why 9/11 still matters.

[peaccenicked]

9/11...was/is a turning point in history. Whether one believes it was an inside job or not. It gave Bush an excuse to invade the Middle east and introduce the Patriot act.


9/11...gave Bush the power to demolish the constitution of the USA.

9/11..put stealing elections off the agenda.

9/11..put the left condemning terrorism, and into the of corner of defense against being called 'terrorists' ,being ipso facto, on the side of the terrorists..it buried the left in terms of outside of its control.

9/11...with or without a conspiracy theory molded the left into frontiers men for the attack against Iraq and the threat to Iran by spending more time attacking muslims and their representative states ,than the military industrial complex. Saddam was treated is an isolated dictator...and not a product and phenonemen of western imperialism. Iran is treated like a fascist regime but in truth the fascism in the UK and the US has a bigger reality; though disguised by the media, it is felt in the dawn raids of immigrants.

9/11...gave the system an excuse to be racist towards arabs




No matter how much you try to ignore it the issue will never go away!

The issue is so in your face that its like raising the issue of capitalism without mentioning money...yet the left or most of our leaders, even our anarchist spokes persons..way dodge the issue like it never happened as though they perefer to demonise lands full of precious oil and make it a mere matter (morally sound as it is)of deaths committed in an illegal war.

9/11 was the beginning of the doctrine of endless war.


The now is real but the future is even more genocide..



If you cant join the dots......then the revolution will pass you by.

[Ricardo]

I agree man, a lot of the people on this site don't think it was an inside job, an automatically assume that what the government said happened is what really happened? I think it is strange that how everyone on this site is against the government, but a lot of them just brush up what we're saying as conspiracy theories.

[peaccenicked]

Ricardo...You have more guts than most as far as I can see.Thankyou. Most people on this site, at least as far as I can see feel isolated. It is incredibly difficult for them to approach the subject of conspiracy theories without feeling even more isolated. I am not alone, I am sure for calling for a proper investigation into 9/11.
Anyone who says that the 9/11 commission told the truth is a bare faced liar. While the subject of the mechanisms which led directly to the genocide of a large part of the afghani people is yet to be uncovered etc. I think it is important that 9/11 should not be regarded as a taboo issue. We are not the catholic church considering the virgin mary. The consequences of 9/11 are perhaps more important than the mere question of it being an "inside job'' (to me that has become transparent) but how this has crossed all barriers and brought us back to the cold war. I am concerned that if we merely accept the cold war...we become part of it.....and generaly all I hear is silence

[RebelDog]

As with any event in history its impossible to prove what totally happened that day but it does not mean we can't know certain facts and have a good idea of what happened. All the evidence points to a terrorist conspiracy to attack key targets in the US on 9/11 which was carried out without the knowledge of any domestic US agencies or government departments or individuals. There is no evidence that the republican hawks are so insane that they would inflict this on their own people (or allow this to be inflicted) as the pretext to embark on imperialist conquest. How could they cover up such an attrocity and why would they embark on such an attrocity when islamic fundementalists are more than willing to act unilaterally?
Anyone who believes this was a conspiracy from the inside should produce evidence to support such a position or stop making these threads.

[Sir_No_Sir]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 03, 2006 03:18 am
As with any event in history its impossible to prove what totally happened that day but it does not mean we can't know certain facts and have a good idea of what happened. All the evidence points to a terrorist conspiracy to attack key targets in the US on 9/11 which was carried out without the knowledge of any domestic US agencies or government departments or individuals. There is no evidence that the republican hawks are so insane that they would inflict this on their own people (or allow this to be inflicted) as the pretext to embark on imperialist conquest. How could they cover up such an attrocity and why would they embark on such an attrocity when islamic fundementalists are more than willing to act unilaterally?
Anyone who believes this was a conspiracy from the inside should produce evidence to support such a position or stop making these threads.
There is evidence that they wanted something like this to happen,however. PNAc, Project for a New American Century, said in its report that they needed a "Pearl-Harbor" type event, in order to invade Iraq.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Sir_No_Sir+December 03, 2006 03:21 am--> (Sir_No_Sir @ December 03, 2006 03:21 am)
The [email protected] 03, 2006 03:18 am
As with any event in history its impossible to prove what totally happened that day but it does not mean we can't know certain facts and have a good idea of what happened. All the evidence points to a terrorist conspiracy to attack key targets in the US on 9/11 which was carried out without the knowledge of any domestic US agencies or government departments or individuals. There is no evidence that the republican hawks are so insane that they would inflict this on their own people (or allow this to be inflicted) as the pretext to embark on imperialist conquest. How could they cover up such an attrocity and why would they embark on such an attrocity when islamic fundementalists are more than willing to act unilaterally?
Anyone who believes this was a conspiracy from the inside should produce evidence to support such a position or stop making these threads.
There is evidence that they wanted something like this to happen,however. PNAc, Project for a New American Century, said in its report that they needed a "Pearl-Harbor" type event, in order to invade Iraq. [/b]
Circumstantial, nothing more. I don't doubt they seized every opportunity that 9/11 gave them but Bush & co had nothing to do with its planning, execution, nor did they have any prior knowledge.

[RedLenin]

As with any historical event, the best way to study it is by a class analysis. We should look at the US, look at Bin Laden and Al Quida, and try to understand the class nature of the conflict and how it relates to imperialism. The US was attacked by Al Quida, but it was certainly not because they "hate our freedoms". There are many reasons for the attack, most of them directly relating to US imperialism in the middle east.

As for the conspiracy theories, I have yet to see any evidence for them. Most conspiracy theorists use a common logical fallacy. They find little anomalies and say "hah! conspiracy!", while totally ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts their own thesis. All of this so-called evidence for a government conspiracy has been debunked over and over again.
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.debunking911.com)

[Ricardo]

There is evidence, you can search google for a lot of sites. Obviously, a lot of it might be speculation, but there is a lot of evidence to back up the alternative theories. Watch Loose Change, I know some of it has been debunked by some, but like you said you can't know for sure what actually happened, so you can't automatically assume what the debunkers are saying.

I agree with you again peaccenicked, and I think that if what we believe is ture, and the public finds out, this would play a great part in the revolution. 9/11 brought about a surge of ultra-patriotism, but if the government was behind it and it was exposed, imagine what would happen.

[Tetsuo]

9/11 marks a shift in American politics, certainly, however, it is hardly the massive historical turning point that some make it out to be. Imperialism predates 9/11 by quite a great deal, as does state repression.

As for this point:

9/11...with or without a conspiracy theory molded the left into frontiers men for the attack against Iraq and the threat to Iran by spending more time attacking muslims and their representative states ,than the military industrial complex. Saddam was treated is an isolated dictator...and not a product and phenonemen of western imperialism. Iran is treated like a fascist regime but in truth the fascism in the UK and the US has a bigger reality; though disguised by the media, it is felt in the dawn raids of immigrants.
This is just bizarre. Are you seriously suggesting that the left has failed to mention the US state's role in the Middle East as a patron for dictatorships? Or that the left attacks Islam more than it attacks the US state? This might be true of the odd loopy sect here and there, but who gives a fuck what they think?

And calling the US or the UK fascist is pretty silly as well, do you even know what fascism is?

[peaccenicked]

There some anomalies about the official conspiracy theory. I have little wish to enumerate them. It seems to me that any honest investigator even those who pose as Marxist or Leninist scientists have to look at facts. If I could concentrate on one single fact. WTC7 and its collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 commissions report. Does anyone here dispute ths fact? If not the question becomes why not? Then question becomes why are you not asking this question?



The words 'avoiding the issue' comes to mind.

Living in a pseudo marxist slumberland might also come to mind.

Not having the guts to look at the real issues might cause some pain but is it better than living an uninquisitive lie?

Looking at the event involves a deep class analyses that uses historical materialism to show hundreds of instances of an aggressor tribes or nations setting up patsies in a false flag in order to declare war.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 03:54 am
If I could concentrate on one single fact. WTC7 and its collapse was not mentioned in the 9/11 commissions report. Does anyone here dispute ths fact? If not the question becomes why not? Then question becomes why are you not asking this question?




What are you hinting at?
I don't no whether this was left out or not, I'm actually rather indifferent as to whether it was or not. But you need to underline what you are trying to say if it was indeed left out. Are you saying the 9/11 commission was involved in a conspiracy to cover up the reasons the WTC towers collapsed, tacitly?

[RedLenin]

Not having the guts to look at the real issues might cause some pain but it is better than living an uninquisitive lie.
Not having the guts? I have looked at this issue very indepth and once believed there was a conspiracy. I switched sides when I read complete debunkings of all the alleged anomalies. I also came to understand the logical fallacies that I was employing, such as pointing out anomalies and ignoring evidence that contradicts your thesis.


Looking at the event involves a deep class analyses that uses historical materialism to show hundreds of instances of an aggressor tribes or nations setting up patsies in a false flag in order to declare war.
I can assure you, most conspiracy advocates are not using the marxist method of studying history. They hold the conspiracist view of history, an incredibly reactionary far-right view that sees all major events as conspiracies by a small clique of 'evil' people. The jews are a popular candidate for such a group.

As for states faking attacks to rally people, it has happened on occassion. However, far more often, attacks are the result of a strong tension between two opposing forces. In this case, the US and Al Quida. Which is more likely. That the US government put bombs on every floor of the towers, hijacked planes and landed them, switching them for military jets painted as comercial planes, flew them into the towers, set off the bombs in the building in the perfect order mimicking a collapse, shot down a passanger plane for some unknown reason, and flew a cruise missle into the pentagon?...or...That a group of Arabs from Afganistan, pissed off about US imperialism, took matters into their own hands. They did not use high technology or massive numbers. They just used cunning planning, strong determination, deception, and small resources to hijack planes and use them as missles. By Occams Razor, I would say that the latter is far more likely.

[peaccenicked]

Being indifferent to a fact like the non report WT7s collapse is equivalent to being indifferent to a watching your partner sleep with another significant other and showing you how much she enjoyed it. I am not only suggesting that this ommission from the 9/11 commissions is a mere part of the cover up but glaring obvious indication that something smells 'rotten in the state of Denmark' to quote Shakespeare. No! it does not directly evidate the pulling down the twin towers but then again I am not the one avioding the issue.

[RedLenin]

At the time, it was not known why tower 7 collapsed. Further, no one died or was even injured in that collapse. Faced with bigger problems, it is not too hard to see why it was ommitted.
Here, Learn About Tower 7 (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm)

[peaccenicked]

Red lenin.
I am more than little confused by you...you said you deeply studied the event but all you have done is repeat the official story. Is there nothing wrong with the official story.
I want to say point blank right now I think you are a liar. If you want to report that as abuse do so but its what I think.

[RedLenin]

I want to say point blank right now I think you are a liar.
Your right. I am a top CIA official. I am here to spread disinformation and collect the IP addresses of anyone who knows the truth. We did blow up the buildings. In fact, I witnessed the Illuminati meeting were it was decided that it would be done. Osama Bin Laden is actually alive and well, here in my own base. We are also planning a new attack. Oh, and we will be implanting mind control microchips in the entire population. Afterall, the US is not controlled by the ruling class, it is controlled by a group of evil Zionists planning world domination. Welcome to the New World Order. :rolleyes:

[peaccenicked]

Now...you change the issuse to a popular mechanics false picture made in response to 9/11 truthers well after the event. I 've only wished to concentrate on one single fact.



The WT7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 commission report.
This is true but causes indifference.

and you expect me to believe you?

[RedLenin]

and you expect me to believe you?
Yes.

Even if we take your fact, and even if we go so far as to accept that it is weird, it in no way proves shit. You need a hell of a lot more to just throw away numerous investigations and mountains of scientific evidence in favor of your conspiracy thesis. And let me make clear that I am in no way attempting to defend the US goverment. The government raped 9/11 repeatedly and consistently and has yet to stop. I am simply saying that there is no evidence they themselves pulled off 9/11 as an inside job.

[RebelDog]

The WT7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 commission report.
This is true but causes indifference.

You need to elaborate on the reasons why you think it was omitted. The towers collapsed as a result of being on fire from being hit by passenger planes, end of story. Thats what I say, what do you say?

I'm indifferent but so was the 9/11 commission it would seem. It doesn't really matter to you either that the commission left it out or put it in, you would rather believe conspiracy authors who sell books and make lots of cash regardless of their real private thoughts on 9/11. The bigger the claim the bigger the sales.

[peaccenicked]

It is easy to claim there is no evidence for an 'inside job' but that does nt ring true either to me Peter Gabriel, Charlie Sheen, Gore Vidal, Michael Meacher, Ray Mcgovern(27 years with the CIA)...all sorts of respected patriots inside the military.
Does this evidence include stand down orders from Cheney?.....Does it include the fact that many of the suicide bombers are alive and with us...What do you call no evidence...I repeat,,,,you liar.... Knowing the consequences of 9/11 makes you a worse liar

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 04:59 am
It is easy to claim there is no evidence for an 'inside job' but that does nt ring true either to me Peter Gabriel, Charlie Sheen, Gore Vidal, Michael Meacher, Ray Mcgovern(27 years with the CIA)...all sorts of respected patriots inside the military.
Does this evidence include stand down orders from Cheney?.....Does it include the fact that many of the suicide bombers are alive and with us...What do you call no evidence...I repeat,,,,you liar.... Knowing the consequences of 9/11 makes you a worse liar
Heavens above! What ranting!
That is not a very impressive list. Michael Meacher is certainly a left-winger and some things he says I agree with but where has said 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government?
You are getting in to Oliver Stone style fantasy now. Where are the 'suicide bombers' that are still with us? That is a ludicrious claim that you will not be able to back up even in a month of full moons.
You need a full body shave with Ockham's razor.

[peaccenicked]

The dissenter.Your swashbuckling infantile approach to this question does not hide the fact that some of the suspects turned out to be alive instead of dead. Dont you know that?
I dont think it is even worth putting a link to the many many reports that you seem to be unaware of existing.

As far as I can see you should change your name to the conformist.

hows that for a rant Noddy!

Occams razor tells me that you are nothing more than an insulting idiot posing on this website as a leftist.

[RebelDog]

The dissenter.Your swashbukling infantile approach to this question does not hide the fact that some of the suspects turned out to be alive instead of dead. Dont you know that.

"Suspects", that doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the fact that all the terrorists who took over the planes that day are dead having deliberately flew them in to buildings and one in to the ground.


I dont think it is even worth putting a link to the many many reports that you seem to be unaware of existing.

Do it anyway and open others eyes to this conspiracy :wacko:


As far as I can see you change your name to the conformist.

I shall not be taking that advice. If I am a conformist then what is the definition of someone who rejects reality, denies evidence, dismisses eye witness accounts and generally hears only what they want to?
Why do we not all jump on this conspiracy bandwagon? Where are the Chomsky's? Why doesn't such an avowed 'dissenter' and enemy of the US government as Chomsky hold this position?


Occams razor tells me that you are nothing more than an insulting idiot posing on this website as a leftist.

My credentials as a 'leftist' have not been questioned until now on this site. I was free from such an accusation until I became involved in this debate. What am I then, a lackey of the US government? A fascist even? An ostrich perhaps?

One thing I do know is that I need evidence to convinced of your position and because you have none and indeed none exists I will stay, by your definition, as someone "posing on this website as a leftist." I can agree with right-wingers on things like the earth going round the sun and night following day and also the fact that 9/11 was a islamic fundementalist conspiracy. That doesn't make me one of them.

[peaccenicked]

All of the terrorists were named.Doest not that represent a fact. Some of the named dead terrorists are still alive and doesnt make a blind bit of difference to you.
here is one of the sites reporting that http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%2...still_alive.htm (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm) So that means absolute nothing because of what they must have named the wrong ones. talk about ludicrous. talk about fantasy. you are covering up a government lie.

Then you say you are a leftist . No amount of posturing will take the words 'covering up' and change them to anything else. If the government can get away with that lie; what other lies can they get away with. According to you the Bush administration has told the truth about 9/11. Is that the only thing they have told the truth about or is another part of their propaganda we should believe.
Chomskys position is neither here or there.He is good old fashioned liberal just like Michael Moore. They dont want broach the subject because it would be 'Unamerican" at least according Michael Moore.
I really dont want to swap insults but I give as good as I get and your previous post was essentially insulting and ill informed. Michael Meacher has appeared on many documentaries confirming the view that 9/11( look at "Terrorstorm")was indeed an inside job from his perspective. The other people I named are brave people who may not be devout communists but they have stuck their head above the parapet and you dont find them impressive- but beg my pardon but Who the f***
are you? A socialist belittling other peoples point of view because they are not leftwing enough for you. Give me a break! The belief it was an inside job is a direction that is becoming widespread.It is a route that needs investigating. Many of relatives of the victims think the 9/11 Commission was was a cover up..They even produced a documentary "press for truth'' . They want a proper investigation.

I have presented government lies to you and you cover them up or consider them unimportant. I say to you that is not left wing enough for me.





I dont want to be churlish about your credentials as a socialist but is when you act in antisocialist way...I am going to detect right wing ways and and that usually comes in the form of complete rudeness.

You should start by admitting the truth.

[RebelDog]

My post was insulting but that is because you lowered the tone by calling RedLenin a liar. I apologise for insulting you. You should apologise to RedLenin for calling him a liar. I personally need no apologies as I am not the sensitive type.


Some of the named dead terrorists are still alive and doesnt make a blind bit of difference to you.

Are they. What about the likelyhood that the authorities just got names and identities wrong?


Then you say you are a leftist

Stop being silly and questioning me being a leftist. Its bringing nothing to this debate.


No amount of posturing will take the words 'covering up' and change them to anything else. If the government can get away with that lie; what other lies can they get away with. According to you the Bush administration has told the truth about 9/11. Is that the only thing they have told the truth about or is another part of their propaganda we should believe.

I don't understand why the Bush government cannot be capable of telling lies on some things and the truth on others. I imagine they do tell lies, often, but where 9/11 is concerned the basic outline of what happened that day and who was behind it I believe. They couldn't possibly get away with anything less as the evidence is overwhelming that islamic fundementalist terrorists planned and executed 9/11 unilaterally. They were incompetent before the fact and used 9/11 as a pretext for aggression but they knew nothing of it until it happened. They don't need to lie, the fact that it took place at all was enough to stir up support for any war plans. The basic and most serious allegation you put forward here is that elements of the Bush government had specific knowledge that 9/11 was to take place and that these elements were actually involved in the planning and execution of the attacks to provide an excuse for aggression abroad. The stakes are far too high even for the Bush government to consider such a plan. Their overt support for Israel and occupation of the middle east is provides the indignation needed among muslims to provoke terrorist attacks against the US. Indeed here in the UK last years bombings on the underground were carried out by UK citizens. Our governments policies see us attacked. They don't need to blow up their own people.


A socialist belittling other peoples point of veiw because theey are not leftwing enough for you. Give me a break!

I am belittling their point of view because its ridiculous. I never mentioned how left-wing they were or were not.


The belief it was an inside job is a direction that is becoming widespread.It is a route that needs investigating.

And when such an investigation finds no evidence of an inside job you will just say that even more people are now in the conspiracy and covering things up.


I dont want to be churlish about your credentials as a socialist but is when you act in antisocialist way...I am going to detect right wing ways and and that usually comes in the form of complete rudeness.

You should start by admitting the truth.

I haven't got a right-wing bone in my body. I will believe 'your truth' when the evidence is presented to me. But it never will be because how can someone produce what does not exist.

[peaccenicked]

Is nt possible they just got the names wrong? Is nt it possible the you just have not investigated 9/11 at all and want nothing more than to blame it on muslims without any evidence it was muslims or if they were involved is it possible they were just pastsies. If you want to go into detail.
Why did Cheney give the order for norad to stand down?
http://www.halturnershow.com/MilitaryEyeWi...Downon9-11.html (http://www.halturnershow.com/MilitaryEyeWitnessSaysCheneyOrderedAirForceToStand Downon9-11.html)
Is that a legitimate or 'ridiculous' question.


Why do you find that concern ridiculous?Are all these people ridiculous?
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

or is it just you who is ridiculous...ridiculing peoples point of view that you have not even considered.

I find it very hard to believe that jet fuel brought down the twin towers in 10 secs or so. what is so ridiculous about that belief.

Is ridiculous an actual term of scientific criticism when it comes to the analyses of an actual event or is that just for the inside traders or is it a throwaway word to replace actual analysis.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#trading

Finding out by yourself is better than sticking to the official story.
Where is your independent analysis of 9/11.

your attitude is to wait for someone to hit you in the face with evidence. How much do you need before you choke on it.
http://www.meria.net/Meria_Flash.swf

[RebelDog]

Why did Cheney give the order for norad to stand down?
http://www.halturnershow.com/MilitaryEyeWi...Downon9-11.html
Is that a legitimate or 'ridiculous' question.

Those involved in this conspiracy must be in the tens of thousands. Why has it fallen on a single sargeant to blow the whistle. Where is the chain of command? Where are the Air Force generals? Where are the pilots who recieved the order to stand down? Logistics personnel, console operators where are those that must have been party to the order to stand down? Its assuming Ben Hur proportions this conspiracy.


or is it just you who is ridiculous...ridiculing peoples point of view that you have not even considered.

Just me? You have a minority view that has no substantiation whatsoever.


I find it very hard to believe that jet fuel brought down the twin towers in 10 secs or so. what is so ridiculous about that belief.

10 seconds? What do you mean by this?


Finding out by yourself is better than sticking to the official story.
Where is your independent analysis of 9/11.

Where is my independent analysis? You call regurgitating those crackpot websites your independent analysis? My independent analysis is formed by the glaring evidence that 9/11 had (disapointingly because the US public would flay them alive) no US government involvement.


Is ridiculous an actual term of scientific criticism when it comes to the analyses of an actual event or is that just for the inside traders or is it a throwaway word to replace actual analysis.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#trading

Alex Jones is a nutcase who believes in iluminati and that communism was a conspiracy invented by the big banks. Need I say any more.


None of this amounts to proof that the US government planned and executed or had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. I could provide hundreds of links, books, documentaries, etc, of claims that the JFK assasination was a conspiracy. Not one of them has a shred of evidence that JFK was killed by a cospiracy, not a bean between them. Your 9/11 theory is another theory without evidence but many followers hungry for more books and t-shirts and the Alex Jones' of this world are more than happy to satisfy that demand. $$$$$$$$$

[peaccenicked]

Alex Jones is a nutcase who believes in iluminati and that communism was a conspiracy invented by the big banks. Need I say any more.


Yes a lot more . It takes a lot more to argue scientifically than point to some of the flaws in someones world outlook.


There are hard questions http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0201-28.htm
Many of the witnesses were not interviewed by the 9/11 commission.
http://911truthbristol.com/rodriguez.html


Who are you to be calling other people ''nutcases".....not a single right wing bone guy?

Then again you dont seem one for hard questions.
The stick your finger in your ears crowd wont make difficult questions go away.
here is some recent questions on the Robert Kennedy assasination.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/6169006.stm

It is easy to say there is no evidence and dismiss all the evidence that is also called "covering up" and it is also called "lying''

[peaccenicked]

Here is also a thing for the right wing study group which patrols this website.
http://warpspire.com/journal/politics/911-...n-care-anymore/ (http://warpspire.com/journal/politics/911-and-pearl-harbor-do-we-even-care-anymore/)

[Red Heretic]

In response to the title...

What is war good for?

Absolutely everything America stands for!

[peaccenicked]

Say it again!

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 02:38 am
Say it again!

What is war good for?

Absolutely everything America stands for!

:D

[ZACKist]

What is war good for?

Absolutely everything America stands for!


Haha. I LOLed.

[Severian]

From Skeptic magazine:link (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories:
The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective

by Phil Molé

At the Hyatt Regency O’Hare near Chicago, a crowd of approximately 400 people has gathered on a pleasant summer evening. Some are old and some are young; some are dressed in colorful tie-died shirts while others wear dress shirts and slacks, but most seem cheerful and friendly. We are all waiting for the opening of the main lecture hall for the evening’s event, the first of many scheduled talks during a weekend-long conference. We bide some time by looking at the items for sale: DVD copies of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, the anti-Karl Rove documentary Bush’s Brain, and the more recent Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price.

There is nothing especially unusual here, since all of these are available at the Borders or Best Buy near you. But then as the doors to the main hall are about to open, one anxious attendee tries to start a chant of “9/11 was an Inside Job.” A few people join in before another attendee tells him, quite emphatically, “we already know!” The weekend conference is the Chicago meeting for 911truth.org, one of the most visible organizations within a larger coalition known as the “9/11 Truth Movement,” and most of the crowd believes that the United States government planned and orchestrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The statement “we already know!” well summarizes the attitude of the conference attendees toward the material presented during the lectures. Many at the conference do not seem to be looking for new information that might lead to more accurate perspectives about the events of 9/11. A fellow sitting near me admits, “We already know this stuff; we’re here to reconfirm what we already know.” The conference is a way for attendees to consolidate their group identity, and try to bring their message to those people at home and abroad who believe the “official story” of 9/11. As someone who does not share the views of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I have another objective. I want to listen to their arguments and view their evidence, and understand the reasons why so many likable and otherwise intelligent people are convinced that the United States government planned the murder of nearly 3,000 of its own citizens.

The Collapse of World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2

When most of us recall the events of 9/11, we think of the image of those two seemingly indestructible World Trade Center towers crumbling to the ground. Not surprisingly, their collapse is also a central issue for the 9/11 Truth Movement. An overwhelming amount of the organization’s talks and publicity materials address the fall of Buildings 1 and 2. But as these materials show, 911truth.org does not believe the official story that the primary damage to the WTC occurred when two airplanes hijacked by terrorists crashed into the towers. Rather, they maintain that the towers fell due to a controlled demolition, planned in advance by the United States government.

Why do they think this? A primary reason seems to be that the collapse of the towers looks like the result of a controlled demolition. Since there is no structural resistance to gravity in a controlled demolition, the building collapses straight into its own footprint, with each floor “pancaking” onto the floors below at or near the speed of a free fall. Many of the presenters at the Hyatt Conference compared videos of the collapse of the towers with videos of known controlled demolitions, noting the similarity in both the appearance and speed of collapse. 911truth.org maintains that if actually hit by an airplane, the steel structure of the WTC buildings should have provided at least some resistance to the weight of the floors above, causing the falling structure to pitch over to one side rather than pancake straight down. They further argue that fires caused by burning jet fuel from the crashed planes could not have caused the collapse, since jet fuel burns at a temperature of no more than 1500° Fahrenheit,1 while a temperature of approximately 2800° is needed to melt steel. David Heller makes the point in a widely read article:

The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they’re built from steel that doesn’t melt below 2750° Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500° Fahrenheit.2

Since burning jet fuel is not hot enough by itself to melt steel, reports that melted steel was observed at Ground Zero suggest to conspiracy theorists that some other incendiary substance must have been introduced.

Finally, many of the leaders of the movement claim that demolition “squibs” can be seen in videos of the WTC collapse just before and during the time the towers began to fall. In professional demolition lingo, a “squib” is an explosive device used to weaken building structure during a controlled demolition. Several presenters at the conference pointed out small bursts of debris spraying out horizontally from the towers during collapse, and identified these as “squibs” secretly detonated to fell the buildings.

What can we make of these allegations? First, let’s examine the similarity in appearance between the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and the collapse of buildings destroyed through planned demolitions. In controlled demolitions, detonating devices weaken or disrupt all major support points in a building at the same time. Therefore, once the collapse begins, all parts of the building are simultaneously in motion, free-falling to the ground. However, this is definitely not what happens during the collapse of WTC Buildings 1 and 2. Carefully review footage of the collapses, and you will find that the parts of the buildings above the plane impact points begin falling first, while the lower parts of the buildings are initially stationary.3 The parts of the towers below the impact point do not begin to fall until the higher floors have collapsed onto them. This is not what we would expect if the towers collapsed from a controlled demolition, but it is exactly what we would expect if the building collapse resulted from damage sustained by the impact of the planes and subsequent fire damage. A conspiracy theorist may counter that the buildings were rigged to begin falling from the top down, but what are the chances that those planning such a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers, and prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there?

Additionally, footage of the collapse of the South Tower, or Building 2 reveals that the tower did not fall straight down, as the North Tower and buildings leveled by controlled demolitions typically fall. Instead, the tower tilted toward the direction of the impact point, and then began to pancake downward with the top part of the building tilted at an angle. The difference between the two collapses can be explained by the different way each airplane struck the buildings. The first plane struck the North Tower (Building 1) between the 94th to 98th floors and hit it head on, burrowing almost directly toward the core of the building. The second airplane struck the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors, but sliced in at an angle, severely damaging the entire northeast corner of the building.4 Compared with the North Tower, the South Tower sustained damage that was both less evenly distributed and significantly lower on the building’s frame, requiring the weakened point to support more upper building weight than the corresponding crash site on the North Tower. This explains both the tilt of the building as it fell toward the weakened corner, and the fact that the South Tower fell first despite being struck after the North Tower was struck. Again, this scenario makes good sense if the buildings fell due to damage inflicted by the plane crashes, but makes very little sense if the buildings fell due to a planned demolition.

The 9/11 Truth Movement often states or implies that steel would have needed to melt in order for the structure to collapse at the speed of a free-fall. While there are varying assessments of the temperature of the fire at WTC, most agree that the temperature probably reached 1,000° Fahrenheit and possibly higher than 1,800° F. Flames of this temperature would be far short of the approximately 2800° F needed to melt steel, but they would have been sufficient to severely reduce the structural integrity of the metal. Best engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650° F, and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800° F.5 Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse.

The unique structure of the WTC towers exaggerated the problems caused by the weakened steel. The towers had a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers, with 95% of the structure’s interior consisting of nothing but air (see Figure 1).6 Within this perimeter tube design there was a 27m by 40m core, designed to provide additional support to the tower. Steel trusses, or joists, connected the outer beams to the core at each story, and provided much of the overall support to the weight of each floor. The impact and explosion of the airplane crashes probably knocked off most of the insulating material intended to fireproof the steel beams, considerably increasing their vulnerability to flames. The heat of the flames reduced the steel to a fraction of its initial strength, while also causing the steel trusses to expand at each end until they no longer supported the weight of the building’s floors, triggering the collapse. The expansion and warping of the steel would have been particularly significant due to temperature differences within the burning structure.7 Thus, the trusses went limp much like a slackened laundry line, providing little or no resistance to the weight of the floors overhead.
Figure 1. A cutaway diagram of the structure of the main towers at WTC

Figure 1 A cutaway diagram of the
structure of the main towers at WTC

What about the “melted steel” that 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim was at Ground Zero? Dr. Steven Jones’ popular article cites several anecdotal sources speaking about flowing or pooled samples of melted steel found at Ground Zero.8 However, the sources in question are informal observations of “steel” at Ground Zero, not laboratory results.9 To many people, any grayish metal looks sufficiently like steel to call it “steel” when speaking informally. To actually establish that the substance in question is steel, we need analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or another suitable test. It seems far more likely that the metal seen by the contractors was aluminum, a component of the WTC structural material that melts at a much lower temperature than steel and can look superficially similar to it. As for the “squibs” conspiracy theorists claim to see in videos of the WTC collapse, these are plumes of smoke and debris ejected from the building due to the immense pressure associated with millions of tons of falling towers (see Figure 2). Videos of the WTC collapse show that these plumes do not begin until after the towers begin falling and increase in intensity as the collapse continues — this is not the scenario one would expect if the plumes were actually explosives used to cause the buildings to fall.
The Collapse of
World Trade Center Building 7
Figure 2. circled area shows an alleged 'squib' (actually air compressed by the falling tower)

Figure 2 circled area shows an alleged “squib” (actually air compressed by the falling tower)

“Not so fast,” the 9/11 Truth Movement might say. How do you explain the collapse of WTC Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane? Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists maintain that the collapse of this building at about 5:20 pm on 9/11 would not have occurred unless it was already prepared for demolition. The conspiracy theorists assume that damage sustained by WTC 7 during the attack was not sufficient to trigger its collapse. The site wtc7.net claims that “fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires.” They further claim that any damage from falling debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2 would have needed to be symmetrical to trigger the pancaking collapse of WTC 7.10

These arguments only reveal the assumptions of their authors. First, the fires burning in WTC 7 were extremely extensive, as Figure 3 shows. The reason this is not obvious from 9/11 Truth Movement presentations and documentaries is that they tend to only show the north side of WTC 7, selectively causing the building to appear both far less ravaged by fire and structural damage than it actually was (see Figure 4).

Firefighter Richard Banaciski notes the difference in appearance between the north and south sides of the building in his first-person account:

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.11

Figure 3. WTC 7 seen from the Southwest side, showing the true extent of fire and structural damage

Figure 3 WTC 7 seen from the Southwest side, showing the true extent of fire and structural damage

Emergency response workers at Ground Zero realized that extensive damage to the lower south section of WTC 7 would cause collapse as early as 3 pm on 9/11, a fact reported on news broadcasts at the time.12 Video footage shows that when collapse occurred, the south wall of the building gave in first, which is exactly what we would expect based on the location of the most extensive damage. As noted for the collapse of the South Tower, the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained. The planned demolition hypothesis, on the other hand, fails to explain why collapse would begin at exactly the point where damage was inflicted, since the conspirators would have had to been able to predict exactly where debris from the fallen North and South Towers would strike WTC 7. And while the makers of the documentary Loose Change comment that WTC 7 “fell straight down, into a convenient pile,” the truth is that the pile of debris was 12 stories high and 150 meters across, hardly the kind of “convenient pile” described by conspiracy theorists.13

For those who believe that Building 7 fell due to controlled demolition, some of the most powerful “evidence” seemingly comes from WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein’s alleged “confession” that he authorized the tower’s destruction. The quote in question comes from a September, 2002 PBS Special called America Rebuilds, in which Silverstein says:

I remember getting a call from the, er, 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 we watched the building collapse.14

Figure 4. The image of WTC 7 commonly shown by the 9/11 Truth Movement, showing apparently minimal damage to the building

Figure 4 The image of WTC 7 commonly shown by the 9/11 Truth Movement, showing apparently minimal damage to the building

To conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones at prisonplanet.com, this quote seems to be a “smoking gun” because they interpret the phrase “pull it” to be “industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.”15 Silverstein seems to be saying that he and the firefighters decided to pull (destroy) Building 7, and watched it fall after authorizing the demolition. No building could be controllably demolished so quickly, the conspiracy theorists go on to argue, so WTC 7 must have been prepared for demolition long in advance.

On closer inspection, this supposedly devastating evidence does not seem to mean what the 9/11 Truth Movement thinks it means. There is far from unanimous industry agreement that the phrase “pull it” always signifies a controlled demolition with explosives — more specific phrases such as “pull away” would be used to designate the specific operation to be performed.16 And of course, “pull” has many common language uses quite separate from demolition lingo. But if Silverstein wasn’t describing a decision to destroy WTC 7, what could the words “pull it” mean? A good place to seek the answer is this September 9, 2005 statement by Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesperson for Larry Silverstein:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building [emphasis added].17

McQuillan’s response also indicated that firefighters were present at WTC 7 to evacuate tenants, and worked at the site until late in the afternoon shortly before the collapse occurred. There is in fact abundant evidence that firefighters were present in and around WTC 7 in evacuation and rescue missions until late in the day on 9/11. As one account describes:

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center … It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time [emphasis added] and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn’t] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely.18

Another first responder adds that there were “tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled [emphasis added] us out.”19 The first-hand accounts of rescue operations at WTC 7 tell a consistent story, and the latter quote also uses the word “pull” to describe the removal of firefighters from the vicinity of the building, just as McQuillan’s statement does. Indeed, there is large agreement between McQuillan’s response and the testimony of the firefighters, including the fact that:

1. firefighters were in fact in the vicinity of WTC 7 on 9/11;
2. their activities involved evacuation and rescue missions;
3. firefighters remained near WTC 7 until late in the afternoon of 9/11;
4. firefighters realized that WTC 7 would probably fall by approximately 3 pm on 9/11; and
5. firefighters pulled back from the building shortly after this realization, and watched the building collapse at approximately 5:20 pm. Despite the objections of conspiracy theorists, the “official story” is both logically coherent and supported by evidence.

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?20 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?21 The government’s strategy appears wildly inconsistent in the Truth Movement account — killing nearly 3,000 people in the destruction of the two main towers, while allowing an entire afternoon for the tenants of WTC 7 to escape. We should also note that the alleged 9/11 plot was needlessly complicated, since the building was wired for a controlled demolition and targeted to be hit by airplanes — why not just do the controlled demolition, ditch the airplanes and blame it on the terrorists of your choice?

There’s also the problem that, as even the 9/11 Truth Movement admits, prepping a building for demolition takes considerable time and effort. Usually a building targeted for demolition has been abandoned for considerable time and partially gutted to allow explosives intimate contact with the structure of the building. But since all of the WTC buildings were occupied right up to 9/11, how did the government gain access to wire 3 towers for complete demolition without anyone noticing? Imagine trying to sneak wires and bombs into buildings while thousands of people are working in offices, riding the elevators and milling about in the halls — that scenario is unlikely in the extreme.
The Pentagon

Many people in the 9/11 Truth Movement believe that the Pentagon was not actually struck by Flight 77, as the “official story” claims. Instead, they believe that the United States government somehow staged the damage, perhaps through the use of a bomb or strategically fired missile. This claim first attracted attention in French author Thierry Meyssan’s book, Pentagate, which claims that the damage done to the Pentagon was too limited to have resulted from the crash of a Boeing 757.22 The documentary “Loose Change” claims that the hole left in the Pentagon by the alleged airplane was “a single hole, no more than 16 feet in diameter,” and that no remains whatsoever of Flight 77 were found at the crash site.23 To dramatically support this last point, conspiracy theorists cite CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre’s report from the crash site on 9/11, which says, “From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”24

Like the previously discussed arguments about WTC 7 not being damaged enough to fall on its own, complaints about the size of the hole in the Pentagon left by Flight 77 rely on selective choice of perspective. 9/11 conspiracy theorists like to reference pictures of the damaged Pentagon in which the hole made by the plane appears to be small, but aren’t as fond of the pictures accurately showing the full extent of the damage. Some conspiracy theorists also don’t seem satisfied that the shape of the hole matches that expected for a crashed airplane. But the expectation that the plane should have left an immediately recognizable hole in the building is delusional — a speeding Boeing 757 will not leave a snow-angel style impression of itself in a concrete building (versus the mostly-glass exterior of the WTC buildings, which did leave an outline of a plane). And the contention that no remains of Flight 77 were found at the crash site is simply absurd. Many pictures taken of the area around the Pentagon crash site clearly show parts of an airplane in the wreckage. In an excellent article about 9/11 conspiracy theories in Popular Mechanics, blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer describes his own observations as the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed:

I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.

Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”25

But if there is so much evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, why did CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre report that he could find none? The answer is that McIntyre did not report this at all, and the 9/11 Truth Movement is once again selectively manipulating evidence to fit their conclusions. When McIntyre noted that no debris from a plane was observable near the Pentagon, he was responding to a specific question asked by CNN anchor Judy Woodruff during the segment. Flight 77 came in flying very low, and there had been speculation that the plane might have struck the ground shortly before reaching the Pentagon. McIntyre’s response, when quoted in full, makes clear that he is saying that there was no evidence that the plane hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon, but he certainly does not deny that the plane struck the Pentagon itself.

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier — or one of our correspondence was talking earlier — I think — actually, it was Bob Franken — with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that’s crashed in [emphasis added], and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse [emphasis added].26

Note that McIntyre never questions that an airplane crash damaged the Pentagon, and indeed describes seeing many pieces of the aircraft around the crash site in an earlier section of the CNN transcript.27 Of course, this has not stopped conspiracy theorists from picking and choosing the evidence to push their own agendas.
Flight 93 and Other Alleged Anomalies

On April 5, 2006, the creators of the 9/11 conspiracy documentary “Loose Change” and their supporters decided to attend the premiere of the film “United 93,” about the hijacked airplane that crashed on 9/11. They wanted to take the opportunity to expose the alleged lies about this flight, and in the words of one “Loose Change” forum member, to “bite these bastards where it hurts, and have this Fight 93 movie backfire on them.”28 To many Americans, the passengers on United 93 who fought back against the terrorists and caused it to crash before it could reach its target are heroes, but the 9/11 Truth Movement sees things differently. Depending on which conspiracy theorist you ask, you will either learn that Flight 93 actually landed safely, or that a US military jet shot the plane out of the sky.29 The first claim stems from confusion in the initial Associated Press (AP) reports between Flight 93 and Flight 1989, the latter of which did land at Cleveland’s Hopkins Airport on 9/11. The AP subsequently corrected the error, but many conspiracy theorists have not followed suit.30 The second claim rests largely on unsupported assertions that the main body of the engine and other large parts of the plane turned up miles from the main wreckage site — too far away to have resulted from an ordinary crash. This is incorrect, because the engine was found only 300 yards from the main crash site, and its location was consistent with the direction in which the plane had been traveling.31 Furthermore, the black box for the flight records the struggle onboard preceding the plane’s crash. Conspiracy theorists are left with not only an evidentially worthless theory, but also a confusing one. Why would the same U.S. government that allegedly destroyed the WTC shoot down Flight 93 before it could cause similar damage to other buildings? Of course, this question assumes a standard of logical consistency that the 9/11 Truth Movement seems to lack.

Another alleged flight anomaly concerns the supposed “stand down” order given by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) on 9/11 to allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their destinations without interference. The 9/11 Truth Movement believes that NORAD had the capability of locating and intercepting planes on 9/11, and its failure to do so indicates a government conspiracy to allow the attacks to occur. To support this assertion, they claim that NORAD could have quickly neutralized the hijacked planes because flight interceptions are routine, with 67 such intercepts occurring before 9/11.32 Significantly, this claim does not specify the length of time over which these alleged intercepts occurred, or tell us whether they took place near major cities or over, say, miles of open ocean. More specific and accurate information comes from the Popular Mechanics article, which states:

In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts.33

It is not a quick or easy matter to locate and intercept a plane behaving erratically. NORAD personnel must first attempt repeated communication with the planes in question to rule out more mundane problems, and then must contact appropriate military personnel to scramble the planes and direct them to the appropriate location. The situation on 9/11 was further complicated by the fact that terrorists on the hijacked jets had turned off or disabled the onboard radar transponders. Without a transponder signal identifying the airplanes, each hijacked airplane would have been only one moving blip among many others on NORAD’S screens, making it much harder to track. Thus, even a direct NORAD decision to intercept any of the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have still entailed a significant amount of time to reach the jet — time that was simply not available on 9/11.

Various other conspiracy theories focus on the government’s alleged foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks. One popular theory suggests there was a suspiciously high volume of “put” trading of airline stocks in the days just before 9/11. Since “put” trading is effectively a gamble that the price of a stock will decrease, conspiracy theorists surmise that trading “insiders” knew about the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. While this may look suspicious in isolation, the general volume of put trading on these stocks reached similar levels at earlier points in the year. The spike in American Airlines trading was the highest of the all airline companies involved, but that’s hardly surprising considering that the company had just released a major warning about possible losses.34 Indeed, general bad news about the airline industry prompted investment companies to advise their clients to take the put options, removing any need to blame the trading options on foreknowledge of the attacks.

Another theory alleges that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) arrived at the World Trade Center on September 10, 2001, thus showing that the government knew about the coming disaster. This claim is based on a statement by Tom Kenney of the Massachusetts task force, who told CBS news anchor Dan Rather on September 13, 2001, “We’re currently, uh, one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on, uh, late Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site.”35 The rather mundane explanation for this quote is that Mr. Kenney confused his days — not an unusual occurrence for someone who had been working for more than two long days in emergency response activities. Thus, a straightforward interpretation of Kenney’s response is that he arrived at Ground Zero on 9/11 (which he incorrectly identified as Monday, rather than Tuesday), went into action on 9/12 (mistakenly identified as Tuesday) and did not get a chance to work the whole WTC site until “today” (the day he was speaking to Rather, or Thursday, 9/13). Additionally, many sources document the arrival of FEMA on 9/11, and Kenney’s wife confirmed the day her husband was dispatched to Ground Zero as 9/11.36 The degree to which the 9/11 Truth Movement will exaggerate and exploit simple misunderstandings does not speak well of their concern for truth.

Much of this discussion has focused on explanations given by the 9/11 Truth Movement, but we should note that the explanations they don’t give are just as problematic. I have not been able to locate any significant discussion of al Qaeda, radical Islamic terrorists or the modern history of the Middle East in any of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s writings. The most likely reason for this is that, like most other Americans, many of them simply didn’t pay very much attention to the Middle East before 9/11. Yet, it is impossible to understand the threat of terrorism unless we also understand how the fall of the Ottoman empire, the fragmentation of much of the Middle East into new nations with largely arbitrary boundaries after WW II, Muslim reaction to the creation of the state of Israel, the birth of Islamic fundamentalism, conflict with and influence by Soviet Russia, and frustration over America’s support for Israel have shaped the ideology and mission of groups like al Qaeda. Islamic terrorist groups arose in this context, and have actively and repeatedly targeted American interests for over two decades. The idea that Islamic terrorists would target U.S. buildings for attack fits well with recent events over the past two decades, including:

* an attack by the radical Hezbollah faction on Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983;
* the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985;
* a truck bomb attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; killing 6 people and injuring over 1,000 more;
* a thwarted attempt to blow up 12 planes heading from the Philippines to the U.S. in January, 1995;
* an attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and injuring hundreds more;
* the bombings of U.S. Embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1995, killing 12 Americans and 200 Kenyans and Tanzanians;
* a thwarted attempt by Ahmed Ressam to attack Los Angeles international airport in late 1999;
* a suicide boat bombing against the U.S.S. Cole on October 12, 2000, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others.37

Additionally, there is well-documented evidence that Osama Bin Laden has repeatedly organized and prompted attacks against the United States. His role as a financier for major terrorist organizations and the leader of al Qaeda is well-established. Bin Laden issued a 1996 fatwa officially declaring a jihad against the United States, and a second fatwa in 1998 declaring “to kill the Americans and their allies — civilian and military is an individual duty for any Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.”38 Since bin-Laden and al Qaeda have officially claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11, there is no point in seeking alternative theories.39

The best explanation for the events of 9/11 is that it was the latest and most damaging attack yet in a series of attacks by radical Islamic terrorists who wish to end what they believe is an evil U.S. foreign policy. As a nation, we were psychologically and strategically unprepared for this attack due to our failure to acknowledge the seriousness of the threat. Sadly, the 9/11 Truth Movement continues to divert its gaze from the real problems, preferring the solace of delusions to reality.
Conclusion: The Power of Conspiracy Theories

This article has analyzed the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement and found them lacking. Yet, the 400 people who attended the conference and the thousands of others who support their efforts find these theories convincing, and the reason does not necessarily seem to be grounded in common political ideology. Based on my informal survey of the crowd at the Hyatt conference, I noted that attendees seemed to come from each extreme of the political spectrum. There were representatives of the far right who decry any form of government authority, but there were also members of the far left waging a tireless campaign against the perceived evils of capitalism and imperialism. We need to return to a question posed near the beginning of this discussion: Why do so many intelligent and promising people find these theories so compelling?

There are several possible answers to this question, none of them necessarily exclusive of the others. One of the first and most obvious is distrust of the American government in general, and the Bush administration in particular. This mistrust is not entirely without basis. The American government deceived its citizens about the real human costs of Vietnam, and resorted to military tactics that were ethically questionable even by the standards of war. The revelations of Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal, and other nefarious schemes great and small have understandably eroded public confidence in government. Couple that with an administration, that took office after the most controversial presidential election in more than a century, and one that backed out of international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, misled citizens about the science of global warming and stem cell research, initiated a war in Iraq based on unsupportable “intelligence” about weapons of mass destruction, and failed to respond in adequately to the effects of a hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, and you have strong motivations for suspicion.40 (Suffice it to say, admiration for George W. Bush is not my motivation for defending him against the claims of conspiracy theorists).

However, there are a few things to be said about suspicion. First, there is the simple philosophical point that suspicion alone demonstrates nothing — any theory needs evidence in its favor if it is to be taken seriously. Second, the mistakes made by our government in the past are qualitatively different from a conscious decision to kill thousands of its own citizens in order to justify the oppression of others. Most importantly, there is the fact that most of what we know about the bad decisions made by our government is only knowable due to the relative transparency with which our government operates, and the freedom to disseminate and discuss this information.

The full irony of this last point hit me while I was at the conference. Here was a group of about 400 people gathered to openly discuss the evil schemes of the U.S. government, whom they accuse of horrible atrocities in the service of establishing a police state. But if America really was a police state with such terrible secrets to protect, surely government thugs would have stormed the lecture halls and arrested many of those present, or would at the very least have conducted behind the scenes arrests and jailed the movement’s leaders. Yet even the most vocal leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement are still going strong, and no one at the conference seemed very worried about government reprisals. This fact seemingly indicates that at some level, the conspiracy theorists themselves don’t really believe what they are saying.

Another reason for the appeal of 9/11 conspiracies is that they are easy to understand. As previously mentioned, most Americans did not know or care to know much about the Middle East until the events of 9/11 forced them to take notice. (The brilliant satirical newspaper The Onion poked fun at this fact with its article “Area Man Acts Like He’s Been Interested In Afghanistan All Along”).41 The great advantage of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s theories is that they don’t require you to know anything about the Middle East, or for that matter, to know anything significant about world history or politics. This points to another benefit of conspiracy theories — they are oddly comforting. Chaotic, threatening events are difficult to comprehend, and the steps we might take to protect ourselves are unclear. With conspiracy theory that focuses on a single human cause, the terrible randomness of life assumes an understandable order.

The great writer Thomas Pynchon memorably expressed this point in his novel Gravity’s Rainbow: “If there is something comforting — religious, if you want — about paranoia, there is still also anti-paranoia, where nothing is connected to anything, a condition not many of us can bear for long.”42 The promiscuity of conspiracy theories toward evidence thus becomes part of their appeal — they can link virtually any ideas of interest to the theorist into a meaningful whole. This point was illustrated nicely during the Q & A session following the conference screening of Rick Siegel’s Eyewitness: Hoboken. An attendee wanted to know what role the Freemasons played in the plot, and seemed very concerned that Siegel’s account had neglected them. After waffling on the answer for a few moments without appeasing his questioner, Siegel finally relented and said, “Sure, they’re involved.” And why not? With the standards of evidence used by conspiracy theorists, there is no reason why the Freemasons, the Bavarian Illuminati, or the Elders of Zion cannot also be involved in the 9/11 plot — it just depends on what you find the most solace in believing. As it turns out, some conspiracy theorists do throw one or more of these other parties into the mix, as a popular and bogus rumor that 4,000 Jews mysteriously failed to come to work on 9/11 shows.43

Solace is something all of us needed after the horrible events of 9/11, and each of us is entitled to a certain degree of freedom in its pursuit. However, there is no moral right to seek solace at the expense of truth, especially if the truth is precisely what we most need to avoid the mistakes of the past. Truth matters for its own sake, but it also matters because it is our only defense against the evils of those who cynically exploit truth claims to serve their own agendas. It is concern for the truth that leads us to criticize our own government when necessary, and to insist that others who claim to do so follow the same rigorous standards of evidence and argument. 9/11 was a powerful reminder of how precious and fragile human life and liberty are — the greatest possible rebuke to those who would live in service to delusions.
References & Notes

1. 2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
2. Heller, David. 2005. “Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center.” Garlic & Grass, Issue 6. Available at www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
3. This is clearly visible in the PBS NOVA Documentary Why The Towers Fell.
4. 2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
5. Eager, Thomas and Musso, Christopher. 2001. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse: Science, Engineering and Speculation.” JOM, 53(12), 8–11.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Jones, Steven. 2006. “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” Available at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
9. A good discussion of this issue can be found at http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
10. This claim can be found at http://wtc7.net/b7fires.html
11. “World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Richard Banaciski.” Interview conducted on December 6, 2001. Transcribed by Elisabeth F. Nason. Available at graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110253.PDF
12. Ibid.
13. www.loosechangeguide.com
14. “America Rebuilds,” PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/
15. www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
16. A discussion of the “pull it” phrase by professional demolition workers is at web.archive.org/web/ 20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/
911_my_own_review.htm#222
17. See “9/11 Revealed? A New Book Repeats False Con-spiracy Theories.” At usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
18. “World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Daniel Nigrois.” Interview conducted on October 24, 2001. The text of the interview is available at www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/ 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt
19. “World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Richard Banaciski.” Interview conducted on December 6, 2001. Transcribed by Elisabeth F. Nason. Available at graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/ 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
9110253.PDF
20. Read almost anything at www.prisonplanet.com for this idea
21. The FEMA report on WTC 7 is available at usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
22. Meyssan, Thierry. 2002. Pentagate. New York: USA Books.
23. www.loosechangeguide.com
24. The transcript: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html
25. 2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
26. transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html
27. Ibid.
28. www.loosechangeguide.com
29. The claim that Flight 93 landed safely is at www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm. The claim that it was shot by a missile can be found at www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/shanksville.htm
30. A description of the confusion between the planes is in Kropko, M.R. 2002. “September 11 Tension Vivid to Controller.” Associated Press, August 15, 2002. The story is also available online at www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/08/15/loc_sept_11_tension.html
31. 2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
32. One such claim can be found at 911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
33. 2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
34. See “AMR Corp Issues 3Q’ 2001 Profit Warning.” Airline Industry Information, September 11, 2001. Available at www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:78127985. For a general contemporary assessment of the viability of airline industry in the months before 9/11, see Hamilton, Adam. 2001. “Plummeting Profits.” Zeal Speculation and Investment. June 22, 2001, available at www.zealllc.com/2001/plummet.htm
35. Schorow, Stephanie. 2002. “Independent Research.” Boston Herald. 5 September (Arts & Life). A sound recording of Kenney’s statement can be heard at www.snopes.com/rumors/sound/kenney.ram
36. Ibid.
37. This list is based on information in Strasser, Steven (ed.). 2004. The 9/11 Investigations: Staff Reports of the 9/11 Commission. New York: Public Affairs Books. More information about radical Islam can be found in Rashid, Ahmed. 2001. Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. New York: Yale University Press.
38. This quote can be found in many sources, including Strasser, Steven (ed.). 2004. The 9/11 Investigations: Staff Reports of the 9/11 Commission. New York: Public Affairs Books.
39. Bamer, David. 2001. “Bin Laden: Yes, I Did It.” The Telegraph. November 11.
40. One source among many possible for this information is Alterman, Eric and Green, Mark. 2004. The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America. New York: Penguin.
41. This hilarious article is at www.theonion.com/content/node/28079
42. Pynchon, Thomas. 1973. Gravity’s Rainbow. New York: Viking Press.
43. See, for instance, “Absent Without Leave” at the Urban Legends Reference Pages: www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm

In addition to the specific sources cited above, readers seeking responsible analysis of the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement can use the following general sources:

www.snopes.com
The Urban Legends Reference Pages, containing entries about conspiracy claims such as the put options, the alleged early arrival of FEMA and the Pentagon attack. The forum also contains some intelligent discussion of conspiracy theories.
www.loosechangeguide.com
This is a viewer’s guide to the documentary “Loose Change,” which contains many of the conspiracy claims discussed in this article.
www.911myths.com
A great general source for all manner of conspiracy claims.

[Severian]

According to construction industry experts in the controlled demolition of buildings:
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE
Questions & Answers

Implosionworld.com has received numerous inquiries from around the world requesting information and commentary relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and specifically the felling of the World Trade Center towers. We have been contacted by media outlets, structural engineers, schoolteachers, conspiracy theorists and many others who are searching for answers and some “perspective” regarding these significant events that have evoked deep emotions and undoubtedly changed our world forever.

The editors of implosionworld.com have created this page to answer a few of the most frequently asked questions that fall within our area of knowledge and expertise. But first we’d like to be clear in stating that any conversation relating to “implosions” and what causes structures to fail is undertaken with reverence and respect to those who perished as a result of this event. As many of our frequent web visitors are aware, Implosionworld.com’s offices are located close to New York City, and several of our employees were personally touched by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families of those lost and injured, and our intent here is to help foster a constructive base of knowledge and understanding through education, while dispelling false rumors related to the attack.


DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?
Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.

DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?
To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.

HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION?
The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.”

source: implosionworld.com, a commercial demolitions site (http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm)

More detail from that demolition company (PDF format) (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)

****

Some of the problems with a conspiracy-based worldview and why it tends to lead towards far-right political conclusions. (http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/conspiracism.html)

[Kamraten]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 07, 2006 02:26 am
In response to the title...

What is war good for?

Absolutely everything America stands for!
hehe right on.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Here are the facts:

> there was an attack on the World Trade Centre, and a deadly one.

> the neo-cons in Washington, led by G.W. Bush benefited immensely from this, since it allowed them to unite the nation behind their murderous policies.


It is tempting to think that the attack was indeed engineered by the US government itself.

However, in my opinion, that's a classic post hoc fallacy. Simply because Y happens after X, we cannot assume that X caused Y.


Physical evidence confirms that the conspiracy theories about the US government engineering this attack are totally incorrect.

As Marxists, our first priority is the TRUTH. That is what science demands.

Physical evidence from footage of the 9/11 attack shows that the conspiracy theories are not very credible.


In my personal opinion, there is a strong possibility that Bush and his cronies KNEW about the attacks but did nothing to stop them, knowing that it would help them implement their policies. But we need hard evidence to prove this possibility.

It is ALSO possible that the CIA instigated these attacks and actually assisted the terrorists in carrying it out. They have a history of doing this stuff. Once again, we'd need hard evidence to prove it.

[peaccenicked]

The most simple thing is to look at what is going down. Occams razor might not be that trustworthy but it cannot be ignored. Chavez is having a look in too.
http://www.scottishinternationalist.com/th...sification.html (http://www.scottishinternationalist.com/the-scottish-internationalist/2006/12/9/the-christopher-hayes-variety-of-falsification.html)

[peaccenicked]

Lets get complicated....Popular Mechanics owned by Hearst.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/ to put it very simply... the people who defend Popular Mechanics are like people who defend a state religion.


The US government could never be guilty of being involved with mass murder against their own citizens, maybe those of other countries lets not count the US army as citizens of course. Lets not count the millions whose lives are cut short by poverty or untreated illnesses.


It is a joke.
This interview exposes them as government sponsored agents.

AZ Radio Host Deconstructs Popular Mechanics’ 9/11 Disinfo Researcher

9/11 Facts and Myths: Charles Goyette interviews Davin Coburn, editor / researcher of PM’s original 9/11 conspiracy slam
Charles Goyette Show
KFNX Radio
August 23, 2006

.
UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
PM – Popular Mechanics: Davin Coburn “researcher, editor, reporter on the original 9/11 article”
CG – Charles Goyette, Radio Show Host

CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?

PM: Very little… there is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.

CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven’t seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.

PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material…

CG: I’ve talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they’re not very happy about it, they released like four frames that don’t really show much of anything.

PM: They don’t show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance it’s not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.

CG: Are you telling me that’s the only video?

PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they’re still being used for various investigations.

CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it’s five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?

PM: I think there’s plenty of evidence out there…

CG: It’s not the evidence we’ve seen that we’re concerned about, it’s the evidence we haven’t seen. Does that make any sense?

PM: Oh sure it makes sense…. The evidence is abundant…

CG: It’s the dog that didn’t bark… We know the evidence we’ve seen, that doesn’t cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don’t see. It’s not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?

PM: “Hearst.”

CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, “Oh shut up, you peons don’t know what you’re talking about, everything’s fine, keep on moving, there’s nothing to see here.” Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn’t it?

PM: (does not answer this question)

CG: …I want to come back to the unseen evidence – the dog that didn’t bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle – where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..

PM: It’s not up to us…

CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don’t know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We’re told who did it, we’ve invaded two countries in response to it, we’ve spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?

PM: How can I answer the question?

CG: Because you don’t know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?

PM: (Cannot answer question)

CG: …Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics…say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.

PM: When the North Tower collapsed… there was damage to Building 7…. What we found out was…about 25% of the building’s south face had been carved away from it… Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower…

CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true… I go, oh that’s interesting…if that’s true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you’ve got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn’t show that. So I’m going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don’t show me the picture.

PM: …We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate….

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can’t see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that’s a fine kettle of fish, isn’t it? ….What did you see there that I can’t see?

PM: Just what was described.

CG: Well it must be something that’s dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You’re publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they’ve done the worst possible thing, they’ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn’t know we had different classes of citizens. You can’t tell me it’s because it’s a criminal case because they’ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher.

PM: ….I can’t answer that question.

CG: I know you can’t.

PM: (is speechless)….

…Caller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, “We’re alive, what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We’re alive and well.” How do you explain that one?

PM: It was one BBC report – I am saying that is false.

Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?

PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes…

Caller: What remains?

PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.

Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven’t heard anything about autopsy reports.

CG: I want to know, even if we presume you’re correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh…I mean, where the hell did they get it? You’re not even talking sensibly with me.

PM: Off the top of my head, I don’t know the answer to that.

CG: Of course you don’t.

PM: I’ll get back to you with it.

CG: Is that a promise?

PM: I will do my best.

CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he’s gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had…hijacked those planes. Good, I’d like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?

PM: No, actually I don’t…

CG: You don’t understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers’ DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against – Do you think that’s bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it’s conspiratorial just to want to know?...You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers…

PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that’s worth answering….

CG: …You’ve told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You’re the one with the answers, I’m not. I just ask questions.

PM: …A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over….

CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we’ve invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we’re gonna spend trillions of dollars. It’s not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What’s so hard about that?

PM: The way that you’re framing it is intentionally…

CG: Of course it is, ‘cause it’s five years later and we haven’t heard the answer. And you haven’t given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that’s it. You see, it’s the way I’m framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.

PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.

CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that’s it. Hey Davin, thanks…the Charles Goyette Show.

END
http://abelahsimmons.gnn.tv/blogs/17988/Ar...info_researcher (http://abelahsimmons.gnn.tv/blogs/17988/Arizona_radio_host_deconstructs_Popular_Mechanics_ 9_11_disinfo_researcher)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 05:42 pm
Occams razor might not be that trustworthy but it cannot be ignored.
Occam's Razor does not exactly work in your favor. It says the simpler explanation is often better. But you have to come up with some pretty complicated conspiracy theories, if you're going to get into the evidence. People spend their whole lives developing them, or watching the Zapruder film over and over.

'Course conspiracy theories are pretty simple in another way - if you don't want to get into the evidence. They give a very simple explanation for lazy-minded people.

Anyway, you just spend pages complaining that nobody was refuting your conspiracy theories. Then I post some stuff that does, and you just ignore it.

(Except to holler about Popular Mechanics being owned by Hearst. Which is ad hominem. And anyway, PM is only one of the sources cited by one of the articles I posted.)

I'm not surprised by this response, of course. But I gotta point out that trying to discuss with you would be like trying to discuss with a broken record.

[piet11111]

does it even matter if it was a conspiracy of the bush government ?
what would it change ?

we already know that those guys dont care who dies aslong as they get richer.
9/11 currently is a tool that is used against the working class to force through the capitalist agenda.

it would be better to lay 9/11 to rest and put your energy and time to use to what happens in the present.

sorry if im insensitive but thats how i keep myself from going nuts over the wrongs in the world.

[Amusing Scrotum]

If "peaccenicked" doesn't like Popular Mechanics, then he can always look up some of the previous thread on 9/11. I've given quite a few different sources, a good few of which have come from within the Construction Industry, that explain and analyse what went on.

And one thing that you'll notice, as I've mentioned repeatedly, is that no one from within the Engineering community has presented a rebuttal, serious or otherwise, regarding the official account. That either means there is one massive conspiracy ... or the truth is the truth is the truth.

Additionally, I actually started a little entry in my blog thingy where I was going to combine all my posts on the subject into one (longish) rebuttal. A rebuttal that dealt with each individual claim.

My aim was to link that every time someone came up with conspiracy nonsense. But, unfortunately, I didn't get round to finishing it. But, this threads given me a little incentive now ... and this is the entry (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=blog&id=11495&entry=650&action2=perma), if anyone's interested.

[peaccenicked]

What is completely ridiculous if you ask me, is that Popular Mechanics should be used as a substitute for an independent inquiry.
The idea that the fundamentalist believers in the official story that the 9/11 commission was anything else but a cover up is laughable. It is only simple to believe the official story,just believe it, but what is not simple is to swallow it hook line and sinker with anything near an independent mind.

I will be like a broken down record till we get an inquiry that satisfies the relatives of the victims who are crying out for the truth be to be told. http://www.petitiononline.com/july10/petition.html

Old cover ups are much the same as new cover ups...still cover ups.

The idea that jet fuel caused the towers to collapse is unscientific as creationist theory. When it comes to that I am not prepared as much as I as I can patiently go over the physics with the persistent., though, if there is need for instant demolishment is needed..I offer this http://www.scottishinternationalist.com/th...1-jet-fuel.html (http://www.scottishinternationalist.com/the-scottish-internationalist/2006/11/24/911-jet-fuel.html) to argue the case. It is like saying that we are not descended from apes. Fire has never caused a skyscraper to collapse.

The idea that 9/11 doesnt matter is like saying 7/7 doesnt matter, the Madrid and Bali bombings dont matter. The sinking of the Lusitania doesn't matter(US entry into WWI. The attack on the Tonika does not matter.(US excuse to invade Vietnam)
The attemmpt to invade Cuba does not matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods Whos next?

If you cant get real at least get honest. Both are prerequisites for a revolutionary.

[Zero]

Really I think the most obvious bit of evidence for collusion on 9/11 was the Pentagon attack. The official story wants you to believe that a 200+ Ton airliner executed a turn that is questionable for experienced pilots, flew hundreds of feet over the top of a crowded suburb, and crashed into the Pentagon, leaving the lawn un-touched.

From the sources I have read, the people in the suburbs over where the plane flew didn't hear it.

Lets get something clear, if a 747 Airliner buzzed your house, you would know it. In fact you would probably know it for a good few days as your ears repaired themselves.

[peaccenicked]

Zero. Also Popular Mechanics got access to 'footage' that are not available to any other American citizens. Duh!

The spirit you invoke comes is in tune with my favourite quote and Karl Marx's motto
''De omnibus dubitandum (Doubt everything). Thankyou.

Here is the third eyewitness testimony I have put on this thread that did not appear at the 9/11 commission.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9...218338952&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9147890225218338952&hl=en)

[Springmeester]

9/11 made me a commie.
I want to thank all religious fanatics & pseudeo-fascists for their contribution towards my radicalisation. :ph34r:

[Apatride]

In my personal opinion, there is a strong possibility that Bush and his cronies KNEW about the attacks but did nothing to stop them, knowing that it would help them implement their policies. But we need hard evidence to prove this possibility.

It is ALSO possible that the CIA instigated these attacks and actually assisted the terrorists in carrying it out. They have a history of doing this stuff. Once again, we'd need hard evidence to prove it.

That's the most sensible thing I read on this thread so far.
Here is my take on a few 9/11 related issues...

1 - It appears clear to me that three groups of people had both means and motives to put such a planned attack toghether : the Ben Laden family, the U.S. Govt and Israel. These groups also benefited greatly form the result of this attack, both politically and trough high-risk investments, mostly in the oil and steel.

2 - Altough suffient evidence exists that WT1, WT2 and WT7 collapsed after two planes crashed in the towers, I have yet to see evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. I'm not denying it, but on 9/11 I was watching the Pentagon's webcams and I didn't see any part of a plane and the hole did appear pretty small. Also my uncle, who incidentally works inside the Pentagon, was unable to confirm whether or not damage was caused by a falling plane...

3 - To those people who doubt that a state would willingly assassinate thousands of it's own citizens for a greater good, I say take History next semester. Ever heard of Holocaust, Goulag, genocide, segregation... gees I don't know where to stop. OK if you don't like reading maybe just watch V for Vendetta (yes, I know it's fictional, but you should get the point)

4 - The mass media, once again, did an horrible job on this one. I have on tape newscast announcing that "the Palestine Liberation Front has just conducted a terrorist attack against the World Trade Center". Remember the US bombed Palestine in "retaliation" to Timothy Mc Veight's Oklahoma bombing? Also various attacks were reported, most of which likely never happened. Also heard on the news that day that a man had launched a rocket on the Capitol and that "a large portion of what you may recall as the dome structure of the Capitole has collapsed". Freakin hilarious.

5 - Most of the details do not matter to me. To criticize a game one must be standing outside the ring, not playing it. Have an open mind and think for a minute there may be many more guilty parties here then expected. Those who planned and executed these attacks are only as bad as those who knew and let it happen and those who speculated and gained from the consequences. To me that is the Ben Laden family, the Bush family, Sharon (rot in hell you war criminal), weapon companies, security agencies as well as oil and steel industries. You're all crooks!

Please leave all this conspiracy theory thing to your right-wing counterparts; it&#39;s their trademark and reason to live: "It was the ZOG&#33;" <_<
Yeah right, that or the freakin martians...

[Dimentio]

Read Encyklopedia Dramatica&#39;s entry on 9/11. It was Hulk Hogan who did everything :ph34r:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:56 pm
What is completely ridiculous if you ask me, is that Popular Mechanics should be used as a substitute for an independent inquiry.
Everybody else: Popular Mechanics is far from the only source.

Peacenicked: keeps going on about Popular Mechanics - as he admits himself, like a broken record. Maybe he&#39;s really a robot?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 09, 2006 05:26 pm
In my personal opinion, there is a strong possibility that Bush and his cronies KNEW about the attacks but did nothing to stop them, knowing that it would help them implement their policies. But we need hard evidence to prove this possibility.
That&#39;s more rationally possible. Conceivably, only a few people would have to be in the loop on something like that, so it&#39;d be a secret that someone could hope to keep.

The problem is, this has been very thoroughly investigated without turning up any evidence they knew, that it was reported to them.

The Democrats have been very big on trying to prove the contention that the Bush administration through incompetence or distraction "failed to protect America". The ruling class generally has emphasized all the cases where the different cop and spy agencies failed to share information, in order to break down all the laws set up after COINTELPRO was exposed.

Some pieces of evidence have been very well-publicized, like the famous memo "Bin Laden determined to attack inside America." Some of the stuff the different spy agencies knew without reporting it to each other. None of it adds up to anyone "knowing about the attacks" exactly.

If that evidence existed, the Democrats would go to town with it, probably as evidence of incompetence. It wouldn&#39;t damage any shared ruling-class interest - it would let them posture as the best defenders of that interest, aka "national security".


It is ALSO possible that the CIA instigated these attacks and actually assisted the terrorists in carrying it out. They have a history of doing this stuff.

No, they don&#39;t. Operation Northwoods was never carried out.

They have a history of all kinds of dirty tricks and provocations "in the national interest", i.e. the ruling-class interest. They don&#39;t have a history of doing things that any patriotic agent would immediately be outraged by, would consider treason. Things that directly undercut all their own self-justifications. They can&#39;t do that, because somebody would loudly blow the whistle on it.

They&#39;re plagued with enough leaks as it is. This is why this kind of thing really does seem pretty damn improbable to most sane people, despite all the revelations about government crimes.

Additionally, it does have to be pointed out that they did take a lot of economic damage in the aftermath of 9.11. That does make it improbably though not impossible that they would do this if they had a chance.

So: why isn&#39;t it enough to point out that al-Qaeda is the product of decades of imperialist intervention in the Middle East, as well as a product of the capitalist system with its inevitable wars and other armed conflcits among different groups of capitalists? Why isn&#39;t it enough to point out that capitalism will inevitably produce death and destruction, like 9/11 and worse, sooner or later in North America as well as everywhere else - unless and until it&#39;s overthrown?

Why is knowledge or complicity necessary, except for patriotic procapitalist opponents of this administration?

[cb9's_unity]

I kinda thought it was the government for a while but all the theories really can be disproven. And as leftists on this site we do have a responsibility to distrust the government but also look after the truth. We don&#39;t have to believe everything the government tells us but that doesn&#39;t mean we have to listen to everything the conspiricy theorists tell us.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 07, 2006 09:26 am
In response to the title...

What is war good for?

Absolutely everything America stands for&#33;
agree.... :D

i think that war&#39;s where american declared against what they called "terrorist" is just a veil of bush greedyness to have all of the Iraq oil.

don&#39;t you think it is? the reason i said that is why does america declare war against Iraq with the reason that they hold a mass murderer weapon that never been proofed until now? how come they didn&#39;t declare war against Korea or Russia that america had know that their have a nuclear weapon?

(ehm..sorry if my enlish is bad, hope you guys know what i meant) :rolleyes: