LP Convention 2008: Truth Be Told

I don't want to paint a picture of LP2008 as some sort of abnormal event: This is a hotly contested political brawl, complete with war rooms, platform fights, and other riveting stuff that's covered in a dispatch I'm finishing right now. But I just caught a truly bizarre and misbegotten event that had to be seen to be believed.

It's like this: Libertarians for Justice, a group that's urging all LP candidates to pledge to open a new 9/11 investigation, rented a spacious room for hours of 9/11 Truth events, including a screening of Improbable Collapse, a "scientific investigation" of the attacks. At 8:00 p.m. they invited presidential candidates who'd signed the pledge to take questions from an audience of around 60 people.

How big is a 60-person crowd at the LP convention? Small, when you consider that Barr, Gravel, Root, Ruwart and (yes!) Imperato met dozens of people one-on-one with just a little time in the exhibit hall. Smaller when you realize that several people in the event weren't LP delegates, just 9/11 Truth advocates. Nonetheless, Ruwart and Gravel spent at least 90 minutes engaging in the Q&A alongside Michael Jingozian, Steve Kubby, and Alden Link. The event took a Lynchian turn when uber-fringe candidate John Finan took the mike, made fun of the audience, and refused to sign the pledge when it was dangled in his face. "Whaddya think?" he asked the crowd. "Should I sign something I've just seen for the first time?" Almost everyone roarded "yes," including Kubby, who was a few feet away from me. Finan refused and walked away with the sharpie the moderator had given to him to sign with; he was pursued out of the room and trotted back to the elevator. Finan did the impossible: Looking like the craziest man in the room at a Truther event.

I'm no purge junkie, but LP candidates have no business indulging the Truth crowd like this.

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

  • Chris||

    It's stuff like this that makes people think we are nuts.

  • libertarian||

    You're a purge junkie. It's a simple document calling for more transparency. No libertarian should have a problem with government transparency. Why get your panties in a knot?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    The event took a Lynchian turn when....

    speaking of turns, nice turn of the phrase.

    Couldn't agree more about the truthers. Not saying to purge 'em, just don't indulge them.

    But, to be fair, there are more truthers around than you might think. I know a guy who is a hard core Rush Luvin conservative Republican who is convinced that 09-11 was an inside job.

  • Chris||

    Here's a question: do people think the nuts gravitate towards the LP because we are a third party, or do they just stand out more because the LP is smaller/less "mainstream".

  • Colin||

    I'm gonna draw the line when it comes to voting for a truther. Even if that means voting for Baldwin.

  • ||

    Awwwwwwwww God Damn it!

  • tradition||

    reason sucks

  • ||

    I don't expect a similar post about the nuts who seemingly compose the entire Democratic Party, or the nuts who will lead the cheers in the coming RNC. Get it? A platform of harmful nonsense-economics and coercive social policy is 'reasonable'; the neocon foreign policy is an adult one whose presence should not seem ridiculous to us. A bunch of people who -- in a country famed for getting into wars by manipulating its enemies -- omigod distrust the government? Whackos! Nuts! So on-the-fringe that we should be ashamed to be in the same room as them!

    Pah. The Truthers ain't got nothing on the 'mainstream' whackos.

  • Nephilium||

    *sigh*

    Why is it the party that doesn't think government can do anything right keeps drawing the attention of people who think the government can mastermind a great conspiracy?

    Nephilium

  • tarran||

    Here's a question: do people think the nuts gravitate towards the LP because we are a third party, or do they just stand out more because the LP is smaller/less "mainstream".

    Short answer: they are attracted to a third party.

    Longer answer: there are always people who have trouble functioning in a society.

    Some have trouble functioning because they have moral problems with the actions required to succeed. Others because they are nuts.

    The nuts don't consider themselves to be nuts. rather they look for a rationalization that explains why they cannot function - an explanation that leaves the nuts' feelings of self esteem intact.

    Some join a cult. Others blame blacks or Catholics and join the KKK. Some seek refuge in the military. Some join political movements like communism, Fascism, or Libertarianism.

    The Libertarian Party's message is seductive - government interferes in so many aspects of our lives that a person can have no problem coming up wiht an excuse as to how all their failures are really the product of government interference.

    In a libertarian society, many of these losers would still be struggling. And, no doubt, many of them would be joining socialist or nationalist movements.

    Furthermore, sane people are driven away from joining parties like the Libertarian party because the party is ineffective. For the party to make an impact, supporters have to spend gobs of money and invest many man-hours of their time. If, as normally happens, the Libertarian has no impact on the election of concern, all that money and effort will have gone to waste. So, a rational person will generally choose to spend their money and time on satisfying other wants. This of ccourse means that there are fewer sane people to displace the loons.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Why is it the party that doesn't think government can do anything right keeps drawing the attention of people who think the government can mastermind a great conspiracy?

    Or investigate one.

    Thank you.

    Secrets are pretty hard to keep. I mean, come on, everybody knows who the boss is sleeping with, why does anyone think the government would be able to pull off something like 9-11?

  • Pablo Escobar||

    The government isn't smart enough to pull of something like 9/11. I mean, they can barely deliver the mail on time.

    But it's worth opening up a new investigation into 9/11 so that more heads roll. How many high level officials were sacked for the intelligence failures that led to 9/11? In my count, approximately 0.

    Btw Reason has no business telling libertarian presidential candidates who they should or should not take questions from. We all know the bullshit David and other reporters pulled over the Ron Paul newsletters. Smearing is the name of Reason's game.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    My father once said that the core of every political party is composed of crazed, true believing nutcases and that the reason the LP looks bad is because there isn't anyone but the core.

  • ||

    Secrets are pretty hard to keep. I mean, come on, everybody knows who the boss is sleeping with, why does anyone think the government would be able to pull off something like 9-11?

    Maybe the government has been doing a shitty job on purpose for the last few decades as a charade so 9/11 looks improbable to those of us who can't see through the government doing a shitty job was just a fake.

    Why?

    That's why we need an investigation by the people who set it all up.

  • Click \'n\' Learn||

    Memo from our reality!

    Thinking that AlGore piloted a UFOInto the towers: nuts

    Wanting a new, better 911Investigation: not nuts

    For comparison purposes:

    95% of the LP platform: nuts

  • ||

    Why is it the party that doesn't think government can do anything right keeps drawing the attention of people who think the government can mastermind a great conspiracy?

    I'm no Truther, but I don't think libertarianism necessarily says that the govt can't do anything right. They've done a heck of a job keeping 3rd parties off the map, keeping the drug war going, keeping people unconcerned about inflation and the national debt, etc. I think the libertarian belief is rather that govt is less efficient at non-coercive things than private actors would be.

  • stephen the goldberger||

    Fuck the 9/11 truth report, where the investigation into whether KATRINA WAS AN INSIDE JOB PERPETUATED BY THE CIA's SECRET WEATHER MACHINE.

    I know for a fact that CIA in accordance with ten homosexual jewish bankers in Geneva have developed this machine and they used it to design a hurricane to use on New Orleans in order to buy up cheap real estate because they want a hideaway for their gay orgies!!!!

    WHY ARENT PEOPLE ASKING QUESTIONS

  • ||

    I was with you, Goldberger, until you said the Bush CIA was aligned with TEH GAY. Not a chance.

  • thoreau||

    If the Bush administration had decided to plan 9/11, the towers would still be there, and the operation would be 7 years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget.

  • ||

    Libertarian Truthers are people who have simply decided that The Government is the single bogeyman behind everything. Some problems (public education, the mail not arriving on time, Waco) are explained by government ineptitude. Other problems (9/11, the Kennedy assassination, Waco) are explained by incredibly competent government conspiracy. It all makes sense to them because the government is the consistent bad guy.

  • ||

    I know for a fact that CIA in accordance with ten homosexual jewish bankers in Geneva have developed this machine and they used it to design a hurricane to use on New Orleans in order to buy up cheap real estate because they want a hideaway for their gay orgies!!!!

    Thanks for reminding me of the nuttiest guy I've come across on the web.

    The scary thing isn't that someone this nutty can actually live, it's that so many of the commenters think he's actually onto something.

  • ||

    No administration that convinces 70% of our population and sizeable chunks of the opposition party's leadership to go to war with next to no evidence for their main justification should be dismissed as incompetent.

    Especially when they also managed to retain power after the whole thing was exposed as a fraud. Let not misunderestimation be our downfall.

  • ||

    Brian24,

    I wouldn't put Waco in with those others...it doesn't require nearly the conspiracy that 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination would.

  • ||

    do people think the nuts gravitate towards the LP because we are a third party, or do they just stand out more because the LP is smaller/less "mainstream".

    Truthers believe that the Powers That Be orchestrated 9/11, or at least think there's a chance that it happened. Many would be satisfied after a transparent investigation. They are attracted to libertarianism because it's (typically) against such concentrated powers.

    Plus, since there are hardly any libertarians in office (or with any power) it's obvious they had nothing to do with 9/11.

    I don't self-identify as a "truther", but I would definitely like a proper investigation into 9/11, and feel that there are too many unanswered questions. Saying, "Duh! PLANES flew into the buildings, that's why they fell down!" doesn't cut it.

  • Tony||

    This is an unbelievable embarrassment for the party.

  • alan||

    Why is it the party that doesn't think government can do anything right keeps drawing the attention of people who think the government can mastermind a great conspiracy?

    It is not about competency, it is about fire power. That they have. Somehow, non libertarians go about their daily existence not noticing the discrepancy between competence and power at all levels of the State apparatus. You regard the Modern State as if it were the background radiation of the Universe, something that just is, and needs no further explanation, and not as the bizarre product of historical circumstances that it is. Non-libertarians are all lunatics.



    As far as 9-11, the theory that veterans of the Afghan-Soviet war came together and decided to extend their reach with terrorist operations and 9-11 was one of those operations, well, actually that works for me, and the evidence I'm aware of points that way, so, until something better comes along, sure, I'll go along with that, why not?

  • Fritz||

    A good title for this whole thing is 2008: The Election That Destroyed All Parties.

    No? The Dems and the GOP tore themselves apart over the nominating process, so why not suck in unelectable parties as well?

  • alan||

    There are peripheral matters to 9-11 that I would like to see investigated. The Patriot Act being one of them. Obviously, between Oklahoma City and 9-11, bureaucrats in Federal law enforcement had been building a wish list of power grabs they were saving for an event like 9-11 to make such a necromantic document easy to pass through Congress. If we could see the e-mails, notes, and papers that went into the Patriot Act, the depth of cynicism on display by the ghouls that run Washington DC could be quite enlightening.

  • shecky||

    LOLlibertarians!

    Tucker Carlson-you can have 'em.

  • shecky||


    No administration that convinces 70% of our population and sizeable chunks of the opposition party's leadership to go to war with next to no evidence for their main justification should be dismissed as incompetent.


    I dunno... I maintain that Americans were just itching to kick someone's ass, pretty much anyone's ass, and weren't particularly interested in asking questions, and Saddam's ass was one we knew we'd beat. Even with his (nonexistent) WMDs. The administration was simply lucky enough to milk that sentiment long enough to last until 2004.

  • ||

    Don't tell us that the LP shouldn't be engaging the Truth folks like that. Tell us why/where the Truth folks are wrong. If the latter is persuasive, the former is unnecessary. If not, the Truthers should be engaged.

  • ||

    Tell us why/where the Truth folks are wrong.

    Let's see... They're wrong on physics, logistics, motives, means, opportunity, and every other element on which one builds a case.

    Did the government screw up on 9/11 and fail to stop the perps? Yes. Did the government actively participate in the attack? No.

    -jcr

  • ||

    I maintain that Americans were just itching to kick someone's ass, pretty much anyone's ass, and weren't particularly interested in asking questions, and Saddam's ass was one we knew we'd beat.

    That's pretty much it.

    I'm not going to shed any tears over Saddam or his sons getting killed, but once they were accounted for there was no further reason for our troops to be there. In a perfect world, they would have been killed by Iraqis without the loss of thousands of American soldiers' lives and a trillion dollars of our tax money.

    -jcr

  • ||

    I didn't see a Reason magazine booth in the exhibitors section today. You guys have too many subscribers?

    Weigel, the Phillies campaign is giving away some really good free food up in their suite. I'm not voting for the guy ( and I'm a physicist!) but I'll eat his free food and drink his beer.

  • Sam||

    When the University of Chicago does an academic analysis and finds that the before there is evidence of unusual option market activity, I think any REASONable person would be suspicious: Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. One day the truther libel will disappear, if it does not then the country is doomed.

  • Sam||

    They're wrong on physics, logistics, motives, means, opportunity, and every other element on which one builds a case.

    The "argument" lacks teeth. The defense would read, they're not wrong on the physics, logistics, motives, means, opportunity based on the account of the defendant who has shown full-well criminal behavior in executing an illegal war further killing over 3,000 citizens of the country in question, a million other global citizens who had done nothing to warrant their deaths. Further the defendant has tortured individuals and enacted legislation that infringed on the rights of the citizens and disregarded the basic tenants that he swore to hold up. Further the defended has likely engaged in further criminal behavior through manipulating the voting system twice to get himself elected. Allegedly the defendant has shown down-right criminal behavior under the standards set by the law and has destroyed the same laws he promised to uphold. The defended had motives, means, and the opportunity those various state apparatus to carry out such actions. Further, the defended has ties to Authoritarian regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia whose citizens were responsible for the event... or so the prosecution alleges.

  • VM||

    For your post, Sam, you win today's CHICK MAGNET award.

    thank you for playing.

  • tarran||

    Sam,

    No they are wrong on the physics. I used to work in the steel industry, and the truther claims about the properties of steel are flat out wrong.

    Their claims about structural engineering are also wrong.

    Their theories about demolition are so full of shit that I often don't know where to start.

    Their claims about the military capabilities of the U.S. government are wrong.

    Every truther theory (and they spin new ones at a bewildering rate) requires massive conspiracies that communicate undetectably and require people in aircraft and in the destroyed buildings to walk around oblivious to people stringing up det cord and drilling into columns.

    Look, you have freedom of conscience. If you want to believe that the Earth is flat, that is your right. But if the organizers of a Geology conference invite you to give what amounts to a keynote address, they are going to be mocked.

  • ed||

    Nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.

  • ||

    Smaller when you realize that several people in the event weren't LP delegates, just 9/11 Truth advocates. Nonetheless, Ruwart and Gravel spent at least 90 minutes engaging in the Q&A alongside Michael Jingozian, Steve Kubby, and Alden Link.

    Hm, does anyone see a problem here? You have the "pure" candidates spending their time listening to crazy crap, at a Libertarian convention, with people who aren't even Libertarians. Mary Ruwart couldn't make it out to reason's debate, but she has an hour-and-a-half to blow listening to this garbage?

  • ||

    The best part about this blog, Volokh, Cato, and other voices of sanity is they consistently remind me that the whacko side of the LP is in no way representative of the fundamental foundation of libertarian thought.

    The LP should have the courage to make a statement to the extent of "We reject the premises promoted by groups such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice". Really, would it be so hard for them to take a stand on this?

  • David Weigel||

    Ayn_Randian - That's not really fair to Ruwart. She was a long plane trip away from the Reason event; she was in town for this.

  • ||

    She was a long plane trip away from the Reason event; she was in town for this.

    Conspiracy! She was held up by Federal agents! I want the truth to be known!

  • robc||

    Chris,

    The answer to your 12:11 question is the latter. Both the Dems and GOP have more nuts in absolute terms in their parties, they just stand out less.

    I made the same argument about Ron Paul supporters last year. This time last year he was mainly supported by nuts and myself and a few other sane people. As his movement grew, the % of nuts shrank.

  • ||

    I would like to know how three different buildings, each damaged in different ways, all managed to collapse in the exact same manner. No conspiracies, please, but it is curious. Demolition crews get paid big $$$ for controlled implosions, and yet these three buildings fell as neat as can be. Does this make me a truther?

  • ed||

    I believe gravity has something to do with it, JD. Just my layman's opinion.

  • ||

    I would like to know how three different buildings, each damaged in different ways, all managed to collapse in the exact same manner.

    I don't remember the details of WTC5, but it is easily acceptable that 1&2 pancaked from the top down. Haven't you seen the recreations that show both the design of these buildings and the effects of weakening all of the structural steel on the top floors?

    There's PLENTY of non-truther information regarding this issue, from PLENTY of sources. If you're still asking this questions, it means you simply haven't taken the time to look into it.

  • Kyle||

    John-David,

    Look, the buildings were impacted different ways, but stood for at least 2 hours after impact. They all collapsed the same way because there were no other forces acting on them at the time of collapse, except for gravity.

    Trust me, if it was an inside job, the buildings would have come down immediately. What incentive would anyone have had to keep them up for 2 hours.

  • ||

    1. The academic analysis "Sam" refers to was merely published by the University of Chicago in its Journal of Business. The research was conducted by a fellow at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (Let's keep our co-conspirators straight!)

    2. The author makes reference to the people who might have engaged in the option trading several times, listing only the torrorists or their associates. No one else. (Pesky thing, that Occam's razor.)

    3. "One day the truther libel will disappear..." writes "Sam." If by this he means that at some point the people promulgating government 9/11 conspiracies will have truth stripped from any descriptive term referring to them, I certainly agree.

  • ||

    Ayn_Randian - That's not really fair to Ruwart. She was a long plane trip away from the Reason event; she was in town for this.

    Damn you Weigel....being all reasonable. (If I make a "For a magazine called Reason, you're being eminently reasonable"...is that a drink)

    ok, perhaps I was a bit unfair. I'll just say that no sane person has an excuse for spending 90 minutes at an LP convention talking to crazies, most of whom aren't even LP Members or Delegates.

    It's called revealed preferences...some of the candidates would rather spend time with the kooks than winning the nomination.

  • PC||

    Weigel is an inside job!

  • ||

    ...and yet these three buildings fell as neat as can be.



    Actually, not nearly as neatly as you seem to think. Debris rained down for blocks around. Column sections up to six stories high fell outward and away from the towers and damaged surrounding streets and buildings.

    Conspiracy theories rely on erroneous information like yours.

  • Taktix&#174||

    Once again, and likely not for the last time, the Popular Mechanics report debunking the myths, written by a plethora of credible sources, not including Alex Jones or random people on YouTube...

  • svf||

    yet another reason I'm praying to the Spaghetti Monster for a Bob Barr victory on Sunday...

  • ||

    There are FOUR lights.

  • Taktix&#174||

    Also, some quick searching reveals:

    Fire
    Steel

    A cigarette being drawn is hot enough to melt steel...

  • ||

    Jim Bob,
    Let me tell you about the first time I ate a live taspar...

  • Episiarch||

    Let's purge! I say we take a bunch of laxatives, do some enemas, and drink some ipecac syrup. We'll feel much better after the puking and shitting, because right now, I feel like puking and shitting after realizing the people who present the public face of libertarianism are fucking insane.

  • Steve||

    My father once said that the core of every political party is composed of crazed, true believing nutcases and that the reason the LP looks bad is because there isn't anyone but the core.

    Your father sounds like a wise man.

  • tactical||

    THe "plethora" of credible rtists @ Popular Mechanics was a guy who was editing ENtertainment Weekly" a year before, a kid writing abut high school sports for Pennsylvania newspapers, and Michael Chertoff's cousin.... that's the crack staff of engineering experts which Hearst brought on to run the magazine when they fired virtually the entire staff a few months before the article.

  • ||

    More physics. Some of the schools in China where many kids died collapsed in the pancaking mode that downed the two WTC buildings. No bombs--just bad structures and heavy shaking.
    Second, the Truther's claims about steel's melting point is irrelevant. Five years ago a historic Studebaker factory burned to the ground about 200 yards from my office. I wandered around the rubble a couple of days later (it was still smoking) and saw large girders twisted like pretzels. No accelerant, no demolition, just a very bad fire in an almost empty building.
    I took pictures of the girders, just so I could answer these guys. Here's a link to one:

    Studebaker fire aftermath

    and here's a description of the fire:

    USA Today Article

  • ||

    Taktix,

    I went there before posting. Nothing talking about all three buildings fell in the exact same manner.

    Kyle,

    Thank you. I never gave any thought to the fact that since the buildings didn't collapse instantly, they would of course be more likely to fall straight down.

  • ||

    I was with you, Goldberger, until you said the Bush CIA was aligned with TEH GAY. Not a chance.

    Come on, the homophobia of the Bushreich is just a smokescreen.

    I wandered around the rubble a couple of days later (it was still smoking) and saw large girders twisted like pretzels. No accelerant, no demolition, just a very bad fire in an almost empty building.

    Like you could know that without applying expert Truther scientific minds.

    Trust me, if it was an inside job, the buildings would have come down immediately. What incentive would anyone have had to keep them up for 2 hours.

    That just proves it was a government inside job - they can't even blow up buildings right.

    Seriously, you can do a Truther schtick with half your brain watching

    The defense would read, they're not wrong on the physics, logistics, motives, means, opportunity based on the account of the defendant who has shown full-well criminal behavior in executing an illegal war

    This gets my nomination for Non Sequitur of the Year. Even if you grant the criminal behavior in executing an illegal war, that does nothing whatsoever to address the physics, etc. problems with the Truther allegations about 9/11.

  • Sam||

    There are a number of different issues that we're dealing with that first I might try to disambiguate. There are issues concerning how the main towers came down and whether that was a demolition. A lot of people claim that this is not the case and yet offer no evidence of similar occurrence ever... and I could make a list which can be found here and there is plenty there that is unexplained to pique your or any rational person's interests. All the naysayers have really no arguments against many of those issues other than they dogmatically "believe" the official story, as if not believing it would shatter their world and they defend this dogma vigorously.

    As for the government, it has done similar things in the past such as destroy the USS Liberty and then cover up through executive order all the evidence against the perpetrators or Operation Gladio in which they targeted Italian and other European citizens. Or better yet the government of the US paying Israel to subject Shepardic Jewish kids to dangerous doses of nuclear radiation in the 50s. Further, the Italian President who leaked Operation Gladio had said flat out that this crime was perpetrated by the authorities and involved Israel, so there is at least one official that's willing to blow the official story off its foundation.

    Further, Al-Qaeda is itself a conspiracy theory not backed up by any real evidence. All the supposed evidence has come from people tried in military tribunals (and tortured) with none of the actual evidence presented through civilian courts, which only gives more credence to the argument that there is no real evidence other than perhaps obtained through torture at which point the evidence may be considered unreliable. The FBI further has no evidence against Bin Laden to implicate him other than other bombings in other countries. Also the passports found at the scene of the crime are further ridiculous.

    So believe what you want, in the end it is dogmatic belief because we don't really know anything expect those in the position of authority have told us and as demonstrated above, they are by no means any sort of trustworthy source of information. All the dogmatics who want to believe in the official story has labeled the opposition as "Truthers" as a marketing term to discredit them, and thus far have succeeded. They further dismiss any academic evidence as "mere" something or rather, to simply be dismissed from the discussion as if it's nothing.

  • Star Trek Truther||

    If you do a physical anlysis of a Borg ship you can find traces of Federation building materials. This is because the Ferengi Acting Government (FAG) covertly uses the Borg to disrupt trading routes and take over systems to their advantage and create fear.

    Phasers can't melt transparent aluminum! Look at the ruins of New Providence and you can clearly see that planted photon torpedoes were responsible. The Borg were just an excuse used by the FAG for destroying New Providence and created the "menace" of the Borg.

    This allows the FAG, through Starfleet, to conduct military operations that would never have been allowed under the Prime Directive.

    WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!

  • Kyle||

    Ok, let's assume for a second that the government did execute 9/11...

    Why not hit other cities as well? Why not create mass havoc in the skies by taking over as many planes as possible and crashing them into every major city? If you were really building up for war, why not have the people so rallied for your cause that their can be no question?

  • ||

    Garfield's assassination was an inside job!

    Wake up, people!

  • ||

    Ok, let's assume for a second that the government did execute 9/11...

    Let's not.

  • dhex||

    better question: why not just blow the planes up on the tarmac? three planes blown up at once = carte blanche minus some of the economic destabilization caused by the wtc attacks.

    also seems a lot cheaper and easier to pull off.

  • ||

    It's like this: Libertarians for Justice, a group that's urging all LP candidates to pledge to open a new 9/11 investigation, rented a spacious room for hours of 9/11 Truth events, including a screening of Improbable Collapse, a "scientific investigation" of the attacks.
    ...
    I'm no purge junkie, but LP candidates have no business indulging the Truth crowd like this.


    Why won't they go away? Why doesn't the LP just show them the door?

  • zoot allures||

    Good lord, "Sam."

    If you want to ignore other posters' evidence and links that debuke the Truthers -- and merely call it accepting the dogma -- then have a good time on that planet of yours.

    Yet, another thing that makes the whole conspiracy theory fall apart is why were terrorists so bent on destroying the WTC towers back in 1993 -- long before Bush II "concocted" this war -- and yet failed.

    I'm sure the Truthers have a convoluted reason for this. Let me guess ... our gov't got the idea for 9-11 from the '93 bombing. Or something like that, eh?

  • ||

    If you really want to know why the government is incapable of this level of conspiracy, read this:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/038551445X/reasonmagazineA/

  • ||

    Everyone knows that buildings don't collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint without using demollition (you can time it yourself too). I really like the movie "September Clues" where they zoomed in on the visible explosions happening on the outside of the building. Finding the truth isn't about patriotism or politics. I wish more people could watch these movies and begin asking questions too. Someone's got a LOT of explaining to do.

  • ||

    Marcvs,
    Is that book worth reading?

  • J||

    I think the assertion that government is incompetent as both a necessity for libertarians to believe and as true is silly.

    1. Libertarians can be libertarians because they want the government out of their life, not because they think the only reason government shouldn't interfere with their life is because it doesn't interfere and do what it wants well.

    2. I think alot of government acting is incompetent. However, corruption wouldn't be such a big deal if it never happened or was always incompetent. Conspiracies do happen. I don't think a 9-11 one is likely, but I also don't think its impossible. The government (and small parts of it) can do things right often too.

  • ||

    There were no "terrorists" in '93, there was a terrorist who was a disgruntled Muslim from the tribal areas Bush's other friendly dictatorship in SE Asia. He did it on his own and was convicted of it by himself, there were no others indicted as far as I can remember. There are no other plausible enemies that you can co-opt into a any sort of conspiracy that potentially might have a motive that would allow you to get into a war in the mid east. I don't really know what to believe, but I am more than convinced that these people are more than capable of carrying this sort of thing out and they definitely have a motive to do so. I don't believe the "Mozlems" to be sophisticated enough or inclined enough to carry off something like this in such a planned fashion. They're a disgruntled, unorganized bunch of idiots. I don't buy British terrorism either considering almost no one has been convicted, and those who have been have been convicted spuriously. Also a few shady characters are directly connected with the intelligence establishment, as is the case with Bin Landen and CIA.

  • ||

    Truthers, I'm asking nicely. Please find another place to hangout. The vast majority (90%?) of libertarians consider you a bunch of loons and have doubts about your mental health and acuity.

    That is never going to change.

  • ||

    If you want to ignore other posters' evidence and links that debuke the Truthers

    As a combination of "debunk" and "rebuke", this is a neologism that definitely deserves widespread usage.

  • ||

    Marcvs,
    Is that book worth reading?



    I really enjoyed it just for the schadenfreude. It's a fairly quick read for 700 pages, as it goes over the entire history of the CIA and explains the numerous ways in which the they have basically failed at everything they've done. It is definitely a good counterpoint to all of the documentaries and conspiracy theories that paint "The Company" as an efficient intelligence organization and instead show that it is just another "gubment" department with all that that entails. It's like the DMV with guns.

  • ||

    To whomever with a brain:

    Every video I see shows a rock solid, non collapsing, non swaying, structurally sound steel reinforced building (WTC 7) with limited fires.

    Why did every steel beam give way at once? Why was the building 100% destroyed? Why were firefighters all told the building was "coming down"? Why did BBC report the collapse 23 minutes early? Why did it "look like" the most perfect controlled demolition we've ever seen in our lives? Why were there explosions heard around the scene? Why was all the steel and evidence quickly recycled without investigation? Why did Professor Jones confirm that thermate was used for explosions? Why did Silverstein tell them to "pull it"? Why was there molten metal found at the base of the building? Why did the top penthouse come down first? Why wasn't there one steel column remain standing? Why was there a classic pyroclastic flow that comes only from controlled demolition? What was everything in the building reduced to a fine powder? Why did it collapse at freefall speed?

  • ||

    To whomever with a brain:

    That's a good way to get people to listen to you. Start with an insult.

  • Episiarch||

    Why did the Death Star blow up with no debris?!?!?!?

  • ||

    Uh, Bob?

    Why would anyone want to destroy WTC 7?

  • ||

    Bob,

    All of your implicit claims have been addressed and debunked multiple times over the last several years, and those of us who would otherwise help an honestly confused person understand are too tired of this nonsense to debate an asshole like you. Kindly fuck off.

  • ||

    1>
    Silverstein had insurance on all three World Trade Centers. He filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion.

    2>
    The Neocons got their "New Pearl Harbor" as described in "PNAC", or, the "Plan for A New American Century". Interestingly enough, the authors of "PNAC" are the same people in the current administration.

  • ||

    To Jake Boone:

    I'm sorry that the truth hurts you sooo badly. Now I'm curious. How do you debunk facts, exactly? A fact is a fact. 1 + 1 = 2. Debunk that for us, Jake.

  • ||

    WHERE'S THE GOLD???

    hahahaha

  • ||

    I believe the question should be, "Where's the BLACK gold?". I don't just believe it was about the oil (by the way, how much is gas nowadays?), but I also believe it was about the military industrial complex. For instance, Pelosi ran on the ticket of the impeachment of Bush. However, once elected, she curiously took impeachment "off the table". A closer look and her husband has heavy investments (15 million) in DoD contracts.

  • Episiarch||

    WHERE'S THE BEEF???

  • ||

    I hope Weigel has access to some LSD. It'll come in handy when he pens "Fear and Loathing in Denver."

  • ||

    I wrote:

    All of your implicit claims have been addressed and debunked [...]

    Bob responded with:

    How do you debunk facts, exactly? A fact is a fact.

    Dishonest crap like that is exactly why I'm not going to debate you over 9/11, Bob. If you don't understand the difference between a "fact" and a "claim," your arguments are, to put it charitably, highly likely to prove fallacious.

    Tell you what. Go to the forums at www.randi.org (you can get to the forums via a link in the left-hand column) and read some of the 9/11 discussions there. You'll see that your claims* have already been thoroughly addressed, and found to have no real basis in fact.

    * I suggest reading up on the distinction between "claim" and "fact" before you embarrass yourself further.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Jake - never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.

  • ||

    Nice spin. However, I'm not "confused" nor "embarrassed". I'm sorry Boone, what part of that wasn't factual? (Before you embarrass yourself further).

  • 3/15 trvth||

    Now this was an inside job.

  • Episiarch||

    3/15 trvth

    The Ides of March? Yes, Brutus and company had the whole thing planned from the start. Et tu, Brute?

  • ||

    Bob,

    The typing's already been done, and I'm certainly not inclined to do it all again for your amusement. Clicking isn't too difficult for you, I presume?

    I say again, the answers to your questions are freely available at the JREF forums (www.randi.org).

  • ||

    BakedPenguin -

    Sometimes, though, it's just fun to annoy a pig.

  • ||

    See? This is what's truly sickening about getting to the bottom of what happened on 9-11. You try to open people's eyes and some right-wing smear monger wants to send you to some site about aliens and perpetual motion. This IS what Jake Boone (and associates) are: the anti-truth. It's too bad that a lot of people like him aren't brave enough to READ and THINK outside of what your government tells you.

  • Star Trek Truther||

    See? This is what's truly sickening about getting to the bottom of what happened on New Providence. You try to open people's eyes and some Starfleet smear monger wants to send you to some site about transparent aluminum and phaser burn patterns. This IS what Locutus (and associates) are: the anti-truth. It's too bad that a lot of people like him aren't brave enough to READ and THINK outside of your holodeck fantasies and Federation lies.

  • ||

    Awesome!

  • Franklin Harris||

    I think the Mooninite devices in Boston was an inside job.

  • ||

    Hmm. My last comment should have displayed my name as Jake "The Anti-Truth" Boone.

    Clearly this means that the top-flight NSA hackers in the Bush administration are deleting that title in realtime, in an attempt to keep me from letting word get out about my top secret disinformation mission!

    Darn that pesky Sasquatch (yes, Bigfoot heads up the NSA hacker division... the big guy is amazingly fast with a UNIX command line).

  • ||

    See? This is what's truly sickening about getting to the bottom of what happened on 9-11. You try to open people's eyes and some right-wing smear monger wants to send you to some site about aliens and perpetual motion. This IS what Jake Boone (and associates) are: the anti-truth. It's too bad that a lot of people like him aren't brave enough to READ and THINK outside of what your government tells you.

    Polling Reasonoids -

    Troll?
    or
    True Believer?

  • ||

    Every video I see shows a rock solid, non collapsing, non swaying, structurally sound steel reinforced building (WTC 7) with limited fires.



    Here you go moron:

    NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

    According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

    There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

    Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

  • ||

    Polling Reasonoids -

    Troll?
    or
    True Believer?


    Characterizing the JREF as "some site about aliens and perpetual motion" is pretty strong evidence to put him in troll country, as far as I'm concerned. Plus there's no horde of truthers here supporting him; usually they come in gangs. I vote troll.

  • ||

    And that's whay there was molten steel found in the wreckage of WTC 7? Professor Steven Jones is lying about finding thermate in the wreckage? hmmmm

  • Episiarch||

    Cesar, is that you?

  • ||

    And that's whay there was molten steel found in the wreckage of WTC 7? Professor Steven Jones is lying about finding thermate in the wreckage? hmmmm



    Yes. That's why both the entire BYU physics department and civil engineering departments have disowned him and why his paper has never appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

  • ||

    So who's trying to say that buildings can collapse at free fall speeds vertically into their own footprints WITHOUT the use of demollition? Anyone?

    If that were possible, we could fire all of the demollition "experts" out there. They obviously aren't needed anymore.

  • ||

    Here you go Bob:

    In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

    "One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

    However when you look at the link he uses
    http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area

    You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

    "He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

  • ||

    Good luck, Jordan.

    If he stays true to Truther form, every time you answer a claim, he'll just pivot to his next one without ever actually addressing the fact that you said anything. Soon he'll go right back to questions already answered... in fact, just like you see in his most recent post, as Isaac Bartram answered that one up-thread already. Bob's response? Ignore the answer and repeat the question.

  • ||

    So who's trying to say that buildings can collapse at free fall speeds vertically into their own footprints WITHOUT the use of demollition? Anyone?



    The only people claiming that the buildings fell at free-fall speeds are nutjobs like you who never offer any evidence to support this assertion. Dr. Frank Greening has already debunked this nonsense in detail. More here.

  • Jennifer||

    I'm just amazed that anyone can simultaneously believe the following two things:

    1)The government is evil enough and brilliant enough to bring down the World Trade Center and make it all look like a terrorist attack; and yet,

    2) When a couple of gadflies like Steven Jones run around finding evidence of this wicked conspiracy, the same government which murdered thousands of people and framed Osama for it either can't or won't arrange for Jones himself to have a little "accident."

  • Jordan||

    Good luck, Jordan.

    If he stays true to Truther form, every time you answer a claim, he'll just pivot to his next one without ever actually addressing the fact that you said anything. Soon he'll go right back to questions already answered... in fact, just like you see in his most recent post, as Isaac Bartram answered that one up-thread already. Bob's response? Ignore the answer and repeat the question.



    Aye, tis sad but true.

  • ||

    Jordan, if you were stating that this evidence is flimsy at best, I would agree with you.

    However, it still doesn't answer the bigger question:

    ============
    So who's trying to say that buildings can collapse at free fall speeds vertically into their own footprints WITHOUT the use of demollition? Anyone?

    If that were possible, we could fire all of the demollition "experts" out there. They obviously aren't needed anymore.

    =============

  • ||

    Dear Jennifer:

    Please read about the "Golf of Tonken" incident. Then you'll know how far our government will go to trick the people into going into war. This is nothing new.

  • ||

    However, it still doesn't answer the bigger question:



    Hence the reason I provided two links which you conveniently ignored.

  • dhex||

    tonkin.

  • ||

  • ||

    If that were possible, we could fire all of the demollition[sic] "experts" out there.



    Bob, I'd sure as hell fire any demolition "expert" that produced a "controlled demolition" as messy as the WTC collapse.

    And someone might be able to answer your May 23, 2008, 11:48am post if you could produce a single credible authority who had ever made such claims. It is easy to create a conspiracy theory when all of your evidence is either false, ambiguous or irrelevant.

    The fact is the buildings did not collapse "into their own footprint[s]". Nor did they fall "identically." Each fell rather chaotically scattering debris for blocks and having huge multi-story column sections fall away from the buildings and causing damage to surrounding buildings and streets. And any reputable engineer will tell you that the way Towers 1 and 2 fell was entirely consistent with damage from the airliner impacts and the resulting fires. And that WTC7 collapsed dues to major structural from a column section from one of the towers plus the fires that burned all day long with pretty much no firefighting effort.

    Oh, and here the reliable Bush partisans and neocons at SydneyUni join the conspiracy.

    Why did the building fall so quickly?
    The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.

  • lunchstealer||

    Why did it collapse at freefall speed?

    Oh, I can answer that one.

    You see, masses are attracted to one another via what we call the gravitational force. Relativistic discussions aside, we can begin by treating the earth as a uniform spherical mass, which can be represented by a point source located at the earth's center of mass.

    Now, the earth is rotating, which modifies the acceleration due to gravity, such that gravity is weakest at the equator, and strongest at the poles. This is exacerbated by the fact that the earth is actually an oblate spheroid, meaning that you are further from the center of mass at the equator than at the poles.

    Further modifications to this force come due to your elevation above sealevel. This is referred to as the 'free air' correction. The Bouguer correction adds a correction for the amount of rock supporting you at the level above sea-level, but since this building rested effectively at sea level, we can neglect this component for these purposes.

    The final big correction would come from the terrain and large objects surrounding the building. With the hudson immediately adjacent, and the low-density continental shelf to the south/southeast, this would serve to reduce the local acceleration due to gravity further.

    So that's basically how things collapse at free fall. It's because of gravity, which is largely a function of latitude, elevation, local rock density, and terrain.

    Why was there a classic pyroclastic flow that comes only from controlled demolition?

    By 'controlled demolition', do you perhaps mean 'volcanic eruption'? Because that's what creates a pyroclastic flow. The debris outflow from a building collapse is similar to a pyroclastic flow, but is not caused by the explosions, and is thus not the superheated mass that lends the 'pyro' part of the name. The source of the debris-air mixture is the sudden shock of collapse shattering large quantities of concrete and drywall. This mixes with air and produces a dense mass that then falls and flows out in exactly the same way that the collapsing ash column flows down the flanks of a volcano.

    So yeah, you guys are kinda clue-limited.

  • ||

    It would seem better for (insert any holistic mankind term here) would be better off if 9/11 was simply flushed down a memory hole and we never had to hear of it again.

    Disclosure, Truther stole my boyfriend

  • ||

    Premise: 9/11 was an enormous government conspiracy
    Premise: Libertarians want tiny governments and no taxes

    Conclusion: Demand an expensive taxpayer funded government investigatory boondoggle!

  • ||

    p.s. The above comment was a joke. I do not personally believe that 9/11 was an "inside" job anymore than I believe aliens crashlanded at Roswell or the Apollo 11 moonshot was faked.

  • Episiarch||

    The above comment was a joke. I do not personally believe that 9/11 was an "inside" job anymore than I believe aliens crash-landed at Roswell or the Apollo 11 moonshot was faked.

    Hey, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Haven't you seen Capricorn One?

  • lunchstealer||

    Can we throw OJ out with the bathwater?

  • ||

    The witnesses (and fire fighters) lied about hearing explosions before, during, and after the collapse? What are those "flashes" on the buildings right before the collapse? What were those "flashes" of lights in front of the noses of the airplanes right before impact?

  • ||

    Bob -

    I've already told you (twice!) where the answers to your questions can be found.

    Buhbye now.

  • ||

    What were those "flashes" of lights in front of the noses of the airplanes right before impact? Try to smear that one, Boone.

  • Isaac Newton||

    Improbable Collapse is a very well done film, and scientifically accurate:

    Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

    It has the brilliant analysis of Jim Hoffman, the ONE man that all debunkers fear!

  • Mike Laursen||

    Here's a question: do people think the nuts gravitate towards the LP because we are a third party, or do they just stand out more because the LP is smaller/less "mainstream".

    All I know is you gotta meet some of the Green Party's faithful. The LP has no corner on nutty market.

  • Mike Laursen||

    My father once said that the core of every political party is composed of crazed, true believing nutcases and that the reason the LP looks bad is because there isn't anyone but the core.

    I came to the same conclusion. The party may change someday, but for now that core has had control for a long time and have set up the rules to keep all other libertarians out. That's OK -- it's their prerogative.

  • ||

    What were those "flashes" of lights in front of the noses of the airplanes right before impact? Try to smear that one, Boone.

    My 12-year-old (Ethan) is looking over my shoulder. As he read your most recent post, Bob, he exclaimed, "what a fucking dumbass!" (He gets a pass on the vulgarity; it's accurate, and my wife and 6-year-old are out of town.)

    My 12-year-old is clearly far, far smarter than you are, Bob.

    Ethan can also follow links, like this one.

  • Thom Simmons||

    The Truth crowd are a collection of wackos and need to collectively be shown the door out of the Libertarian Party. They cling to silly, hysterical conspiracy theories that appeal to teenagers looking for drama. Their theories are an insult to anyone who intimately knows the WTC site and New York City. Please go home and peddle your stupidity in quiet, so the rest of us can build a credible third party.

  • dhex||

    Disclosure, Truther stole my boyfriend

    look on the bright side: it saved you from some pretty hefty long-term costs, though.

    It has the brilliant analysis of Jim Hoffman, the ONE man that all debunkers fear!

    oddly enough, the loose change fans aren't big on him, either.

    of course, "fear" is a bit much, and my initial reaction would be to say "if you really do take this seriously, shouldn't it be treated like more than a comic book sports bar mashup?"

    on the other hand, one's beliefs about 9/11 are fairly cost free (so long as you aren't a dick about it, natch) so it does serve a kind of spectator sport role too. similar to "my team can beat up your team" but with more hyperlinks.

  • ||

    dhex,


    Then there's that stubborn thing called........the truth.

  • ||

    Boone,

    You still didn't explain what those flahes of lights were in front of the airplanes right before impacting the buildings. All you have is hate and hyperlinks to UFO pages, no rational explanations from you.

  • ||

    Holy crap, Bob, are you still at it?

    Funny how on a brilliant sunny day, light reflects off highly polished surfaces.

  • ||

    And plays tricks on cameras.

  • ||

    That seems rational, Isaac. However, would all cameras show that same "trick" even at different angles and on BOTH planes just as they impact the buildings? Rational, yes, but seems unlikely to me.

  • ||

    I might be wrong, but it doesn't look like reflections:

    http://911review.com/errors/phantom/imgs/4flashes.jpg

    What do you guys think?

  • ||

    Not indulging the call for a new congressional investigation to either bust the case open or lay it to rest is precisely what has led to the tenacity of this movement that refuses to be ignored. And the idea that a group of people who have at one time been representative of some 43% of the American public that thinks the government is covering up something about 9/11 is more like what the Washington establishment does in order to waylay and deflect criticism. Way to play the beltway b!tch bro.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement