Conspiracy Theories

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.

NEXT: Rant: Make Mine Mormon

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.

  1. 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!

  2. I can fire a Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight seconds. How do I know? Because I was the guy on the grassy knoll.

  3. Is this a conspiracy thread?

    *gets popcorn

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Conspiracies aside, can we all at least agree that LBJ did, in fact, stick his pecker in JFK’s neck wound?

  7. 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”.

  8. 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.

  9. This is already a batshit crazy thread and it’s still just the regulars. Wait until this gets linked to at some truther sites.

  10. 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!!

  11. Flight 93 was shot down.

  12. 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.

  13. 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 …”

  14. 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?

  15. Did you guys know that 55% of Americans believe that God created humans in their current form? Schfifty five percent. Schfifty five.

  16. Flight 93 was shot down.

    Fifty five percent.

  17. “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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  21. I thought he said he ordered a #7 from the deli before pulling out. So much lost in translation.

  22. “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?

  23. “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.

  24. Conspiracy you say? I’ve heard nothing of this.

    What did the Jews do this time?

  25. 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

  26. 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.

  27. “I know two right-wing liberal haters”

    I hate right-wing leberals too, which is why I will never vote fo John McCain.

  28. “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?

  29. This is nowhere near as interesting as the “Why Russian women are hot” thread.

  30. 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.

  31. Hat tip to Crawford, thanks for the link. This was particularly interesting, to someone with an engineering background.

  32. If you spell-check Truthers the suggested alternate is Struthers.
    Coincidence?

  33. 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).

  34. “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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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

  38. 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.

  39. “””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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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!!

  43. 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.

  44. “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.

  45. 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.

  46. “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.

  47. Shit, when J sub D’s off his meds, he becomes Middle Class Worker.

  48. 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.

  49. I expect you’re right. I have my popcorn.

    Who’s running the pool on how many comments? I’m looking for, 413?

  50. “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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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)

  53. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. I’ve never been to New York, so as far as I’m concerned, the city’s entire existence is questionable.

  57. I’m waiting for Forrest Gump II

    It’s already been done.

    J sub D, how could you forget the Lonewacko theories?

  58. Oops, looks like Shannon Love beat me to it (If that IS your real name???)

  59. 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.

  60. i’d just like to say that that was pretty well done by joe allen

  61. 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?

  62. 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?

  63. 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.

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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

  67. 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?

  68. 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

  69. 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.


  70. 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.

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. 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 đŸ™‚

    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.

  74. 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.

  75. J sub D, how could you forget the Lonewacko theories?

    Hey, I gave the CFR shoutout.

  76. “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.

  77. 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.

  78. “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?

  79. 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!?

  80. 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?

  81. 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.

  82. 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.

  83. I’m all on board with her conclusions there.

    Ok, we doubled, but I think you see what I was saying.

  84. Insert Idiocracy reference here.

  85. 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.

  86. 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. đŸ™‚ 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.

  87. ….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.

  88. 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. đŸ™‚

  89. 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.

  90. 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”. đŸ™‚

  91. Like the folks that “proved” the conspiracy wrong aren’t on the govt payroll to “say” the right things. Sheesh!

  92. 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.

  93. “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….

  94. 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.

  95. 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?

  96. 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.

  97. “””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.

  98. 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.

  99. 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.

  100. 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.

  101. 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?

  102. 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.

  103. 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.

  104. 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.

  105. 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.

  106. 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.

  107. 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.

  108. 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.

  109. 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.

  110. 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.

  111. 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

  112. 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.

  113. 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.

  114. 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.

  115. 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.

  116. 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.

  117. 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.

  118. 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.

  119. 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.

    đŸ™‚

  120. 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.

  121. 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?

  122. 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

  123. 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.

  124. 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.

  125. 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.

  126. 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.

  127. 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?

  128. 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.

  129. 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).

  130. 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.

  131. 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?

  132. 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.

  133. 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?

  134. 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.

  135. 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

  136. Jesus Chrysler, there’s enough red type on this thread to qualify it as the New Testament.

  137. “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.

  138. 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.

  139. 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.

  140. 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

  141. 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.

  142. 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.

  143. 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.

  144. I was much better in Five Easy Pieces.

  145. 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.

  146. 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 http://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.

  147. 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.

  148. 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.

  149. 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.

  150. Make no mistake, it is true!!!

  151. 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.

  152. They shouted out, “Who killed our liberties?!” when after all it was you and me.

  153. 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.

  154. 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.

  155. 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!

  156. 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.

  157. 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”

  158. Bob Abooie, Dave W.,

    Again, the collapse of WTC 7 has been investigated and the collapse is fairly well understood.

    STRUCTURE Magazine – November 2007

  159. 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?

  160. 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?

  161. 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?

  162. 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 https://www.reason.com/news/show/117833.html

  163. WTC 7 did not “collapse”; it was mostly turned to dust.

    See the evidence before discounting it.

  164. Dear regulars: I am so sorry about this, y’all.

    That’s all I’ll say on the matter. Carry on.

  165. 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!

  166. @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. đŸ˜‰

  167. 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.

  168. 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?

  169. 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.

  170. 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?

  171. @ 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.

  172. Thank god reason is on the case. Let’s look at that Mikey/Pop Rocks thing again, too.

  173. 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.

  174. 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.

  175. My Penis did 9/11

    No, it was an Octopus.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=aAMm3PBBCCs

  176. 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.

  177. 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?

  178. 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–

  179. 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.

  180. “”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?

  181. 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.

  182. “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.

  183. It is Dr T’s fault now?

  184. 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!

  185. 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.

  186. 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.

  187. 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.

  188. As if I think this will matter one fucking bit, but…

    Here’s a whole section on WTC 7 – scroll down

  189. 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!

  190. 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.

  191. 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.

  192. 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.

  193. 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.

  194. 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.

  195. 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.

  196. Dave, do me a favor and be less of a prick, ‘kay?

  197. Bargaining. Timon is going stage four right before my cyber eyes. This is the best thing since Rosie’s rant!

  198. 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?”


  199. 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)?

  200. 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.

  201. 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.

  202. 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?”


  203. 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.

  204. I had always wondered if they had Internets in foreign countries.

  205. 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?’

  206. 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.

  207. 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).

  208. 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. đŸ™‚

  209. 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).

  210. 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.

  211. FS: I can’t get the links to work.

  212. 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.

  213. 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′

  214. The planes disobeyed Newton’s laws.Therefore the videos were faked.Watch September Clues for the truth.

  215. 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…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.