damage from the other
towers. The reason Silverstein's quotes were discussed at length
was because the "truthers" intentionally took them out of context
to make it appear there was a conspiracy. I suggest you go back and
read the page again...and then discuss your disagreements with the
site author. He's a reasonable guy, so if you can convince him to
change his positions I'll accept what you're saying.
UCrawford|2.3.08 @ 2:51AM|#
Jennifer,
Dear regulars: I am so sorry about this, y'all.
No worries...every once in awhile it probably does us some good to
go on a troll hunt. Good article, by the way, I'm sorry that I
offered a harsh opinion of it initially before fully reading for
comprehension. It's a topic that has a tendency to hit sore spots
with me, but I look forward to reading your future work.
911 Octopus|2.3.08 @ 8:09AM|#
My Penis did 9/11
No, it was an Octopus.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aAMm3PBBCCs
|2.3.08 @ 8:13AM|#
Jen,
cool article. Fun to read the nuts come out of the woodwork
sometimes.
Your article and this thread has provided me something cool to read
while in bed with the flu.
|2.3.08 @ 8:15AM|#
This comment thread has provided me with many cool links to when
talking to some truther retard friends of mine.
One thing though, whenever I talk about debunking 9/11, one of them
always brings up the USS Liberty incident. And that does appear to
be a conspiracy job of some kind.
Any takes on that?
Dave W.|2.3.08 @ 8:53AM|#
As for building 7, it collapsed because of damage from the
other towers. The reason Silverstein's quotes were discussed at
length was because the "truthers" intentionally took them out of
context to make it appear there was a conspiracy.
1. Well, I didn't see anything too physics-y at the wtc7 portion of
the guy's site, so I am not sure there is a need to evaluate expert
testimony on that.
2. On questions of physics, my "go-to" guy is a Santa Barbara pHd
whom I will call "T." to preserve his anonymity. I have read T.'s
writings assiduously for years now and have never seen him express
an opinion on WTC7, specifically. He will speak in general terms
about conspiracy theories or "9/11 denial" (I think Ms. Abel is
trying to make it sound similar to "Holocaust denial") as an
organic whole. But, he will never come out and say that WTC7 was
not intentionally demolished with explosives. It is the same
strategy our Mr. Doherty uses when he lumps all conspiracy theories
into a single bucket and doesn't say how he feels about any one of
them. That way, if one of the more plausible theories is someday
proven true, there won't be any predictions on record too, too
damning. Maybe they are just waiting on that long awaited NIST
report to decide how they really feel about WTC7.
3. But let's talk Siverstein quote, since debunker site goes on and
on about it, and because it clearly doesn't require a pHd in
physics to parse. Siverstein sed:
I remember getting a call from the fire department commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to
contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of
life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made
that decision to pull and then we watched the building
collapse.
As far as why I think he means "pull" the building, rather than
"pull" the firefighting unit:
a. It is slightly unnatural to refer to firefighters as an "it."
This is especially true on 9/11 when there presumably would have
been firefighters in from all over the place and not just a single
station house.
b. the fire commander would not be consulting the landlord as to
whether to evacuate firefighters. The fire commander might keep his
autonomy on that decision, or he might consult the mayor. He is not
going to appreciate a private party's advice on that issue, though.
That is just not how fire officials make decisions regarding
firefighter safety. If your house is burning, you cannot tell the
fire department not to put it out.
c. "And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the
building collapse" sounds like the pulling caused the building to
collapse. The reason I think this is that I think Silverstein
wanted to make himself sound good. Two sub-points re Silverstein
making himself sound good:
(i) if it was Silverstein's decision to demolish the building then
the quote as written makes him sound good because he is saying that
he sacrificed his building stoically and responsibly.
(ii) if, on the other hand, Silverstein had helped encourage the
fire commander to evacuate the firefighters, then I think
Silverstein would have said the quote clearer to make it abundantly
clear that he, Silverstein, had helped save firefighter lives. I
think he would have said something more like --And they made that
decision to pull and good thing, too, because the building came
down pretty soon after that--
Dave W.|2.3.08 @ 8:58AM|#
b. the fire commander would not be consulting the landlord
as to whether to evacuate firefighters. The fire commander might
keep his autonomy on that decision, or he might consult the mayor.
He is not going to appreciate a private party's advice on that
issue, though. That is just not how fire officials make decisions
regarding firefighter safety. If your house is burning, you cannot
tell the fire department not to put it out.
On this hed, forgot to say:
OTOH, the fire department may consult a private party about a
decision to demolish. Because there have been lawsuits for property
damage in the past when they have done this (and, yes, fire
departments have demolished buildings on purpose during an
emergency before, usu. to stop the spread of fire). The idea is
that the fire commander wants to clear the demolition with
Silverstein later so there is no lawsuit later.
|2.3.08 @ 9:10AM|#
""That way, if one of the more plausible theories is someday
proven true, there won't be any predictions on record too, too
damning.
Dave,
"plausible theories"? Such as?
|2.3.08 @ 9:20AM|#
So I just got another email from my conspiracy buddy, and in it
he links the
USS Liberty Incident
USS Cole,
Embassy Bombing in Lebanon
and (911
All as having been perpetrated by the US govt. I guess to use as an
excuse to get us militarily involved in the Middle east. I would
have thought that Gulf War 1 would have been all the shadow govt of
vampires needed.
So, I get the energy beam things aren't the ones that are the most
out there.
|2.3.08 @ 9:50AM|#
"plausible theories"? Such as?
wtc7 being demolished is an example of a "plausible conspiracy
theory." The reason that the theory is so plausible is that damaged
buildings are routinely demolished, often during the course of an
emergency. The idea is that they didn't want a fire to burn for
days, popping out windows and stuff before falling over sideways
(or, more likely, staying mostly up). Would have hindered cleanup
to have it there burning.
Actually, in retrospect, it would have been better if they had just
evacuated lower Manhattan for a bit. Over on the "OfficerDown"
page, the respiratory deaths are beginning to mount now that some
years have passed.
So, it was incompetent to keep it up and, assuming it was
demolished, it was incompetent to try to turn the demolition into
confidential info (especially after Silverstein blew it).
Nevertheless, like T. says:
If a conspiracy theory requires lots of incompetence, then that
is how you will know the government did it.
|2.3.08 @ 11:02AM|#
It is Dr T's fault now?
No, T.'s insight is helpful here. T. understands that the
government is incompetent, and further that if a "conspiracy
theory" would involve government incompetence, then it makes it
more likely that the government did it. In other words, a
conspiracy theory that requires incompetence is more likley to be
true.
For example, when that one soldier shot Pat Tillman in Afghanistan,
the government efforts at coming up with a cover story were shoddy.
Because of holes in the story, most people who haven't been
brainwashed by military service understand that Pat Tillman was
fragged on purpose, and that justice has not been done in his case.
If the government had handled that coverup more professionally (eg,
coming up with a cover story where his body is burned so that the
nature of his head wound could not be observed), then we would not
have such strong grounds for believing that the Pat Tillman
conspiracy theory is true.
T. has told us to seek out incompetence and we will know what to
believe. It is a good insight. He's T., after all!
UCrawford|2.3.08 @ 11:09AM|#
kwais,
One thing though, whenever I talk about debunking 9/11, one of
them always brings up the USS Liberty incident. And that does
appear to be a conspiracy job of some kind.
Any takes on that?
It gives the "truthers" yet another excuse to blame the Jews. The
U.S.S. Liberty had nothing to do with 9/11 and the "truthers" know
it...they just don't care because a great number of them are
anti-Semites and most of the rest of them are crazy people so
they'll bring up any unflattering reference they can to distract
you from the point that they've got no actual evidence of a
government conspiracy at all. Hell, if they'd found a charred
tinfoil hat at Ground Zero most of them would have probably claimed
a CIA death ray was responsible.
UCrawford|2.3.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Dave W,
But let's talk Siverstein quote, since debunker site goes on
and on about it,
Actually, why don't you go talk to the guy who runs the debunk site
about it? That's why I sent you the link. Convince him to change
his position on it and I'll reconsider debating this with you.
|2.3.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Are you kidding? He's clearly looney-tunes to do a site like
that. I am reaching out to Brian Doherty and kwais instead
because they seem a tad more open minded.
Sadly, even the highclearing won't let you say that WTC7
was demolished anymore.
|2.3.08 @ 11:34AM|#
As if I think this will matter one fucking bit, but...
Here's a
whole section on WTC 7 - scroll down
Dave W.|2.3.08 @ 12:15PM|#
That site is a bunch of garbage, Timon, but I would like to deal
with one small WTC7 portion because I think it manifests some of
the same flaws you see in the thought patterns of a typical
HitnRunner. Here is the excerpt I'd like to focus
on:
By contrast, the story told by the 9/11 Truth Movement is
riddled with holes. It assumes that Larry Silverstein destroyed WTC
Building 7, presumably in order to claim a huge insurance payoff.
But if this is so, why would he tell the world of his plot on a PBS
special? Furthermore, what relationship does Silverstein have with
the United States government who, according to conspiracy
theorists, destroyed the WTC buildings in order to terrorize its
citizens into accepting domination by a police state? And if the
government controlled the demolition of the WTC buildings in order
to strike fear into its citizens, why one this one case would it
wait until all of the tenants were evacuated from WTC 7 so that
there were no reported casualties? The government's strategy
appears wildly inconsistent in the Truth Movement account . .
.
1. Whether or not Silverstein got a huge insurance payment, that
has nothing to do with the conversation with the fire commander
that Silverstein related in Sept 2002 on teevee. If it is assumed,
for the sake of argument, that Silverstein meant "pull the
building," then, on this assumption, it becomes clear that the fire
commander was making sure it was oky with Silverstein if the
building was demolished, and that Silverstein acquiesced in this
strategy.
2. This blurb also seems to assume that there was no legit reason
for wanting to demolish WTC7 sooner, rather than later. Of course
there was a legit reason. There was a rescue and recovery operation
close by where the Twin Towers had fallen. For reasons, fair or
foul, they were anxious to get that going. It would not have helped
to have a burning skcraper there for 48 more hours, or even a
compromised burned out skyscraper in the vicinity after that. There
was a clear, legit reason for wanting the thing down fast.
3. "Why would he tell his plot on teevee?" When there is a
conspiracy theory where nobody blabs, then the skeptics say, "there
couldn't be a conspiracy because someone will blab." In this case,
someone did blab, so the skeptic says, "this can't be a conspiracy
because someone blabbed." I don't think skeptics can have it both
ways on this.
4. Notice the way the blurb links people who think wtc7 was
demolished to ppl who think the Twin Towers were demolished. I
mean, the two ppl on this thd who think wtc7 was demolished are me
and Bob Abooie. Neither of us think the Twin Towers were
demolished. Ms. Abel was guilty of much the same thing when she
left the 9/11 Truther convention to talk to and report on the
hardercore crazies out in the lobby. Ms. Abel did the same thing
again when she used the inapt phrase "9/11 deniers" to
not-so-subtly invoke Holocaust deniers. Mr. Doherty is guilty of
the same thing when he brings up JFK conspiracy theorists in this
post. As soon as looking at a particular "conspiracy theory" makes
a skeptic uncomfortable, they switch gears and look at "conspiracy
theories" as an organic whole. It is an intellectually dishonest
technique and you guys reinforce this bad practice in each other
all the time. Like when that Henson guy sez: Hey, hey, I heard
there is a conspiracy that Steve Irwin wasn't really killed by a
stingray!!! Big yuks!
|2.3.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Like I said...
I never should have bothered. Of course you'd choose to focus on
that part, rather than the part actually dealing with what
Silverstein said.
Dave W.|2.3.08 @ 12:28PM|#
I'd be happy to deal with whatever part you'd like to quote here, Timon, so long as it is not too lengthy. I can't deal with the whole site here, of course. It is a long site.
|2.3.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Dave,
How about all of the section preceding the objectionable bits,
including more complete quotes and actual independent testimony?
You focused on a summary paragraph that, yes, editorialized a bit.
Way to go after the low-hanging fruit.
To use the rhetorical technique you did in presenting it, I think
it manifests some of the same flaws you see in the thought patterns
of a typical WTC7 Truther.
Dave W.|2.3.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Oh, the argument that others have clarified what Mr. Siverstein
meant after the interview. Okay.
1. I find it highly suspect that Mr. Silverstein sent a spokesman
to clarify his comments instead of doing it himself. To me it
indicates that Silverstein thought he was telling the truth and is
not happy that some would have him recant. So he sent a spokeman
out to do the dirty work. I also think that Silverstein knows that
at some point the demolition of WTC7 will become publically
accepted knowledge and does not want his name on the temporary
lies.
2. as far as why Siverstein "slipped up", I don't think Silverstein
even knew that there was a conspiracy going on until after his
teevee interview. Before September 2002, it is not like people had
come out and said that the building wasn't demolished. It was
simply that nobody was opining on the causation of the collapse at
all, beyond the general realization that it was somehow 9/11
related. Silverstein probably figured that this aspect was public
knowledge just because so many had seen the collapse. He didn't
think he was saying anything surprising at the time.
3. So, one may ask, at this point: if there is no real reason to
have started keeping the demolition confidential after the
Silverstein interview, then why have some people decided to try to
start doing just that. The answer is that the people who were
silent about the wtc7 demolition before the Silverstein interview
were silent out of reflexive secrecy and because emergency opsec is
generally presumed confidential. The other part of the answer, the
part about why the people in charge started to actively deny the
wtc7 demolition after the Silverstein interview put the subject on
the table and got ppl talking, is incompetence. There is no need
for this conspiracy at all. It is just something that got started
thru sheer government stupidity and now it is too late and there is
no graceful out.
|2.3.08 @ 12:58PM|#
This is beginning to get as fucking stupid as a previous
discussion of aeronautics. I have developed a short fuse,
patience-wise.
I'm fucking done. Never should have brought it up. Nothing at all
changes a convinced Truther's mind, even if he's a selective
Truther.
Dave W.|2.3.08 @ 1:05PM|#
I have developed a short fuse, patience-wise.
Ahhh, impatience. That is stage 3 in the process. You are
progressing nicely. Right on schedule. Two more stages to go,
Timon, and you will be one of us. One of us.
Dave W.|2.3.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Bargaining. Timon is going stage four right before my cyber eyes. This is the best thing since Rosie's rant!
|2.3.08 @ 1:50PM|#
The U.S.S. Liberty had nothing to do with 9/11 and the
"truthers" know it.
Well, I don't think it did.
But if you buy that the USS Liberty was a conspiracy between some
in the US Govt and the Israeli govt,
Then you can use that as some kind of justification that the
attacks of 9/11 were also a similar conspiracy.
If you find yourself, like me, arguing that people who think that
to think that 9/11 was a US govt conspiracy are idiots.
Then people arguing against me, bring up the USS Liberty incident,
and say "what about that?" "There was something untoward in that
incident was there not?"
anonymous conspirator|2.3.08 @ 2:22PM|#
So I just got another email from my conspiracy buddy, and in it he
links the
USS Liberty Incident
USS Cole,
Embassy Bombing in Lebanon
and (911
All as having been perpetrated by the US govt. I guess to use as an
excuse to get us militarily involved in the Middle
east
What about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the 1995
Oklahoma City bombing (which some conspiracy theories link Iraq to,
others link the federal government to)?
Dave W.|2.3.08 @ 2:50PM|#
1995 Oklahoma City bombing (which some conspiracy theories
link Iraq to, others link the federal government to . .
.
From what I know about these theories, the conspiracy theory of
Iraqi involvement is that recent Iraqi immigrants helped McVeigh.
This theory is supported primarily by the idea that they think they
know who helped him and secondarily by the fact that McVeigh was
really angry about what the US had done to Iraq in the Gulf
War.
The conspiracy theory of federal government involvement, on the
other hand is based on: (i) the idea that the federal government
seemed uninterested in catching McVeigh's co-conspirators after the
fact; (ii) that certain federal agents acted with foreknowledge of
the explosion (eg, rushing to stop it just before it happened);
(iii) the government was suspicuiusly selective in choosing the
evidence to use to the McVeigh trial (eg, hiding participation of
government agents in the planning); and (iv) some connections
involving a drug dealer.
Now, it is possible that both or neither of these theories are
true. They are not inconsistent. Nor do they depend upon each
other.
Dave W.|2.3.08 @ 3:04PM|#
Further on the conspiracy theory of federal government
involvement in Murrah bombing:
the idea is that the Federal government was either encouraging
McVeigh et al. to do the bombing and/or keeping tabs on him through
secret agents. Then they were supposed to catch him in a dramatic
way and show how necessary the FBI is for dealing with militia
types gone astray. The problem is that incompetence crept in, and
they didn't catch him when they were supposed to.
Imperial Storm Truther|2.3.08 @ 4:00PM|#
Uncomfortable Questions: Was the Death Star Attack an
Inside Job?
Posted in Conspiracy Theories | Wednesday, February 28th,
2007
Websurdity Link: This article was inspired by the fine users at
the
James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) Forum, to whom I am
indebted
for the use of much of this material.
We've all heard the "official conspiracy theory" of the Death
Star
attack. We all know about Luke Skywalker and his ragtag bunch
of
rebels, how they mounted a foolhardy attack on the most
powerful,
well-defended battle station ever built. And we've all seen the
video
over, and over, and over, of the one-in-a-million shot that
resulted
in a massive chain reaction that not just damaged, but
completely
obliterated that massive technological wonder.
Like many citizens of the Empire, I was fed this story when I
was
growing up. But as I watched the video, I began to realize that
all
was not as it seemed. And the more I questioned the official
story,
the deeper into the rabbit hole I went.
Presented here are some of the results of my soul-searching
regarding
this painful event. Like many citizens, I have many questions that
I
would like answered: was the mighty Imperial government really
too
incompetent to prevent a handful of untrained nerf-herders
from
destroying one of their most prized assets? Or are they
hiding
something from us? Who was really behind the attack? Why did they
want
the Death Star destroyed? No matter what the answers, we have
a
problem.
Below is a summary of my book, Uncomfortable Questions: An Analysis
of
the Death Star Attack, which presents compelling evidence that we
all
may be the victims of a fraud of immense proportions.
Uncomfortable Questions about the Death Star
Attack
1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the
defenses
of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an
entire
planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle
ships?
2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station's
large
fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on
orders
from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so,
who,
and why?
3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death
Star
reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to
its
destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were
several
individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping
him?
4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that
Darth
Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is
in
fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death
Star?
5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and
personally
pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed
Lord
Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he
was
also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet
that
had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of
the
highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide
to
fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he
know
something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn't?
6) How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide
exhaust
port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim
to
fame was his ability to "bullseye womprats" on Tatooine? This
shot,
according to one pilot, would be "impossible, even for a
computer."
Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly
fired
the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was
supposedly
firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. Why have these
discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?
7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the
droids
who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned
by
none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently,
by
the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to
be
Lord Vader's son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought
to
one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader's teacher
many
years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the
conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed
to
be coincidences?
8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of
a
moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or
capital
ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile.
Furthermore,
analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star
show
numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it
exploding
completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically
placed
explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death
Star?
333 Responses to "Uncomfortable Questions: Was the Death Star
Attack an Inside Job?"
|2.3.08 @ 4:19PM|#
What about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the 1995
Oklahoma City bombing (which some conspiracy theories link Iraq to,
others link the federal government to)?
Ha,ha,
Dude, even the bridge that collapsed and the internet going out
here in Egypt were conspiracies.
I think the theory on the bridge is an energy weapon.
|2.3.08 @ 6:11PM|#
Another thing that the conspiracy theory dudes bring up a lot is
the NAU.
I guess there is a conspiracy that us Mexico and Canada are going
to be a country like the EU.
I don't really know what to make of that one except 'so what?'
|2.3.08 @ 6:35PM|#
Dave W. | February 3, 2008, 4:44pm | #
I had always wondered if they had Internets in foreign
countries.
Yeah they have phones and cars and other cool shit too.
Dave W.|2.3.08 @ 7:14PM|#
They should try to link up the Egypt Internet with the US Internet somehow. I know that when I lived in Canada the two Internets were so closely linked that it was almost the same thing (unless you wanted to use your US credit card, that is).
UCrawford|2.3.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Dave W,
Are you kidding? He's clearly looney-tunes to do a site like
that.
I think we can all safely take that to mean that you have no clue
what the hell you're talking about. If you can't lock horns with a
guy who's invested a lot of time and effort researching and
explaining the actual science behind 9/11, you're simply not worth
listening to. Thanks for the weekend diversion, troll, but I'm done
with you now. :)
Dave W.|2.3.08 @ 7:49PM|#
He may have a lot of great science on the Twin Towers part of
his site, but that is useless to me because I think the twin Towers
were brought down by the hi-jacked passenger jets, as does
he.
Like I said, I read the WTC7 part carefully and saw no science. It
was all: (i) look at all these pictures of smoke; and (ii) here is
what Silverstein really meant when he said that he gave
his blessing to detonate WTC7. It is just not a scientific issue.
Hopefully, HitnRun will do an entry when the NIST report
finally comes out so that there is finally some actual science to
discuss on WTC7. The report is definitely supposed to come out in
2007 (no, that's not a typo).
FS Maunsta|2.4.08 @ 12:48AM|#
The OKC Bombing conspiracy started because the FBI, DOJ and
Govenor Keating confirmed secondary devices being found. The
government later said they had never heard such things. The
TV Footage makes for great
conspiracy.
The 1993 WTC Bombing conspiracy started because (as reported in the NY Times) Emad Salem, an
undercover agent who was a key government witness in the Yousef
trial testified that the FBI knew about the attack beforehand and
told him they would thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for
the explosives. When an FBI supervisor called off this plan, and
said to allow the bombing, he thought he was being setup and
starting recording his calls. The federal judge who ordered the
tapes and transcripts be kept secret, Michael Mukasey, has been
moving up in the political world. A couple recordings can be found on google and
CBS mentioned it in 93.
That Debunking 9/11 website doesn\\\'t look
too credible to me.
|2.7.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Something to think about:
Where was Daddy Bush on 9/11? Oh, that's right, he was in a meeting
(at the board of the Carlyle Group) with the Bin Laden family
keeping us Americans safe. Where was Cheney? Oh, that's right, he
was busy taking command of NORAD, making sure we're safe. There
couldn't have been any bombs planted in WTC towers because Marvin
Bush (George's brother) was in charge of security over the
buildings, making sure we'd be safe.
ron soldwish|2.8.08 @ 3:30PM|#
are you kidding me
looked at 200 pieces of metal, how many pieces of metal do you
think was in the WTC????
in fact, they were takin on a guided tour, and didnt have the free
rain to look at all of the metal from the world trade center.
how can NIST state there was no evidance of controlled demolition
when, according to this article, wasnt even looking for evidance of
controlled demolition.
watch loose change FINAL CUT
RON PAUL 08'
|2.10.08 @ 1:12AM|#
The planes disobeyed Newton's laws.Therefore the videos were faked.Watch September Clues for the truth.
theSaiGirl|2.12.08 @ 7:31PM|#
1) The Towers were blown to Kingdom Come.
Probably using "unconventional" ordnance.
2) WTC7 was taken down by a more "conventional" looking demolition
at about 5:20 that evening.
3) The major networks broadcast fake videos of a "plane" smoothly
disappearing into the south Tower.
It ain't rocket science.
The videos and pictures tell the story.
http://losalamos911truth.blogspot.com/
Sad and tragic that the population of this country is so
dumbed-down and pacified that they would tolerate such a blatantly
obvious and transparent example of state-sponsored
false-flag terrorism.
Even sadder that readers of "Reason" have also apparently lost the
capacity to independently reason for themselves.
9/11 was America's "Reichstag Fire".
Wondering how the Germans could have succumbed so easily to the Big
Lie of a media psy-op ?
Well now you know...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245