The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View

[CrisisPapers]

| Ernest Partridge |

This essay is guaranteed to make many readers very angry with me. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

Last month I was a guest on a progressive radio talk show. About half-way through the hour-long program, the conversation was going well, until I expressed some doubts about the "controlled demolition" hypotheses of the collapse of the World Trade Center. That comment sealed the fate of the remainder of the hour, as it prompted an unvarying succession of angry rebuttals and a deluge of alleged "facts" supporting the view that the WTC towers were brought down by pre-set demolition charges, and that the Pentagon was not struck by a Boeing 747. And so I felt obliged to take a closer look at the theories and evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

After many hours watching videos this weekend of long presentations by David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones and James Fetzer, several other videos both affirming and rejecting "the official version" (OV), and reading numerous articles, it appears to me that the OV of the destruction of the World Trade Center is not credible. Too many anomalies are not explained. A closer look at the conspiracy theories (CTs) indicates that these too can not be true. Too many improbable assumptions. Thus one must conclude that the 9/11 attack on the WTC never took place.

No wait, that's absurd. Of course it took place! So what we are left with is an abundance of contrary claims, unconfirmable "evidence" leading to utter confusion and no firm conclusions - none, that is, regarding the World Trade Center attack. The Pentagon attack, however, should present little doubt: American Airlines Flight 77 struck the building.

The Evidence Problem

All accounts of the attacks, whether the official version or any of the numerous conspiracy theories, rest upon weak evidence – "weak," that is, to all those who did not examine the evidence at the scene, or did not have access to evidence with a secure "chain of custody." For all others, including myself and presumably all who read this, the evidence is 2nd, 3rd and Nth-hand hearsay. The best evidence available to us, when relevant, are photographic and video images, and even these are subject to various interpretations.

Until recently, the public could rely on published evidence from government scientists and government-supported scientific research, as well as reputable media. But no more. We now know that the Bush Administration alters or withholds scientific reports to conform to policy, dogma and pre-conceptions. The Bushites also lie outright in defense of their policies. As for the media, even that most reliable and respected "newspaper of record," the New York Times, has become a font of misinformation, including the Clinton Whitewater non-scandal, false and misleading reports of the Florida 2000 vote count, and Judith Miller's notorious reports of Saddam's alleged WMDs.

Even so, the critical reader should be capable of identifying and dismissing bizarre assertions, such as Morgan Reynold's claim that no aircraft struck the twin towers on 9/11 – this in spite of thousands of eye-witnesses and a vast number of photo and video images.

The same critical reader can identify and set aside pronouncements that are devoid of supporting evidence, such as this narrative by James Fetzer of the fate of American Airlines Flight 77 which, if it didn't hit the Pentagon, as Fetzer contends, must be somehow accounted for:

Flight 77 went off the radar screen in the vicinity of the Kentucky/Ohio border. This whole dotted path is a hypothetical or an imaginary path that the plane may have taken, but it was not recorded on radar. And my belief is in fact the plane actually went down in the Kentucky Ohio vicinity... Then a plane, probably an A-13 Sky Warrior was substituted here very close to Washington DC.

Fetzer gives us no citation of the alleged disappearance from the radar screen. (I have heard nothing about this "radar disappearance." Have you?) Then it gets much worse: "hypothetical or imaginary path," "may have taken," "my belief." Not a shred of evidence is offered in support of this fantasy.

The World Trade Center

Much of the "evidence" presented by the WTC conspiracy theorists is demonstrably false, fallacious or irrelevant. For example:

• "The temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel." True but irrelevant. This is a persistent criticism by the CT. However, the OV does not claim that the steel melted at the impact points (melting temperature, 2700°F), only that it was weakened. The temperature sufficient to weaken steel by fifty-percent (1170°F) was well within the range of the burning jet fuel and office supplies.


• "The debris was quickly collected without inspection and shipped off to Asia for recycling." False. It was relocated to a collection site at Staten Island, where it was examined by forensic engineers, and where personal effects were identified. (Here, here, and here are three of the 54,000 Google hits from a search for "World Trade Center" and "Staten Island" and "Debris")


• "No steel frame building has ever collapsed because of a fire." Another "fact" repeatedly asserted by CT-s. Irrelevant, even if true. The WTC towers were brought down by a combination of fire and structural damage caused by the impact from the planes. (The collapse of WTC Building #7 was not caused by either fire or impact from planes - a problem for the CV which we will discuss later).

Now look very carefully at these images of the collapse of the WTC towers, here (north tower, 35:20. 36:40), here (south tower, 5:37), and here. (The numbers in parenthesis indicate the time locations in the videos). Notice that the collapse begins at the points of impact. Below the points of impact, the towers remain in place as the disintegration proceeds from the top down.

Next look at these video images of controlled demolitions (131:40) and also the collapse of WTC #7 (1:05). In all these cases, the collapse begins at the base, where the charges were set.

Assume now what your eyes plainly tell you: that (a) the collapse of each tower begins at the point of impact, and (b) that the collapse proceeds from that point downward. Next, try to weave these assumptions into the standard CT hypothesis that the towers were brought down by pre-located explosive charges. What results is this highly improbable scenario:

Charges had to be set beforehand at the points of impact, the 94th to the 98th floors of the north tower, and the 78th to the 84th floors of the south tower. Both aircraft, in stunning feats of piloting skill, succeeded in striking precisely at those pre-arranged locations. However, all charges placed below those points of impact were either duds or were insufficient to precipitate collapses. The towers stood firm as the demolition moved downward from the impact points.

In rebuttal, one might point out that the towers were supported by both the outer walls and an inner core. Might not the charges at the base have caused the collapse of the inner core, while the outer walls remained intact? This would account for the downward vertical plunge of the north tower.

Nice try, but it won't wash. If the core collapsed within, the accumulating debris from above would have demolished the outer walls below. This did not happen.

However, the official version is not without problems, and the conspiracy theory is not yet out of the contest. There remain some troubling anomalies for the OV:

Foremost among these is the collapse of WTC Building No. 7. Five hours after the towers came down, this forty story structure collapsed. And this time, as you can see here (1:05), the collapse followed the exact pattern of a controlled demolition: beginning at the base and falling uniformly on its own "footprint." The best that the OV can offer as explanation is that the foundation was weakened by fire, by seismic shock of the collapsing towers, and by the overload of debris from the towers. It is not a compelling explanation, to say the least. Perhaps this explains why an account of the collapse of WTC #7 is missing from the 9/11 Commission report.

Prof. Steven Jones, to my mind the most credible of the 911 critics, claims that melted and congealed steel was found in the rubble, and that it originated at the base of the standing buildings. The only plausible cause of melting with these properties, Jones claims, would be a high temperature explosive such as thermite. Jones is well-qualified to make this assessment. He is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with a specialty in metal-catalyzed fusion.

And this is just the beginning of a long list of anomalies that undercut the official version. Among them:

• There were numerous reports of explosions below the impact points at the time the towers were hit. Others report that there were explosions before the planes hit.


• Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were destroyed.


• When news of the attack reached the Florida school where Bush was visiting, the Secret Service failed to remove the president from that previously publicized location.


• There was a flood of "put options" (anticipations of loss) on American Airlines and United Airlines stock, within the week before 9/11.


• Several prominent individuals, among them San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and John Ashcroft were warned not to fly on 9/11. In addition, events involving other key individuals were "rescheduled" away from the WTC on 9/11.

The governments, New York City and State, and the Feds still have a lot of splainin' to do.

The Attack on the Pentagon

Unlike the WTC attacks, the Pentagon is rather simple and cut-and-dried. The official version is correct: The west side of the building was struck by American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 747. The evidence is clear, unequivocal and overwhelming. The alternative conspiracy theories (impact by a fighter plane or cruise missile) are plainly false, and at times simply pathetic.

This conclusion is compelling when we apply the "Hume test" to the conspiracy theory: namely, the improbability of CT being true, despite the evidence for OV. Specifically, for CT to be true, we must also assume that:

Hundreds of eyewitnesses on the George Washington Parkway at morning rush-hour were either (a) victims of mass-hallucination, or (b) taken aside and threatened or bribed to testify falsely that they saw a commercial aircraft.

Immediately after the impact, squads of conspirators rushed to the scene to plant body parts, personal effects, and bogus aircraft parts (some, like the engines and landing gear weighing several hundred pounds). Others dumped aviation fuel, to "falsely" suggest involvement of an airplane.

Alternatively, eyewitness testimony of those claiming to find these parts were also coerced, and published photographic evidence faked. All press reports were also concocted to give credence to the official version.

Finally, some explanation must be presented as to the fate of Flight 77 and its passengers, which somehow disappeared without any further trace at the precise time the alleged military aircraft or cruise missile approached and struck the Pentagon.

Sorry, but its just too much for me to swallow.

What Does it all Mean?

How then are we to explain the Bush Administration inaction before 9/11, and its willingness to take full advantage of this "new Pearl Harbor?" I don't know, but that doesn't keep me from speculating. So here's my hunch – and it's only a hunch which I am willing to revise or abandon if and when more evidence appears. The Busheviks were forewarned ("Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"), but they expected attacks on the scale of the USS Cole and the African embassies: perhaps a few dozen. They did not take countermeasures because they saw a policy advantage in such a "mini-Pearl Harbor." For such a purpose, the attack on The Pentagon would suffice. They did not expect the destruction of the World Trade Center. However, after 9/11 the die was cast, and so they eagerly launched their "war on terror," along with the policy outrages that were to follow: the USA PATRIOT ACT, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo. The Iraq War, we now know from Richard Clarke and the Downing Street memos, was on the drawing boards long before 9/11, awaiting just such an event to set it in motion.

All that is little more than a guess. But we can arrive at some more substantial conclusions from our unresolved examination of the 9/11 attacks.

First of all, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission is a travesty. Too many phenomena are unexplained. The evidence must be revisited and validated, and the critics' anomalies explained. And this must be done fearlessly and independently of any political biases or agendas.

Second, the critics of the official version should, as much as possible, get their facts straight, whereupon they must then cease presenting falsehoods as evidence; e.g., that the debris was shipped immediately, uninspected, to Asia; that the the OV assumes that steel melted; that no physical evidence of the plane was found at the Pentagon, etc.

Third: there is no shame in suspending belief - i.e., in being a skeptic. Conversely, it is shameful to jump to a conclusion and a conviction on insufficient and conflicting evidence. Acceptance of the official version, or conversely of the conspiracy theory, are not our only alternatives. Both views are vulnerable and leave many crucial questions unanswered. Far better that we admit to ourselves and tell the world that we simply do not know. Suspension of belief is not a conspicuously American trait. But it is a stock-in-trade of honest scholars and scientists. And it is spur to further investigation, which is most assuredly called for in this case.

Finally, partisan passions should not get in the way of a rational assessment of the evidence. Personally, my web publications testify that I yield to no one in my contempt for Bush and his crime syndicate. I would like as much as anyone to see these crimes pinned on Bush, Inc. But the evidence (however weak) is what it is.

What happened on 9/11? Who is responsible? The questions remain open even as they remain urgent. The American people deserve answers, and more immediately, competent and sustained investigation leading to these answers.

-- EP

Edited by Admin to note that Ernest Partridge has posted a supplement to this essay, which can be read on the Crisis Papers website here.

[BOHICA06]

1. Bravo ..... thank you!

[file83]

48. Bravo! He said AA 77 was a 747!! Even though it was a 757!! Yip-ee!!

:eyes:

[spooked911]

60. Indeed. GREAT ESSAY, my foot.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smoogatz]

89. Ah, well--that invalidates the whole thing then.

:rollingeyesthingy:

[Mrspeeker]

2. Its much deeper then anyone can imagine

Go to the democracy now website and go to the archives!
Do a search for the month of september 2001
The entire month is missing from the database and why? The titles are there but the files are gone!

[serryjw]

3. Most people are LIHOP

and eventially move to MIHOP. He is not discussing the 9-11 war games or the inside trading.

[colorado_ufo]

39. Or why the jets were not scrambled immediately,

and why they were not scrambled from the closest bases!

[serryjw]

41. Honestly I think they were not scambled

because they were in the middle of war games. They totowers had no idea which were part of the drill and which weren't. MIHOP!

[SpiralHawk]

4. The Pentagon

Those Bushbot neoCON jokers had nearly an hour to take action after the WTC strikes.

Why couldn't the most lavishly funded military machine ever known on Planet Earth muster even as much as a Pop Gun to defend itself?

Pathetic. Sounds to me as if Five Deferments Cheney, or even AWOL himself, planned the Pentagon "self-defense" program.

[judy]

5. This does not make me angry at all...it is very interesting.

I completely agree that there is no really solid material evidence for all the conspiracy theories, and for what happened to Flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon, how the towers collapsed, etc. I have read David Ray Griffin, and found him interesting, but there is evidence on both sides for the material stuff, and I don't know enough to judge.

However, I do believe that there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 and that BushCo is either part of it, or the instigator of it.
My evidence is undisputable, and here it is: the President of the United States, and the Vice President, have done everything they could to stop any investigation into what happened that day.

When I stop and think about what this means, how incredible this is, the only explanation I can think of is that a serious investigation would eventually uncover their complicity.

And I don't believe as others have told me that they are merely hiding their incompetence. I have not known them to ever hide their incompetence. They don't need to hide their incompetence, since they never admit to a mistake anyway.

So while I think that the material evidence needs a competent and sustained investigation, the current evidence is very convincing. It is like in a criminal investigation when the suspect refuses to cooperate with the police. Doesn't this help convince the investigator that the suspect is indeed guilty?

On Edit: and I am not even talking about things like put options on UAL, AA, and AXA, and how the money trail was never followed, and how the Alex Brown broker happens to be Buzzy Krongard of the CIA, etc. There is so much that needs to be investigated and never was.

[glitch]

36. Well said. nt

[bobbieinok]

227. bushco blocking any investigation + then alloting very little $$ to the

commission is what realy seals the deal for me too

the shuttle blowup was immediately investigated and more $$ were alloted for it than ever for 9-11 investigation

[ixion]

6. look: buildings simply do NOT fall straight down

unless it's a controlled demolition.

And while you could argue that (among so many others) it's just a 'coincidence' (what this author argues) that not one, but TWO skyscrapers collapsed at free-fall speed straight down into their footprint, I think that argument really starts sounding like self-enforced delusion as one goes on explaining how one coincidence after another just kept happening.

The chances of this happening are astronomical. Really. It doesn't take a deluge of two-step arguments, just some simple logical analysis.

[jberryhill]

33. Gravity Pulls...

...straight down.

[rman]

35. but doesn't usually cause buildings to collapse,

unless the integrity of the entire structure has been compromised, as is the case in CD.

Just -some- damage to a building does not make it collapse like a house of cards.
Just look at the other WTC buildings that were evetually taken down by CD; those were heavily damaged - far more then the towers and WTC7 - but they did not collapse.

[ixion]

38. yeah, in a vacuum

There's more than gravity involved here... inertia, among many others. ;-)

Which is precisely my point.

[jberryhill]

142. I see... so, uhmm...

...what lateral force do you suppose should have been at work to make things go sideways?

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

169. That's an eight story building...

Which appears to have failed near the bottom on one side. That is not a 100 story building which failed at around the 80th floor.

If you watch the first WTC tower collapse video, the top twenty floors or so DO rotate a bit in the direction of - surprise - the big hole where the plane went in, as the structure buckles at the point of - surprise - the big hole where the plane went in. As it rotates in the forward direction, the "hinge" gives way at the back (having been stressed by the rotation beyond the breaking point). From there, the top chunck has nowhere to go other than straight down, with each successive floor unable to support that kind of impact.

Experts do spend a lot of effort into blowing out the foundation and chopping up a building with carefully placed timed charges. The system used in the WTC towers was pretty good, considering that it had to survive the impact and explosion of an airplane, and still manage to go off right at the point where the crack pilot managed to fly that plane.

What I really don't get is "what do you need the planes for?" If you are going to go through all of that effort to run a conspiracy involving loads of potential leaky people, then why not just say that terrorists blew up the buildings? It would have looked pretty damned stupid if the guys who where supposed to hi-jack and crash the planes missed the buildings. What was the backup plan for that?

[petgoat]

171. The rotating top should have kept on rotating;

angular momentum should have been conserved. Your assumption that the hinge
is at the back is interesting. How except by explosives would you explain
the loss of core integrity at that point? NIST has not one piece of core
steel showing heating above 250 degrees C, though recovering the piece of
interest should have been easy since every piece of steel was stamped with
a unique ID number.

"what do you need the planes for?"

If the purpose of the attack was to generate terror, aircraft-as-weapons is
more effective than bombs because aircraft are ubiquitous in places with
tall buildings while bombs in buildings are rare.

Aircraft-as-weapons make civilzation seem very fragile and result in calls
for Holy War against the infidels. Bombs simply result in calls for increased
building security.

If radio beacons had been placed in the buildings, it could be that the
autopilot system was able to fly close enough to the beam to guarantee a
hit--I don't know.

[jberryhill]

174. Not when the forward lower end hit the remaining part...

...of the building it wouldn't.

I realize this can be tough to discuss textually, but as the top 20 or so floors were likely not designed to stand at a 30 degree tilt, then I would pretty much expect the thing to start breaking up as it drives its way into the remaining lower portion of the tower, which is what it looks like to me.

But I don't get your point about "it would keep rotating" anyway. What is it about a controlled demolition that would have, in your view, stopped it from rotating?

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

180. It WOULD be interesting to model

But as with various models of the Kennedy assasination showing aligment of JFK's neck, Connally's chest, and his arm, then people would fight over the model.

What gets me about armchair "the building should have" done this or that assertions, is that the events in question with respect to the towers, are thoroughly unprecedented events. The towers were of peculiar construction and these were large jet planes travelling very fast. So I am not impressed with arguments about what these towers "should" have done under the cirumstances. I have a doctorate in electrical engineering, so I am by no means an expert in building construction or demolition. But as a casual observer, it sure appears to me that the towers both fail where the airplanes hit them, and that seems like a heck of a trick to pull of if the airplanes were not related to the cause of the failure.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge shouldn't have just fallen apart in the wind either, but it did.

Whether or not any part of the upper chunk continues to rotate, or how much of that upper chunk disintegrates during the fall, is obscured by the cloud produced on the way down. I don't have a link handy, but have seen aerial post-collapse pictures which also suggest that either tower collapsed "into its own footprint" is something of an overstatement. All I am suggesting is that the rotation appears to stop when the forward-rotating part of the chunk closes the hole left by the collision - and that had to be a heck of bang on the structure below.

[petgoat]

182. According to Dr. Thomas Eagar, the architect of the

now-poo-poohed "zipper/pancake" theory, the effect of the impact of the planes
was "like a bullet hitting a tree".

The oscillation frequency after the impact remained the same as before the
impact, which suggest the structural damage was not severe.

the towers both fail where the airplanes hit them, and that seems like a
heck of a trick to pull

Access to the core columns in the impact zone seems to have been possible.
Brian Clark walked down the stairs from above the impact zone in WTC2, and he
saw only a few flames. FDNY chief Orio Palmer radioed from the impact zone
that he was going to "knock down" a couple of "isolated" fires.

This photo of WTC1 suggests it was possible there too.




Of course, planning on such access would have been unjustified. Radio control
of explosive detonation could conceivably allow the detonation of charges in
any desired sequence. Or if the planes were targeted on radio beacons placed
in the buildings, the location of the impact zone could have been predicted.

The most puzzling aspects of the collapses to me are:

1) the pulverization of the concrete so that it coated the streets four inches deep
2) the destruction of the core. I don't see how a birdsnest of collapsing tower can
knock down the 47 14" X 35" steel columns which were, at the base, built of plate
4" thick
3) the molten metal in the basement
4) the FEMA Appendix C report which shows evaporation of the steel by a sulfidation
attack which has not been explained except by Dr. Jones's suggestion that it was
through the use of thermate.

[jberryhill]

187. The final banking maneuver...

...of the second plane doesn't look like something following a radio beacon. It looks like he could have missed.

I've tried hitting the towers a bunch of times using MS Flight Simulator (before they got rid of the towers), using comparable planes and paths, and it's not as easy as you might think.

Pre-positioning something at a place where you are going to crash and airplane, and then expecting it to work, is quite an act of faith.


1) the pulverization of the concrete so that it coated the streets four inches deep

...except for the stuff that wasn't pulverized and ended up "in the footprint" of the building. You can't have it both ways, but in a controlled demolition, the goal is usually to chop the building up into chunks were it stands, and then let the chunks fall down. Why would a CD result in pulverization any more than a collapse would?

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

202. That's what I mean by "you'd expect to see"

If someone brought down a building in the largest CD of all time, "you'd expect to see" a whole lot of things you'd never seen before.

Using "excess explosives" merely increases the probability that explosives would be found. Given that an airplane impact is going to screw up anything you've installed in that area, you'd want to use as little as possible, not more.


Why would a CD result in pulverization any more than a collapse would?

Normally it wouldn't.

And that's the point. Saying "I don't think two of the tallest buildings should collapse that way" on the basis of an observed phenomenon that is no more consistent with CD than anything else, is not an argument in favor of CD.

[TrogL]

244. Ever flown a real aircraft?

It's almost nothing like Flight Simulator.

In Flight Simulator it's basically like watching a movie. In an real aircraft, you're flying yourself (and a lot of other people).

[LiberalVoice]

236. "what do you need the planes for?"

I would think it be very obvious why you would need planes rather then just blowing up the buildings. For one, if the official story said the buildings were bombed someone would have to be held accountable as to how a bunch of terrorists gained such access to the buildings.

[MervinFerd]

82. Yes, they do.

That's what gravity does.

[Twist_U_Up]

107. Not at FREE FALL speeds, sorry nice try.

[Jazz2006]

229. Oops - posted in the wrong spot - sorry about that.

[Jazz2006]

232. None of the buildings fell at "free fall speed". Sorry, nice try.

That particular myth is just another of the several strawman/red herring varieties floating around the internet.

[petgoat]

249. "That particular myth" comes from the Eagar and Musso paper

in the Journal of Metals http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html and was
repeated by NOVA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

So it's at least an honest mistake on the part of those who float it.

[ixion]

113. see my response to the other poster who thinks

that gravity works in a vacuum when a mile high building collapses straight down. :eyes:

[Jazz2006]

231. That's the problem with starting from a faulty premise.

None of the buildings fell at "free fall speed".

Nor did they fall "into their footprint" (sic).

[ixion]

267. uh, yeah they did

I'm not sure what you saw, But I saw TWO mile high scyscrapers fall straight down in a matter of seconds.

[Ian David]

7. Okay... I'm still looking for the part where he's skeptical

But in all fairness, it's more ballanced than much of what I see...

In the 9/11 forum...

where the post actually belongs.

[greyl]

205. I'm with you - not the best example of critical thinking.

There are some big ass glaring errors, especially with dr steve e jones.
oh well.

[Jazz2006]

233. Agreed. There are huge glaring errors in the supposed 'skeptical' piece.

Jones among the top ten.

I was just a bit bored tonight, though, so thought I'd wander through

:)

[petgoat]

250. Thank you for sharing. Where I went to school, we were

taught to support our opinions with cites and examples.

[The Witch]

8. K&R for more discussion of this.

I think you make a host of extremely relevant points and that your theory is as good as anyone's (if not a little better). But for an article on the front page I am surprised at how little discussion there is. Have mods warned not to debate this because it's not in the 9-11 forum? I'd love to see some back-n-forth/rebuttals.

[Notoverit]

9. Valid points, good attitude. I usually am a skeptic myself.

However, when it comes to this bunch, they lied so often and about such important things (war?) that I am willing to believe the worst about them when the facts are ambivalent. Just based on experience.

[MissWaverly]

10. Okay, I'll add my two cents

There is the timing of the World Trade Centers collapse, the towers collapsed as the same rate as free fall objects. In 10 seconds 10,000,000 feet of building ceased to exist, the only way a building can fall at free fall speeds is to have no resistance at all.

We have videotaped evidence, the buildings took 10 seconds to collapse that is an established
fact.

And while you are thinking about this, think about this one NYC had made building 7, it's
anti-terror headquarters, they had spent millions of dollars making their hq terror proof
and FEMA and many top level government offices were located in this building.

[iconoclastNYC]

73. Good point

He's oversimplifying how Controlled Destruction works to make it appear as if the visual evidence makes a CD impossible.

Clearly if you want the tower to fall collapse from the top down to make the phony "pancake theory" official seem plausible you have the charges go off on the upper floors first to cut the core columns then have blast explosives to push them off alignment and you do that in stages from top to bottom.

What gets me about CT "debunkers" is that they chastise CTers for using faulty assumptions and then in thier debunking arguments they do the very same thing.

[MissWaverly]

109. also, don't you think building 7 should have survived

esp. since they had spent 15 million to make it terror proof????

[TrogL]

114. what part of "gravity works" don't you understand?

What speed DO you expect them to fall at?

Why?

Last I checked concrete couldn't fly, otherwise we'd have a really nice, inexpensive building material for aircraft. Enough of this aluminum and titanium crap.

[LiberalVoice]

237. Hello?

We're talking about 80-90 stories of concrete and reenforced steel trusses unaffected by the collision above. Its called resistance :eyes:

[TrogL]

243. even constructed a house of cards?

One good hit and the whole thing comes down.

The point of resistance was the struts, which were weakened by the fire.

Once the first floor went the rest pancaked. The struts were barely able to support one floor never mind two.

[petgoat]

246. Ah, the "House of Cards" theory. Yes, in the 1970s, people

were so wacked out on LSD and cocaine they built 110 story buildings no better than a house
of cards.

The WTC was built for 150 mph winds.

Your pancake theory is repudiated by NIST. In fact, they have delayed their final report
and, AFAIK, outsourced the report. NIST says sagging floors buckled the perimeter columns,
but they say nothing about the pancake theory.

[petgoat]

251. Oops, it's the WTC7 report that has been outsourced, not

the twin towers report. Sorry about that.

[TrogL]

254. yeah, well they used to build them like brick shithouses

But they kept wanting to go taller so they had to build them lighter and lighter.

Certainly the WTC was built for 150 mph. winds. They even wind tunnel tested it before they built it.

That has nothing to do with being hit by a big plane and withstanding a fire.

[petgoat]

257. The core was a brick shithouse.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/construction.html

47 14" X 36" steel columns built of plate--at the bottom the plate was 4" thick.

nothing to do with being hit by a big plane and withstanding a fire.

It was engineered to take a hit from a 707, and the 767 that hit it was not much
bigger. As for the fires, most of the jet fuel burned up in the fireballs
outside the building, and the jet fuel inside burned off in ten minites, says
NIST. Do you have pictures of a blazing inferno? I haven't seen them.

[LiberalVoice]

248. House of cards?

Am I supposed to dignify that with a proper response? :wtf:

[TrogL]

256. A fine, logical rebuttal

[petgoat]

258. what do you mean by "struts"? And what do you mean by

"point of resistance"?

Does it not bother you that there were partial floor collapses before
the total collapse, and they didn't pancake the floors they collapsed
onto?

Does it not bother you that NIST rejects the pancake theory?

[leveymg]

11. A lot of people here share your broad skepticism

The official version is frankly just as absurd as the belief that loaded commercial jets disappeared into a cloudbank and were replaced by cruise missiles.

Like most of these things, the open record holds a wealth of information that hasn't been sensibly put together by the MSM, but points toward a more accurate account than the 9/11 Commission's Report. In fact, if you read the Joint Intelligence Committee report and testimony of October 2002, you can parse enough key facts so the whole thing begins to make sense. Add that to the later FBI and CIA IG reports, and a convincing picture emerges of a cover-up. But, not one involving disappearing Boeings.

Here's my effort, and a place to start: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00257.htm

[hootinholler]

12. Rec'd before it hits the dungeon.

I have no idea what is right, but where were the plane parts found at the pentagon? that is the weak link to me. How did a big plane fit into that little hole?

-Hoot

[MissWaverly]

14. You are correct, Hoot

I saw photos of men dressed in air force uniforms picking up bits of wing, that looked like extremely thin metal, about what you would see from a small commuter plane, and I saw teams of people scouring the lawn for small pieces. The lawn was in perfect shape by the way.

[LiberalVoice]

238. Exactly

Something the author never substantiates in his claim that "The official version is correct". For someone who calls himself a skeptic he sure is ready to believe a commercial airliner hit the pentagon and left no debris larger then your arm.

Not to mention the absurd notion that CT's showed up and started implanting fake evidence to suggest something other then what happened. Am I supposed to believe a bunch of civilians just walked up to the burning pentagon in front of FBI, CIA, FEMA, and pentagon officials and just started dropping fake evidence? This article is complete bullshit.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turn CO Blue]

15. I work for an airline...

and I can tell you how we are about our crews and our planes. I insist that there is NO WAY ON THIS EARTH that the employees of American Airlines (meaning ALL the mechanics, ALL the dispatchers, ALL the gate agents, ALL the pilots, ALL the cleaners, caterers, flight attendants, reservationists etc.) would EVER shut up if their plane did not actually hit the Pentagon and had been lost some other way. No way.

First off, the airline's dispatchers have live images and computer logs of the flight's progress, altitude, etc. The FAA has the same thing. Aircraft mechanics know every single screw and hose inside those planes, and keep the most meticulous records imaginable so they would feel compelled to find the truth -- and the line mechanics especially (the ones who sign off right before an aircraft takes off) would have debriefed after the emergency. If there were anything, anything at all, fishy about the live flight path or the whereabouts of one of those planes, you can bet that there would be 20,000 American Airlines employees screaming at the top of their lungs.

A plane from American Airlines hit the Pentagon. Otherwise, the American Airlines employees (especially the line mechanics and dispatchers) would tell us differently in a big, loud way. End of story.

For the rest of the 9/11 theories, I am firmly LIHOP.

[Vincardog]

17. How would the employees know what happened? If it hit Where are the pics?

[Turn CO Blue]

69. The employees who were at work that day...

who would have tracked the planes second by second would know.

Here's a for instance: At my airline we have a huge "fishbowl" where all the dispatchers work, and above them is a giant wall of TV screens -- and on those screens are the flightmaps of all of our airplanes. We know where they all are every nano-second of the day! Anyone who watches through the windows (any number of employees or visitors), plus anyone who works in dispatch (maybe 20 people at our airline, but many, many more at American -- a much larger airline) can see those planes! It's impossible to not know exactly where a plane is.

So at American, the dispatch employees would have been watching flight 77 every nano-second as it changed course, and as it headed toward its final end. They probably recorded that feed.

And let's not forget that on our Website and all the other airline's sites, anybody can get on and get REALTIME progress (updated every 10 seconds) for every single flight number. If you type in a flight number, you will see a map of the United States or Mexico, which shows you the PRECISE location of that flight number/aircraft.

[iconoclastNYC]

74. Does that data come from the FAA?

If so then who knows if what you are seeing is really there? It just exists as entries in a database, which can be manipulated at the source.

[Turn CO Blue]

85. That data exists in SEVERAL formats through SEVERAL sources.

We have air-to-ground contact that is through satellite and other means that we contract ourselves with our own vendor or group of vendors as the aircraft moves through distances -- which has nothing to do with the FAA. We use it to coordinate with our ops managers -- mundane airline business like late arrivals, catering needs, a drunk passenger, that the aft lavatory is getting stinky, or getting a wet cleanup of the vomit in seat 4D, etc. for the next arrival.

[EVDebs]

93. So, what did American Airline's employees know about wargames on 9-11?

Your hearsay about what dispatch and 'screenwatchers' all saw was based upon prior experience without wargames occuring. We NOW KNOW that wargames were ongoing during Sept. 11th and that outsourcing of some sort, according to Indira Singh the Ptech whistleblower, occurred.

A FOIA showing what Ptech was contracted to do, along with unclassified information pertaining to this outsourced work and any relationship to the wargames ongoing that day, could go a long way to sorting this out.

Unfortunately, as the ongoing CIA purge of non-Republicans within the CIA and elsewhere shows, this is not a likely possiblity.

[MissWaverly]

24. Nope

Remember when the State of Alaska had more votes than registered voters in 2004, what has everyone been told, wooo hooo! National Security, terra, terra, National Security, terra,
terra, so what if the same thing happened here. I seriously doubt that Osama had
anything to do with the Alaska elections, remember there was a terror alert in Warren
County, Ohio in 2004 also. Somehow, I don't see Osama slipping around Ohio during
the 2004 election either. But can we do talk about what did happen, oh, now, terra alert,
terra, terra, terra, national security, wooo hooo!

[EVDebs]

92. Wargames of 9-11 and FAA/Ptech involvements...

"" CIA / National Reconnaissance Office "plane into building" exercise Associated Press, August 21, 2002 simulation of a plane crash into the NRO headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) - this was not a "terrorism" exercise but it did result in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the "real" 9/11 was taking place, making it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes
Vigilant Guardian Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 3, 2002, Newhouse News, others (these articles are reproduced below) The publicly available mass media articles about these exercises state that they were similar enough to the actual events that top NORAD personnel were confused, not sure if 9/11 was "part of the drill" or a real world event.
Vigilant Warrior Richard Clark, "Against All Enemies" (March 2004) referenced by Richard Clark.
Northern Vigilance Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 "Operation Northern Vigilance, planned months in advance, involves deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska and northern Canada." This ensured that there would be fewer fighter planes available to protect the East Coast on 9/11. Simulated information was fed into radar screens - is this what confused the air defenses that morning?
Northern Guardian Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 only mention was in the early edition of this article, no details publicly available (probably related to Northern Vigilance)
Tripod II
US Department of Justice and City of New York Rudolph Giuliani's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, May 2004 biowar exercise in New York City scheduled for September 12, 2001"

from http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

and the Ptech/GoAgile curiousity, all PRE-9/11, I might add

Dubai port deal is nothing compared to Ptech
By Devlin Buckley
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 6, 2006
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_570.shtml

Combined with Greg Palast's reporting of the NSA (and FBI) 'spiking' investigations in a "policy shift", again PRE-9/11, mean that whatever American Airlines or the FAA or FAS for that matter, could have been bogus.

I might add "most likely" bogus, but that would be deductive reasoning using a preponderance of available evidence.

[rman]

134. What makes you think all employees would have to be in on it?

You seem to think that simply because people work for the same corporation that they all know everything that the corporation does, that they all know all the plans that the corporation has.

Since you've worked for a corporation, how come you don't know that's not true?

Most employees don't even know most things that the corporation they work for does that are not secret - they don't have to know everything in order to do their job. So why would everyone have to know if there is a conspiracy? All it takes is a few people in key positions.

How would a cleaner even know what actually happened to one of the many planes that they have cleaned?

[MellowOne]

255. I'm a former airline employee as well

I agree with your post especially this part:

For the rest of the 9/11 theories, I am firmly LIHOP.

[Vincardog]

16. Hey Crisis can you go as far as Glad It Happened?

[GuvWurld]

18. The official version is also a conspiracy theory

I don't know why anyone who is attempting to be objective, that is, reviewing alternate explanations of 9/11 without prejudice or immediate dismissal, would distinguish between such analyses and the official version by calling only one side conspiracy theories. The OV is every bit the CT as the skeptics' interpretations of events.

I will not be offering any conclusions myself because I see the unknowns of 9/11 fitting into a broader pattern of inherent uncertainty. That's what we get from unverifiable voting, leaders who flatly contradict themselves, scrubbed or disappeared official reports, government funded media, denial of observable scientific fact, and on and on. In so many ways, we can't know what to believe.

It has clearly been the intention of this administration to create a rift in the perception of reality. The idea of a culture war, or a red state/blue state divide can also be called a Cold Civil War that has been created and fueled by the intentional creation of inherent uncertainty where neighbors argue with neighbors about the very nature of reality. The truth about 9/11 will never be known with certainty, by design.

This is a central premise in Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution.

[petgoat]

21. Perception of Reality

An important point, Guv, and one worthy of its own thread.

The Bushcist faithful will not read the NYT, WaPo, will not watch CNN or CBS
because they think the "liberal media" are full of lies.

The Bushcists try to weaken our faith in science. They try to weaken our faith
in rationality and create a culture that regards every assertion as merely an
opinion, which everyone has, so all opinions are equal, so there's no point in
trying to discuss anything and arrive at any progress about our understanding
of reality.

[Sinti]

26. Thanks for the good read

"Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution"

It's excellent. I just wish the term "Peak Oil" would be replaced with something a bit less alarmist. I saved it, and am going to make others read it (under duress if necessary ;) )

[GuvWurld]

27. Thanks Sinti. Also check out my new book, We Do Not Consent.

Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution (.pdf) is the last chapter in my new book We Do Not Consent (.pdf). Both are free downloads. See the top of the GuvWurld Blog for a very special way that you can help support hard copies of the book getting into the hands of progressive media.

[K-W]

149. Damn straight. EOM

[Sinti]

19. A genuine, unbiased, and brutally honest investigation must be done

by and with absolute experts in various fields. Even then we may never know the whole truth about 9/11. There is so much poison in the well, you can smell it just getting close. And every drop of disinfo is used in an almost knee-jerk reaction to discredit a lot of factual information that's been presented alongside it.

"The American people deserve answers, and more immediately, competent and sustained investigation leading to these answers." Absolutely, it's a gross miscarriage of justice that there has been none.

[MissWaverly]

30. Everyone should be encourage to testify on tape

and it should be televised live, enough of these secret meetings and that's classified, we
need to know if these buildings are vulnerable to terror attack, will a steel building fall
due to fire, if that's what happened, then it seem like we should be changing our building
standards, we can't say it will never happen again. The World Trade Center was attacked twice.

[petgoat]

20. Thank You for a Thoughtful Essay

Welcome to LIHOP, Mr. Partridge.

You've done very well to absorb and evaluate so much information
in a few days. Thank you for taking the time to consider the
evidence and come to your own conclusions.

I hope a few points will make you less skeptical of us skeptics and
more skeptical of the official story (and I promise not to try to
defend any no-planes theory).

Your bulleted points about the melting of steel and destruction of the
steel both need to be considered in light of the fact that NIST, the
most recent official analyst of the WTC collapses, has not one piece of
core steel showing temperatures above 250 degrees C. There is thus no
evidence that fire weakened the steel. The fact that steel was
accumulated at Staten Island before being shipped off to China is
beside the point. Since every piece of steel had a stamped ID number,
the pieces from the fiery floors should have been easy to recover but
they were not.

Your bulleted conclusion that the building was brought down by fires and
structural damage seems somewhat hasty since I doubt you have had time
to review the FEMA/ASCE reports and the NIST report. That period of
oscillation of the buildings after the aircraft impacts was the same as
it was before the impacts suggests that no structural damage of consequence
occurred. Dr. Thomas Eagar, the architect of the widely accepted (though
repudiated by NIST) zipper/pancake collapse theory characterized the impact
of the planes as "like a bullet hitting a tree". How did asymmetrical fires
and asymmetrical structural damage cause a symmetrical collapse? Do you
know Brian Clark walked down from the 84th floor of WTC2 and saw only a
few flames? Do you know FDNY's chief Orio Palmer reached the impact zone
on 78 and saw only a couple of isolated fires?


The fact that controlled demolitions are normally done from the bottom up
does not foreclose on the possibility that controlled demolition from the
top down brought the towers down. The aircraft could have been targeting
on radio beacons placed in the towers. Computerized radio control of
demolition charges would have allowed reprogramming of the charge sequence
to fit the location of the charges.

Some of your other objections to the CD hypothesis I think reflect your
misunderstanding of it. The theory as I understand it is that the charges
were set off at the time of collapse, not the time of impact. the theory is
also that the south tower fell first, though it was struck second, because
the fires in it were going out so the charges had to be set off prematurely.

Finally, thank you for your point about suspension of belief. Given the
great lack of evidence, there is far too much belief on all sides of these
issues. Some people fervently believe controlled demolition for the same
reason other people fervently reject it--because they think it proves MIHOP.
It doesn't. CD could have been done by al Qaeda operatives who rented offices
in the building and installed explosives in the elevator shafts at night.
Maybe the fact of CD is being covered up to spare Marvin Bush's security
company embarrassment (rather than to spare it exposure of its complicity).

If things are half as crazy as they seem, things could get very very ugly
in the next thirty or forty years. Let's all try to be as dispassionate and
rational as we can.

[Beam Me Up]

22. Why isn't this in the 9/11 forum where it belongs?

That is where every post I've ever made about 9/11 to GD ended up. Why isn't this one there, too?

[Sinti]

23. Shhhhh... maybe they won't notice and send us to our rooms n/t

[Pissed Off Cabbie]

42. Answer

The answer is that it splinters further the 9/11 truth movement.

[file83]

49. The guy doesn't even get the most basic facts right...

...for instance, umm, he says TWICE that American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon was a 747. Wrong - it was a 757. So, tell me, how does this pathetic editorial "splinter" the truth movement if he can't even get the basic facts right? :eyes:

[Pissed Off Cabbie]

50. He's a straw man...

that gives rise to critique.

[Pissed Off Cabbie]

52. It's a clever diversion

keeping the debate focused around how the buildings came down, or what hit the pentagon, rather than on Building 7. There is much that needs to be answered for, but there never seems to be any traction for it, as the discussion is always led back to the fall of the towers.

That debate should actually be far down the list after Building 7, the put options, the secret service delay in moving Bush, etc. In the end, it would matter not at all how the towers came down.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbieinok]

226. it attacks many criticisms of the official 9-11 story

[iamahaingttta]

25. I watched it happen...

I live in Brooklyn, and was headed to the subway to go to work. When I got to the corner, people were standing around watching the first tower burn. In that moment, the second tower was hit. Naturally, the words that came out of my mouth were "Holy Fucking Shit!"

I turned around and practically ran the three blocks back to my apartment. In that time, these three thoughts went through my head:

1. This was the work of Islamic terrorists.
2. The Bush administration was complicit, and will use this as an excuse to invade Iraq.
3. Everything has just changed. It's a different world now.

Nothing in the intervening years has changed my position on any of those three notions.

I got back home and turned on the TV. My wife was home, sick in bed. She was nearly instantly cured! We watched the TV for a while, and then went back to the corner where we could see the buildings burning. A little while later, the first tower collapsed. Naturally, the first words out of my mouth were "Holy Fucking Shit, did you see that? It looked like what happens when they implode a building! It went straight down!" We then went back home and turned the TV on. Shortly afterwards, the second tower came down in the same fashion.

Nothing in the intervening years has changed my position that it was a controlled demolition.

Hey, but what do I know? I'm just a guy...

[MissWaverly]

29. mystery planes

First we heard that there was a plan to paint a US plane like a UN plane and have Sadaam shoot
it down.

Then we have the confiscation of a cocaine shipment on a plane that was painted to look like
a US govt. plane.

Then we have people renditioned on planes from the US which is denied but later tracked by
the serial numbers spotted on the planes.

In every instance (or in the rendition cases - hundreds of times); you have cases where planes were used to trick us about possible entry into war, movement of people and things that no one wanted us to know about.

These planes were used for deception, now I believe that this is all part of a pattern and the
4 planes of 9-11 fit in here, there are just too many details that don't fit, like the low
jet plane that crashed into the Pentagon that was low enough to shear off light poles but did
not damage the lawn and did not destroy the top floor of the building.

What I have been thinking is, why couldn't a smaller plane than AA77 be painted to look like
it, and that smaller plane (commuter plane, military plane, drone?) fly into the Pentagon.

[petgoat]

31. So are you saying Islamic terrorists used explosives to

demolish the towers?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

34. Okay, and then FEMA and NIST are covering up the

demolition because it looks so bad.

That would explain also why the explosive overkill. The insurance companies would have
wanted sufficient explosives to turn the towers to dust, assuming that they started to
topple before the explosives could be set off.

[iamahaingttta]

62. Sorry...

I tried to answer your question, but it was deleted.

[petgoat]

96. Thanks for trying. I saw your answer. I'm surprised that they

deleted your speculative theory and not my exploration of a couple of its corollaries.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[MervinFerd]

108. Actually, that's more plausible than a Gov't agency.

Bunches of CIA guys in trenchcoats carrying boxes of explosive into the bldg would attract attention, don't you think?

OTOH, a few middle eastern men working in the custodial staff could do about anything.

It's a bit scary, actually.

[MissWaverly]

112. Well the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building was

made in the USA, by our own little bunch of extremists, why is it not possible to believe that
some nut jobs for a purpose which is at this point unknown did this and that the arabs were
the ones that were set up to take the blame.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

97. NIST doesn't buy the pancake theory either.

Their theory is that heat-damaged trusses caused sagging floors.
Now instead of FEMA's flimsy truss clips that cause the floors to
just "unzip," we've got truss clips so strong that the saggy floors
pull the perimeter columns inward, buckling them.

Most of the jet fuel burned up in the fireball outside the buildings.
NISt says the jet fuel burned off in ten minutes.

[MissWaverly]

110. it's on its way to my house

I ordered the original one not a bootleg copy.
:-)

[iconoclastNYC]

124. The people who made it

Allow it to be freely copied. So there are no bootleg copies.

[MissWaverly]

159. Well, that's a good thing then

I got mine today, so I'll watch it this evening.

:-)

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TrogL]

148. Fallacy of the undivided middle

All cows are blue.
My dog is blue.
Therefore, my dog is a cow.

That's the basic syllogism for the fallacy of the undivided middle. In short, if it's blue, it must be a cow, leaving out the possiblity that other things can be blue.

The CD conspiracy contains the same logical fallacy.

It looked like what happens when they implode a building! It went straight down!

Hence, any building falling straight down must be by controlled demolition, ignoring that there has been no recorded instance of gravity working sideways or buildings flying.

The purpose of imploding a building is so that it collapses exactly in its own footprint without getting a scratch on surrounding buildings. They imploded a building here in town and the contractor got in trouble because he bent a lamp post next to the building.

The Twin Towers did not fall in their own footprint. They caused plenty of damage to surrounding buildings.

[scarletwoman]

28. Many thanks for an excellent dispassionate analysis.

K & R.

Not angry at all. Nothing is more valuable than well-reasoned skepticism.

Thank you again,
sw

[rman]

37. If only for the lack of a single conclusive official explanation

for the collapse of the towers and WTC7 - the NIST and FEMA reports contradict on another wrt the collapse initiation mechanism - which is nevertheless presented as the official explanation...
That is extremely suspicious to say the least, and i think it is indicative of a coverup.

[Independent_Liberal]

40. Thank you Mr. Partridge.

I've been wanting to hear your thoughts on this.

[Catrina]

43. The single, loudest alarm bell for me, weeks after it happened, was

the Bush administration's refusal to conduct an investigation into the biggest crime ever committed against the US on its own soil.

Until I read that the Bush administration had asked Tom Daschle not to hold an investigation, I really wasn't suspicious, although I did find it amazing that all three buildings fell the way they did. As I watched the first tower fall that morning, I remember screaming 'oh no, it's going to fall over and land on other buildings'. It didn't, amazingly it feel in on itself. I was relieved.

I don't know if anyone here was ever at the WTC. Those towers were HUGE. They covered an enormous area, each one of them. It boggles my mind that one plane could take them down.

I don't understand physics, nor do I know what really happened that day. But I do know that the Bush administration did not want an investigation, and that makes zero sense. Every single person I know (one of my neighbors died that day in the WTC) expected, took for granted that there would be an investigation. It seemed it would be automatic. The Fire Dept. was forbidden to do their usual investigation which they do after any fire. Why?

I don't have any answers, just dozens of questions and I do believe that something very sinister, not what we've been told, happened that day. And that scares me and a lot of other people, because it could happen again.

That's why we do need a thorough investigation, with everyone out in the open, under oath, no more secrets, no more special treatment for anyone who was responsible for the security of the country ~ I don't understand why this hasn't already happened.

The so-called investigation was a total frustration. Time was limited for questions, and people like Giuliani eg, used up the time, patting themselves on the back. Whatever time it takes to get the answers, is what should be allowed. The whole thing was a travesty, and people know things they have not revealed, imo.

[mimitabby]

105. good post, Catrina!

you hit it square center.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

216. What Catrina said

When the towers began falling, I, too, was worried that they'd topple and hit other buildings (that's what happened to buildings in Kobe, Japan, during the 1995 earthquake, for example).

The towers WERE huge. In about 1976, I went down to Lower Manhattan to see them with a group of friends one night when we were all slightly drunk, so it didn't matter that nothing was open. We went at stood at the corner of one of the towers (can't remember which one), and I was amazed that the corner pillar, which so large that I couldn't get my arms around the exposed part, went to the vanishing point as you looked upwards.

I'm no physicist, but one would think that a tall building hit from the side by a plane at top speed would be affected in the following ways:

1) The building would be destabilized in the direction away from the impact, so that the floors above the impact area would be in danger of falling off the top, partly weakened by the flames (which would rise).

2) If the impact was hard enough, the rest of the building would go into a Leaning Tower of Pisa tilt.

Remember the video made by the French brothers? The part that made me stop and say, "Whoa! Wait a minute!" came when they were talking to some of the people doing salvage work. One of the men remarked that in a building full of about 100 floors of offices, you'd expect to find pieces of desks and filing cabinets and computers in the rubble. Instead, the largest identifiable piece of office equipment he had found was a telephone keypad. Think about that one.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. thank you very much

I've tried to look at the prominent conspiracy theories surrounding the more extreme end of 911 and I agree that there are indeed many puzzling questions. But real live conspiracies like Watergate or Abramhoff scandal are left with lots and lots of traces and can be empirically confirmed. Monkey business done in Florida during the 2000 election such as the removal of names from voter roles was confirmed by documentation. People talk. There are events like the CIA funded wars in Central America. But again these can be verified by neutral sources. So, they are not conspiracies like the ones mentioned. To pull off major a grand conspiracies 911 would require thousands of people keeping quiet. This is implausible.

You are not simply representing an establishment point of view. Even the most prominent leftist-perhaps far leftist-intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn or Alexander Cockburn do not except these conspiracies as plausible either.

Most importantly conspiracy theory diverts attention from any real institutional analysis of what is going on and why. If events can be explained as the action of secret cabals of evil men plotting evil analysis of event is frozen and in some cases action is is immobilized.

for a left-wing argument against conspiracy theory thinking I would like to recommend the article below from Z Magazine (unless one thinks Z Magazine is in on it too) :

http://www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm

Conspiracies Or Institutions: 9-11 and Beyond by Stephen R. Shalom
& Michael Albert

snip:"First, the evidence conspiracy theories reveal can identify actual events needing other explanation. More, describing the detailed entwinements can become addictive. We find one puzzle and then another and another to uncover. The appeal is of the mysterious. It is dramatic, vivid, and human. And we can make steady progress, like in a murder investigation. Finally, the desire for retribution fuels forays into personal detail. It is a journalistic task with clear parameters and obvious satisfaction to be had, unless, of course, one rejects the entire premise, logic, method, and prioritization.

Second, conspiracy theories have manageable implications. They imply that all was well once and that it can be okay again if only the conspirators can be removed. Conspiracy theories explain ills without forcing us to disavow society's underlying institutions. They allow us to admit horrors and to express our indignation and anger or undertake vendettas, but without rejecting the basic norms of society. We discover that a particular government official or corporate lawyer is bad, but the government and law per se remain okay. We urge getting rid of bad apples, but leaving the orchard intact. All this is convenient and seductive. We can reject specific candidates but not government, specific CEOs but not capitalism, specific writers, editors, and even owners of periodicals, but not mainstream media. We can reject vile manipulators, but not basic institutions. And we can continue to appeal to the institutions for recognition, status, or payment.

Third, and least likely among Leftists, conspiracy theory can provide an easy and quick outlet for pent-up passion withheld from targets that seem unassailable or that might strike back. This is conspiracy theory turned into scapegoat theory. Some minority, some enemy, is tarred, and the talons are unleashed. Racism and conspiracies have long gone together, if not universally, certainly frequently.

Evaluating all this, it would be bad enough if conspiracy theorizing just attuned people to search after coteries while ignoring institutions, thereby reducing energies applied to useful ends as in the wasteful misallocation of energies of the many Kennedy assassination theorists of past decades. At least in that case the values at play could be progressive and we could hope, however faintly, that people involved would in time gravitate toward real explanations of more structural and important phenomena. But the sad fact is that the effects of adopting a conspiracy theory orientation can be and often are still worse."

snip:"Conspiracy theories often lead Leftists to establish connections to or tolerate alliances with right-wing crazies. One of the authors of this article was handed a stack of materials by a Leftist conspiracy enthusiast that included print-outs from Public Action, Inc. (http://www.public-action.com/), which, in addition to its 9-11 conspiracy claims, has links to many Holocaust denial sites. This is regrettably typical. "

snip:"Conspiracy theories lead us to counterproductive and wrong priorities. There are many pressing issues for U.S. Leftists today -- preventing war in Iraq, restraining Israeli aggression, fighting the assault on civil liberties, exposing the phony U.S.-Russian nuclear arms deal, and so on. Unfortunately too many Leftists have gotten wrapped up in supporting the... campaign to investigate what Bush knew and when. Just in the past few weeks, how much energy from people well on the Left has gone to the Bush question, with no credible gains, and away from directions where our energies are sorely needed? Leftists have gone from planning teach-ins on the Mideast to planning gatherings to talk about the detailed claims of who knew what when. (In fact, if we were to apply the "who benefits?" principle, we might ask whether conspiracy theorizing itself is a plot by the CIA to distract us all from the struggle against globalization? Imagine debating that conspiracy theory, hour after hour, and then debating about debating about....)

Conspiracy theorists cause the Left not to be taken seriously. Much of the public finds conspiracy theories loony. This is true of course, about lots of Left ideas, but (a) most Left ideas are true, unlike a lot of the conspiracy theories, and (b) most Leftists take their Left politics seriously. But on a certain level, many conspiracy theorists give the impression that they are playing games. Do they really believe what they write? If we thought the government was run by out-of-control murderers with immense power who would stop at nothing to get their way, would we be hanging around writing articles? Or would we be underground? Which is the appropriate response if one expects an imminent fascist takeover?"

read full article:

http://www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm

____________________




http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Beam Me Up]

51. You have made an assumption which may not be true:

But real live conspiracies like Watergate or Abramhoff scandal are left with lots and lots of traces and can be empirically confirmed. Monkey business done in Florida during the 2000 election such as the removal of names from voter roles was confirmed by documentation. People talk. There are events like the CIA funded wars in Central America. But again these can be verified by neutral sources. So, they are not conspiracies like the ones mentioned. To pull off major a grand conspiracies 911 would require thousands of people keeping quiet. This is implausible.

Indeed, real live conspiracies do leave plenty of evidence and I suspect this is true of 9/11 as well. Problem is, we've not been shown any by sources that people consider "credible." (I no longer consider corporate owned information sources 'credible', myself, but that is another matter.) Does that mean that such evidence doesn't exist? Did evidence exist prior to our knowing about it regarding Watergate and the Abramholff scandal (to name but two)? Of course it did, only we didn't know anything about it. But then someone or 'something' brought it forward and used that information to change the course of history.

There are all kinds of things that can 'change the course of hisotry', you know.

Some of us have come to believe there is an element within the Federal government that is covert, enmeshed within the national security apparatus, quasi-military, immune from Congressional oversight and is currently being used by some very evil people for purposes that anyone with a sane mine would fear to guess. If you read PNACs white paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," published just one year before 9/11, you'll see they mention all kinds of things they'd like to do: Develop gene specific bioweapons for example. Everyone poo poo's the notion, but it is there in black and white signed by many prominent members of the current administration, iced off with the oft quoted: “The process of transformation,” i.e., their radical imperialist agenda backed up by an invisible military operating from space stations (I'm not making this up), “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

We all like to believe that we control our government but even the barest glance shows us that this is simply not the case. Yes, we 'try' to, but we don't; especially not since 2000. Why? And why is it that no one, even in the media, has come forward with any evidence of exactly the kind of conspiracy you are speaking of regarding 9/11? Is it simply because 9/11 is not such a conspiracy? Yet we all know there are 'holes' in the story and that it has not been investigated as it should be. Why not?

Let me put it to you this way: If they are capable of murdering a president, a presidential candidate, a revered civil rights leader and humanitarian, engage in numerous 'terrorist' actions both here and abroad over the course of decades -- and get away with it (which they have) -- might you not 'think twice' before coming out with concrete information of the kind you say you need? Don't think for a second there aren't people who have it. They do have it. But they can not come forward until it is safe to do so. They are waiting for US to make it safe for them and we can not do that so long as everyone is parroting the same old trite talking points that make 'conspiracy theories' a derogatory term.

Conspiracies do exist. They are not anything new. Neither are their dynamics particularly obscure. It is always a matter of who you choose to believe.

Question for you: Who received the anthrax letters? Ok, now: What persons have been identified and held accountable for those attacks? Do you really believe it is because the FBI hasn't a clue?

Really??

Some of us have come to suspect that 9/11 was a covert operation meant to do precisely what it has done: Create the social conditions necessary for radical changes in domestic and foreign policy. Some of us saw this coming years before it happened. Some of us fear that unless this is exposed and brought to light and dealt with publicly by the American people, what is yet to come will make the devastation we've seen so far (9/11, Katrina) look like a picnic.

...knowledge brings responsibility. If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world's most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world's only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people's votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don't live in a particularly democratic system. And then voting and making contributions and trying to stay informed wouldn't be enough. Because then the duty of citizenship would go beyond serving as a loyal opposition, to serving as a "loyal resistance"—like the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, except that in this case the resistance to fascism would be on the side of the national ideals, rather than the government; and a violent insurgency would not only play into the empire's hands, it would be doomed from the start.

Forming a nonviolent resistance movement, on the other hand, might mean forsaking some middle class comfort, and it would doubtless require a lot of work. It would mean educating ourselves and others about the nature of the truly apocalyptic beast we face. It would mean organizing at the most basic neighborhood level, face to face. (We cannot put our trust in the empire's technology.) It would mean reaching across turf lines and transcending single-issue politics, forming coalitions and sharing data and names and strategies, and applying energy at every level of government, local to global. It would also probably mean civil disobedience, at a time when the Bush regime is starting to classify that action as "terrorism." In the end, it may mean organizing a progressive confederacy to govern ourselves, just as our revolutionary founders formed the Continental Congress. It would mean being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves.

It would be a lot of work. It would also require critical mass. A paradigm shift.

Paranoid Shift

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. to carry out such grand conspiracies as some are suggesting

would require a lot more people than the question over the anthrax letters. Such grand conspiracies would require thousands perhaps tens of the thousands of willing accomplices.

Again the major point is do we evaluate the real driving forces of American foreign and for that matter domestic policy or do we assume that it is only secret cabals of evil people?

"It’s always intriguing to talk about conspiracies. But it’s a diversion from real issues. They are attractive because they simplify problems and enable people to focus on a handful of people instead of on complex causes."----Professor Howard Zinn - Author A People’s History of the United States

link:

http://perspectives.anarchist-studies.org/13zinn.htm
_________________




http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Beam Me Up]

55. Again, your assumption.

would require a lot more people than the question over the anthrax letters. Such grand conspiracies would require thousands perhaps tens of the thousands of willing accomplices.

That's all it is, an assumption on your part. Others believe it could be far, far fewer people. Most would simply be 'following orders' without a need to know more than what was right in front of them.

[rman]

59. Compartmentalized, like the mafia and the army

So for starters, only a few people know the whole plan. Many of those who helped in the execution of the plan did so simply by doing their job - they don't need to know. For instance, someone tells NORAD to stand down, maybe some upper brass in NORAD is in on it - but everyone else just follows orders.
All those who know they are involved in something fishy gain from it and would implicate themselves if they'd talk.
All in all there don't need to be very many individuals who both know enough to have anything substantial to say and who would want to talk.

Then there are some who are not in on it but who have suspicions - for instance Sibel Edmonds. They talk, but hardly anyone listens.

Also any conspiracy that is exposed after the fact, is mission accomplished. More often then not very few perpetrators are convicted.

[petgoat]

99. You don't even need a stand-down order. Just disrupt the

air defense with the war games. Then nobody can talk about the war games, 'cause
they're classified.

The "conspiracy of tens of thousands" argument is an absurd straw man.

[dajudem]

45. wtc

What!? Nothing about the 4000 Jews!? No conspiracy theory is complete without getting a Jew (or Jews) to blame, lol! Obviously the author of this theory is wrong.

And while I'm at it, it seems like all the flaws are pointed out and yet the dots, if they are there, are not connected. If the story is not as the majority of Americans believe it to be, ie what it appears to be; then what the devil is it? Who did it and why?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Twist_U_Up]

58. Great Post B-M-U. Here is a song for you

As a matter of fact if you google Rush lyrics,I think that they speak your language.

Here is a teaser:

RUSH
Witch Hunt

The night is black
Without a moon.
The air is thick and still.
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torchlit hill.

Features distorted in the flickering light,
The faces are twisted and grotesque.
Silent and stern in the sweltering night,
The mob moves like demons possesed.
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right,
Confident their ways are best.

The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will.
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill.

They say there are strangers who threaten us,
In our immigrants and infidels.
They say there is strangeness too dangerous
In our theaters and bookstore shelves.
That those who know what's best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves.

Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand...

[Beam Me Up]

67. Thanks, twist-you-up.

:thumbsup:

[Beam Me Up]

66. Edit:

That obviously should have been "Commonwealth Club" . Sorry, my bad.

[dajudem]

103. as a matter of fact I have looked...

I have read much of it before. This story is as old as 9-11 itself. Frankly it is older. But I asked a couple of simple questions and I got a bunch of links for my trouble. Can't you answer as simply? The questions were: "Who did it and why?"

[Twist_U_Up]

106. Well first we could start with a real investigation.

not some half baked farce of a crony commission.

And then we could get into some of the real questions that these scum of an administration avoided answering,like these:

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

[Beam Me Up]

115. Good grief.

So, if you've read the links, then you already know the answer. Why ask me to repeat it? How much power and how many hundreds of billions would you be willing to commit mass murder for -- assuming you were in a position to do so and get away with it?

[file83]

47. Skeptic, eh? Flight AA 77 was a Boeing 757, not a 747.

You made that mistake twice - and you call Conspiracy Theorists "pathetic"?

I won't even begin to get into your analysis. :eyes:

[OneBlueSky]

53. I won't refute all of your points, although all are easily refutable . . .

(just don't have the time right now) . . .

I will say that your analysis ignores a LOT of evidence that points to the "official" story being impossible . . . for example, what kind of heat does it take to create puddles of molten steel that smoldered in the basements of the WTC building FOR WEEKS? . . . and how is it that large pieces of the Pennsylvania plane were found MILES away from the supposed crash site? . . .

I could go on and on and on, but suffice to say that a thorough examination of all available evidence leads me, at least, to conclude that the official story is bullshit . . . I can't tell you what DID happen -- but I'm pretty sure what DIDN'T . . .

[file83]

56. Did you notice how he got the model of the plane for AA 77 wrong?

He said TWICE that it was a 747 but it was really a 757. That's a stupid error. This guy calls Conspiracy Theorists "pathetic" but HE can't even get the model of the plane right - this guy has no clue of what he's talking about.

[Twist_U_Up]

57. what a joke

Greatest page huh.......

:shrug: :rofl:

Why ? The 9-11 forum has come up with MUCH more solid arguments than this post by FAR. But we are not allowed to vote on those. :banghead:

Usually the mention of nine eleven gets these type posts sent immediately to the dungeon.

It is apparent that a mod has been monitoring this post with name and post deleting in the thread,but the post is allowed to stay. I wonder why that is ?
:sarcasm:

But as long as we are here I would like to add this.

Below are excerpts from the lists of questions the Family Steering Committee has submitted to the 9/11 Commission.

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Members include:
Carol Ashley, mother of Janice Ashley, 25
Fred Alger Management, 93rd floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Rockville Centre, NY
Member: Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Voices of September 11th,


Kristen Breitweiser, wife of Ronald Breitweiser, 39
Fiduciary Trust International, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: Middletown Township, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates


Patty Casazza, wife of John F. Casazza, 38
Cantor Fitzgerald, 104th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Colts Neck, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates


Beverly Eckert, wife of Sean Rooney
Aon, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: Stamford, CT
Member: Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Coalition of 9/11 Families,
Families of September 11th, Fix the Fund, 9/11 Families for a Secure America,
9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, 9/11 Families to Bankrupt Terrorism


Mary Fetchet, mother of Bradley James Fetchet, 24
Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, 89th floor, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: New Canaan, CT
Chair, Voices of September 11th
Member: Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Coalition of 9/11 Families,
LMDC Families Advisory Council


Monica Gabrielle , wife of Richard Gabrielle
Aon, WTC Tower Two
Hometown: Manhattan, NY and CT
Co-Chair, Skyscraper Safety Campaign


Bill Harvey, husband of Sara Manley Harvey, 31
Fred Alger Management, 93rd floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Manhattan, NY
Member: Voices of September 11th


Mindy Kleinberg, wife of Alan Kleinberg, 39
Cantor Fitzgerald, 104th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: East Brunswick, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates


Carie Lemack, daughter of Judy Larocque
Market Perspectives; passenger, American Airlines Flight 11
Hometown: Cambridge, MA
Co-Founder and Vice-President, Families of September 11th


Sally Regenhard, mother of Christian Michael Otto Regenhard, 28
Probationary Firefighter, L131, Red Hook, missing at WTC
Hometown: Bronx, NY
Founder and Chairperson, Skyscraper Safety Campaign
Member: Coalition of 9/11 Families, 9/11 Families for a Secure America,
LMDC Families Advisory Council


Lorie Van Auken, wife of Kenneth Van Auken, 47
Cantor Fitzgerald, 105th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: East Brunswick, NJ
Co-Chair, September 11th Advocates


Robin Wiener, sister of Jeffrey Wiener, 33
Marsh Risk Technologies, 96th floor, WTC Tower One
Hometown: Washington, D.C.
Board Member, Families of September 11th
Member: Voices of September 11, Give Your Voice,
WTC United Family Group

[petgoat]

100. Thanks for Posting the Family Members' Questions

Here two of the widows, Lorie van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg rate the Commission's
responses.

They'd been promised that the questions would serve as a "road map" for the
investigation; most of their questions were not even addressed. Pretty shabby
way to treat the widows. I guess the government figures all it owed them was
a big fat hush money payment and all the prescription tranquilizers they can eat.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

119. I noticed that, it's pretty obvious what has been going on here.nt

[Festivito]

63. I theorize a conspiracy on a conspiracy theory. (CoCT)

(Three French books: One on 9/11 LIHOP, one on 9/11 MIHOP, one on the MIHOP book as a CoCT.)

First, sadly, it happened. The WTC fell, the Pentagon was hit, a mid-flight plane crashed; people died, endured harm, and all of us continue to endure harm from these events. And, I wish everyone some healing.

Certainly there was a conspiracy to effect the events of 9/11/01. We only question how deep how far how broad is this conspiracy or are several conspiracies.

Several IHOPs (it Happened on Purpose), Made it (MIHOP), Helped it (HIHOP), Let it (LIHOP), and others now dropped, attempt to describe in short simple acronym what should be thousands upon thousands of pages of description and of a mountainous supply of opinions. Inaccurate because there are still arguments about which mean what.

I hold LIHOP. That there was prior knowledge inside the Bush administration that something big was going to happen and that by any or all of thwarting investigations, slowing translations, making a ruse terrorism practice, keeping a president in low buildings, and more -- let it happen, and let it happen on purpose. At minimum this needs to be investigated.

Let me add now that the Republicans/Conservatives/RW/etcetera will say and do anything to gain and stay in power and money. This includes muddying the waters of information with too much information, over-the-top information. This is where I place MIHOP, as extra, as contrived information created in order to muddy the discussion about 9/11. Created in order to give RW pundits fodder for their sarcasm toward those left of themselves.

I think there are some good people who hold to this MIHOP. I just hope they realize that some of them MAY be planted in order to goad them into making statements easily refuted to a half-sleeping public unaware of what is hidden in books, reports, articles and a complicit media of more-pretty-than-journalistic media personalities.

I say it doesn't matter if there were controlled explosions on 9/11 adding to the mayhem. Even if proved, it won't prove the Republicans should be blamed. All I see it doing is possibly hurting the left by allowing the right-wing to continue its hold.

ON EDIT ADDING:
The same right wing that I think conspired to bring us 9/11, allowed to hold power.

MIHOP could itself be a conspiracy on a conspiracy theory.

[iconoclastNYC]

79. If the the WTC fell because of controlled demolition

Then it means that the security of the WTC (which has connections to the Bush family) was complicit. There is no way you can secretly wire the WTC to collapse without coordination from WTC security.

If we could test for explosive residue or examine the steel for signs of cutting by thermite then we could probably prove that WTC was collapsed by controlled demolition.

But of course this evidence has been destroyed and it would take someone in the government to order this. The government has much motivation to keep this covered up even the elements that were not complicit in making it happen. Just think about the stockmarket.

[EVDebs]

84. It takes about a week to rig a building to fall w/demolitions into its

footprint.

[iconoclastNYC]

86. Yup.

Which is completely doable. There are reports of various "power down" conditions and other weird things a few weeks before the attacks.

The notion that this is impossible to get done, or that the conspiracy would be impossible to keep quiet is very naivee.

If anyone has seen the movie : "The Insider" you know what pressure was put to bear on the Tobacco industry whistleblower. Now imagine that your whistleblowing could potentially trigger a revolution in the most powerful country on the face of the earth. What do you think they'd do you? I'm betting that as soon as they detected you talking to a journalist (paging NSA wiretaps!) someone from your family would die in a freak accident and you'd get that message clearly.

Or... they'd use whatever they dug up from your past against you to destroy your life and your credibility.

Swiftboating was invented by the inteligence services.

[EVDebs]

90. WTC7 and other blgs insurer is suing

Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud
PR Web | May 4 2005
RELATED: WTC 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY and Others
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2005/040505potentialfraud.htm

site links to shareholder proposal...For what it's worth.

[Jazz2006]

230. Didn't the insurer lose that case?

[LiberalVoice]

239. Lucky for the perpetrators...

2 WEEKS before 9/11 bomb sniffing dogs and 24 hour security(2 shifts of 12 hours) were removed.

[petgoat]

247. Where do you get your estimate?

According to Dr. Steven Jones, 40 men making ten trips each could have placed
the explosives. Does that sound like a week?

Radio-controlled detonators would have simplified the placement.
Don't forget the notion that something could have been dropped down the elevator
shafts to release some some kind of aerosol or powder (ever hear of a grain
elevator explosion?

Using the elevator car roofs as movable staging would have greatly simplified
the placement of charges in the elevator shafts. How many charges could two guys
place overnight?

[Festivito]

91. You're playing right into the hands of those who did this to us.

IF not destroyed, IF residue found, IF logically demolished, THEN WHAT?

Still doesn't point ONLY at Bush people.
Might, instead, point at larger Osama job.

Still would NOT PROVE coordination of WTC security.
It would be: look at how sneaky they were, or they bribed a FEW low-level guards.

Finding residue on various parts would not prove bombs therein.
Residue could transfer from within the pile of rubble.

Complaining about evidence being destroyed indicates ...
that you have nothing else important to to investigate.

And, there is plenty to investigate.

You're playing right into the right-wingers hands.
Helping the very people you say perpetrated this crime.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iconoclastNYC]

77. We need to focus on whats KNOWN not the mysteries

You go into court with your best evidence. We have many well documented facts that punch huge holes in the Official Story and we should focus on that. Not on the MYSTERIES.

[pberq]

259. Very important point - this is emphasized by Michael Ruppert

Also, I would like to suggest that the author of this thread chck out "Crossing the Rubicon", Michael Ruppert's book.

Even if you don't agree with Ruppert's conclusions, the reams of evidence that he presents leaves the official conspiracy theory as nothing more than a giant coverup.

[eridani]

65. I'd also add the K.I.S.S. principle

OP did not mention the 5+ exercises going on that day, the hypothetical being that buildings would be attacked by planes. Just the ticket to confuse responding to the real thing.

1. People in the administration knew the date of the attack from Saudi connections, but not the operational details.
2. It doesn't take many people to order up a bunch of confusing drills on the same day. They could get their Pearl Harbor without knowing anything about operational details.
3. WTC 7 is suspicious, but controlled demolitions usually involve test blasts to check assumptions about how the building is put together. How could anybody do that undetected>

[iconoclastNYC]

78. What?

You don't think that you could do that without a test blast? Please.

[rman]

81. Covert Controlled Demolition

Point is to not make it look like CD. So it doesn't have to be neat. No precautions to limit dust, debris, damage to nearby buildings. Not sure about how much explosives are needed? Use some more.
No need for test blasts, no need for days of preparation.

Just to remind people: collapse of WTC7 did start at ground level. To some people the fact that the collapse of the towers did not start at ground level is evidence that it was not CD because CD normally does start at ground level, and to those same people the fact that the collapse of WTC7 did start at ground level is not evidence that it was CD...

[eridani]

131. Yes, WTC 7 is where skeptics and questioners should devote effort

Forget about 1 and 2--the official explanation works fine for them. 7 is really suspicious--remember that the OP really did point that out. IMO, controlled demolition is a possibility for WTC, but it still violates the K.I.S.S. principle. With just the attack, none of the buildings would have had to collapse, and it still would have counted as another Pearl Harbor to the neocons.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EVDebs]

71. CrisisPapers, your doubts hinge upon the radar screens and wargames

of Sept. 11th, 2001. The firm Ptech (now GoAgile) had access and more to those programs; besides that awareness of the military's wargames (Vigilant Guardian etc)

I suggest you investigate the wargames:

"" CIA / National Reconnaissance Office "plane into building" exercise Associated Press, August 21, 2002 simulation of a plane crash into the NRO headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) - this was not a "terrorism" exercise but it did result in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the "real" 9/11 was taking place, making it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes
Vigilant Guardian Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 3, 2002, Newhouse News, others (these articles are reproduced below) The publicly available mass media articles about these exercises state that they were similar enough to the actual events that top NORAD personnel were confused, not sure if 9/11 was "part of the drill" or a real world event.
Vigilant Warrior Richard Clark, "Against All Enemies" (March 2004) referenced by Richard Clark.
Northern Vigilance Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 "Operation Northern Vigilance, planned months in advance, involves deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska and northern Canada." This ensured that there would be fewer fighter planes available to protect the East Coast on 9/11. Simulated information was fed into radar screens - is this what confused the air defenses that morning?
Northern Guardian Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 only mention was in the early edition of this article, no details publicly available (probably related to Northern Vigilance)
Tripod II
US Department of Justice and City of New York Rudolph Giuliani's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, May 2004 biowar exercise in New York City scheduled for September 12, 2001""

from http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

and investigate further into who had access to that information prior to Sept 11th.

BTW, GoAgile still works for the White House, according to this article,

""The company, once known as Ptech (now GoAgile), has been contracted to provide sophisticated computer software to several government agencies, including the Army, the Air Force, Naval Air Command, Congress, the Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, Customs, the FAA, the IRS, NATO, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the White House.""

Dubai port deal is nothing compared to Ptech
By Devlin Buckley
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 6, 2006, 00:49
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_570.shtml

I suggest, as with the Warren Commission Report, that CrisisPapers withhold declarative edicts until all the verifiable "facts" become known. In the meantime, due to their past actions, skepticism of the government's actions (especially related to pretexts for war) compel us to doubt the official version (OV and out).

BTW, what do you make of 'spiking' NSA intelligence related to this, as reported by Greg Palast ?

""A top-level CIA operative who spoke with us on condition of strictest anonymity said that, after Bush took office, "There was a major policy shift" at the National Security Agency. Investigators were ordered to "back off " from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks, especially if they touched on Saudi royals and their retainers. That put the Bin Ladens, a family worth a reported $12 billion and a virtual arm of the Saudi royal household, off limits for investigation. Osama was the exception; he remained a wanted man, but agents could not look too closely at how he filled his piggy bank. The key rule of any investigation, "follow the money," was now violated, and investigations-at least before September 11-began to die.""

Khan Job: Bush Spiked Probe of Pakistan’s Dr. Strangelove, BBC reported in 2001
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=312&row=0

The 'spiking' and the NSA 'policy shift' began PRIOR to Sept. 11, 2001.

[patcox2]

72. Tell me its satire; cold fusion dork is the "most credible" critic?

"Prof. Steven Jones, to my mind the most credible of the 911 critics, claims that melted and congealed steel was found in the rubble, and that it originated at the base of the standing buildings. The only plausible cause of melting with these properties, Jones claims, would be a high temperature explosive such as thermite. Jones is well-qualified to make this assessment. He is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with a specialty in metal-catalyzed fusion."

The cold fusion laughingstock?

[iconoclastNYC]

76. He's not the cold fusion Laughingstock

"Although the term cold fusion was coined by Jones in the 1980s, his experimental work was significantly different than the more controversial cold fusion experiments of Pons and Fleischmann."

Nice attempt to swiftboat him.

[MervinFerd]

80. Thanks---but not quite skeptical enough......

There are limits to open-mindedness. Utter nonsense needs to be labeled such and treated appropriately.

As your experience shows, the conspiracy hobbyists are a serious liability to progressive politics. What has this BS to do with economic justice, or healthcare for all, or stopping the next Bush war of aggression?

WTC7 burned furiously for several hours, then fell down. I don't know the actual mechanism, but a little additional research will point you to structural engineers and architects who DO have a pretty good idea what happened. Even if the collapse is not understood, demolition by some sinister conspiracy is not among the probable explanations.

Your Brigham Young professor was associated with the Cold Fusion fiasco and has evidence that Christ in the Americas is depicted in Mayan art.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

101. You claim WTC7 burned furiously for several hours

Do you call this "burning furiously?"



http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/blamefire.html

THIS is burning furiously:



http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/history.html

And it didn't fall down.

[MervinFerd]

122. It burned. And it didn't fall UP

But why on earth would the Evil Secret Government hire invisible Jewish Elves to put explosives to bring down a building that was already a hulk?

[petgoat]

125. "Assumes Facts not in Evidence" is some lawyer talk I picked

up from a girlfriend once.

Buildings don't fall down by themselves. They don't fall down from fires, either.
Assymetrical damage should yield assymetrical collapse, else all the highly paid
controlled demolitionists would have to do is drive a tank truck into a condemned
building, set it on fire, and set off a few random cutting charges.

Jones was NOT associated with the Pons and Fleischman debacle. His conclusions
were far more modest, and in fact P&F rushed their work into print because
Jones was a rival.

Jones's amusing study of hand injuries in figures in Mayan art was probably meant
to be nothing more than an amusing study.

And in fact, structural engineers do NOT know what happened. FEMA apparently
did not believe the mutually contradictory tales of structural damage, and
concluded that fires brought WTC7 down, though they couldn't explain how.

NIST apparently can't support the fires, and invents gaping ten-story holes in
the structure for which there is no photographic corroboration. NIST's report
was to be finalized in December but they haven't released it yet; apparently
the latest is that they're going to outsource it.

[rman]

141. "it burned" vs "there were fires on a few floors"

Same difference?

You're back tracking from "it burned furiously" to "it burned".

[jberryhill]

181. The Meridian Building...

fire was also fought by the fire department. Three men lost their lives fighting that fire. My former firm was located in that building.

The building was subsequently condemned and torn down because engineers were surprised at how much damage the fire had done to the structural members.

It's interesting that the page to which you link notes "no structural damage" in the referenced LA fire, but is silent on the fact that, yes, Meridian had to be torn down because of the danger of collapse.

Which of those two buildings you mention underwent two significant seismic events as they were burning?

[petgoat]

252. Torn down is not collapse.

The determination that the First Interstate Bank building sustained "no structural damage"
as Jim Hoffman's website asserts apparently came from FEMA (1988), “Interstate Bank Building
Fire, Los Angeles, California”

http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/FEMA-TecReport/FEMA-report.htm

This report says: "In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was
no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam
and a small number of floor pans. Although there was concern for structural integrity
during the incident, post fire analysis indicates that there was no danger of major or
minor structural collapse."

It says " Analysis revealed that no significant damage occurred to major structural elements. "


WTC2 underwent no seismic events. Since the WTC7 fires are assumed to have been started
by (or at least after) damage from debris from the collapse of WTC1, WTC7 did not undergo
a seismic event while burning. That leaves WTC1. Too bad they destroyed the steel, huh?
We'll never know for sure what happened.

[rman]

140. Nobody knows why WTC7 fell - only FEMA studied it and they can't explain

it. It's in their report.

WTC 7 had fires on a few floors - it was nowhere near a 'towering inferno' that some people claim it was. A few hours later it completely collapsed in on itself, starting at ground level.
It's all documented with photos and video. Small wonder it is never shown by the MSM.

Critical thinkers aren't much game for guilt by association, if only because that's the mainstay of RW smear campaigns.

[MervinFerd]

164. A strange Conspiracy Theory....Quote FEMA!

I very strongly doubt that FEMA wrote anything that suggested a Gov't Conspiracy to put explosives in WTC7.

More probably, they were unsure of the causes of the collapse. That's entirely understandable and in no way suggests that there WERE NOT mechanisms that could have led to collapse.

Unlesss you can actually rule out ALL other mechanisms, there is no need to postulate Invisible Jewish Elves planting explosives.

There are many pictures showing extensive damage to WTC7 and extensive fire. At best, this is a controversial point.

[rman]

166. I didn't say FEMA suggests CT

I did say they are on record a being unable to explain the collapse of WTC7.

Show me pictures of "massive damage" to WTC7.

Here are pictures of the "extensive fires" in WTC7:


http://physics911.ca/gallery2/v/WTC7/fires/


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7northface.html

--

I hadn't quoted FEMA yet. Here are some actual quotes from FEMA:

World Trade Center Building Performance Study
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm (pdfs)
Chapter 5
5.7 Observations and Findings

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

--

World Trade Center Building Performance Study
Apendix A
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apa.pdf

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cordington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

----

You are the only one postulating "Invisible Jewish Elves".

[jberryhill]

170. You are forgetting the rule of logic to be applied here...

Every day, lots of things happen.

If you cannot explain how any particular thing happened, then the answer has to be that someone is keeping the explanation from you in order to cover up something which you already suspect.

[petgoat]

172. "If you cannot explain...then the answer has to be..."

Not at all.

But when the testimony of official witnesses is mutually contradictory, when the investigations
are so inept and hamstrung as to incite suspicion of deliberate coverups, when information is
withheld, when essential questions are not even investigated, let alone answered, and when the very concept of investigation is opposed by the administration, a suspicious attitude is justified.

Add the fact of the enormous political benefits that came to the Bush administration from the
events of 9/11, and very serious suspicions are justified.

For years I believed fires brought down the towers. I assumed the pictures of explosive
squibs were photoshopped hoaxes. Not until I learned that there was no air defense for
two hours on 9/11 did I start to examine the facts for myself.

A good place to start is Dr. David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor," which can be
read online here:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php



Also "The War on Freedom" by Nafeez Ahmed

[MervinFerd]

184. YES! The Conspiracist Prime Directive.

Any evidence consistent with the Conspiracy PROVES the conspiracy; any evidence not consistent with the conspiracy PROVES the coverup.

Neat technique.

[petgoat]

190. What proves the coverup is the coverup.

Bosh sought to obstruct the investigation from the start. When he couldn't, he appointed
an old Bush administration staffer, Philip Zelikow, as Executive Director of the 9/11
Commission.

NTSB was excluded from the investigations of the plane crashes.
The black boxes that were found in the WTC are still secret.
The steel from the WTC was destroyed.
The Pentagon videotapes have been seized and are secret.
The flight controllers' audio tape was cut into pieces.
The interviews with the FDNY witnesses were suppressed until the NYT sued to get them.

The 9/11 Commission Report contains so many omissions and distortions that Dr. David Ray
Griffin calls it "a 571-page lie." He lists 115 omissions and distortions here:

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

[MervinFerd]

220. If the hijackers are still alive, who flew the planes????

You didn't answer before.

This one makes no sense. Why does the Agency for Nefarious Criminal Deeds (ANCD) frame a bunch of Saudi's who can be identified by Conspiracy Hobbyists (CHs) and blow the whole thing? And if the ANCD made that awful mistake, why are said framed Arabs still alive?

And if it wasn't -those- Arabs, WHO FLEW THE F'ING PLANES?

Logic, Mr. Goat.

As with this gem, the rest of your post is a repetition of the fetid brew of half-truths, untruths and plain BS that make up the 9/11 Conspiracy Hobbyist (NECH) world view.

[petgoat]

222. "Logic, Mr. Goat."

Yeah, try it some time.

Imagine a prosecutor in a courtroom: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, a
terrible crime has been committed. I ask you, if the accused didn't do it,
who did?"

I'm not saying al Qaeda didn't do the deed, but the USA has never provided
proof that they did. Call me fussy. The only proof offered has been a
big fat report that reads like fiction because it is, and a bunch of
movies on A&E and History and Nat'l Geographic and now Hollywood that
slaishly tell the tale with no acknowledgement that some of the guys they're
depicting (al Ghamdi and al Nami, in Flight 93) are alive. The guys should
sue them for libel.

fetid brew of half-truths, untruths and plain BS

Who are you to talk about the work of Dr. David Ray Griffin that way? The man
had a long distinguished career as a Theologian, has written or edited 20
books, and is has more knowledge of epistemology in one eyelash than you'll
ever get in your whole life.

[smoogatz]

94. I'm inclined to agree with much of what you say.

There's too much unexplained and unaccounted-for in the OV for it to be totally credible, yet there's no unified CT that I've seen that makes sense of all the weird bits and pieces. Agree with you on WTC 1,2 and 7; fully agree on the Pentagon. I share your sense that Bushco were tipped that something was coming on or around 9/11/01, and did nothing because they thought it would be a small-scale attack--a plane or two hijacked and destroyed over water, maybe, like the Millenium Plot foiled by the Clinton administration--which they could then exploit in order to further their (PNAC) agenda. That, to me, explains the look of paralytic horror on Bush's face as he sat in that Florida classroom the morning of 9/11. As for all the mysterious puts on AA and United--I wonder if there was similar activity on other air carriers in that week? Has anyone checked? And has anyone asked the originators of those puts what they knew? Also curious about your take on the NORAD exercise/simulation going on on 9/11, and flight 93, which seems to me was most likely shot down.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissWaverly]

120. they said that Hani Hanjour could not even drive a car

Okay, a car is not easy to learn, but it's a heck of a lot easier than a jet plane and how did they know where the Twin Towers were, they were not using air traffic controllers and had
left the flight plan so it could not have been auto pilot, they weren't driving the planes
above the cars on the highways, they were above the clouds for most of the trip so how did
they know where they were going and how did they know when they arrived.

[itzamirakul]

144. Funny, I never once thought about the fact that those planes were not

being guided by air traffic controllers.

But as one possiblility as to how the pilots "found their way" to the WTC, it has been reported in several places that they followed the Hudson River, which is a straight shot south to the WTC site. the twin towers loomed over everything down on the tip of Manhattan Island, so they would have been easy to spot. The planes would have swooped out of the Hudson River route and flown over the Atlantic Ocean where they were free to make wide sweeping turns and head back southwest and into the WTC towers.

I live midtown NYC right next to the Hudson River and it still brings goosebumps of anger to my skin just to think that if the above route is true, then they flew right over my head!

[petgoat]

145. Flight 11 came down the Hudson, flying right over the Indian

Point nuke plant which IMHO would have made a far more destructive target
than the WTC.

Flight 175 came in from the southwest. Looks to me like they kept the NJ turnpike on
the starboard side and followed that up. I'm not a flier, but I'll suppose Newark Int'l
airport has radio beacons they both could have homed in on.

[MissWaverly]

158. yes, but these individuals could barely fly cessnas

if they were totally inexperienced and could not use the instruments, probably much of their
time was just steering the plane, I do not believe that they flew low enough for much of the
trip to be able to even follow the coast, if they were up above the clouds they could not
have followed a course w/o instruments (flying blind???)

[jberryhill]

193. It was a beautiful, cloudless morning...

...which is what struck me as odd on the first report of a plane hitting a building. It was wall-to-wall clear blue sky on much of the east coast.

If you can pick up a pre-911 copy of MS Flight Simulator, it makes for an interesting experiment.

[MissWaverly]

157. interesting maybe so, but how did they get from where they

hijacked the plane to New York City?


American Airlines Flight 77 left Boston at 7:59 am, it was apparently hijacked at 8:14 and veered off course at 8:20 am

United Airlines flight 175 left Boston at 8:14 it's responder went dead at 8:42; that is when it was supposed hijacked

[gordianot]

102. Most of the questions could be answered tomorrow.

Starting with the release of plane wreckage and video of the Pentagon. There still needs to be a real investigation without the involvement of the Bush administration, the 9/11 commission was a true disservice.

There are still many unanswered and partially answered questions. It is good to be skeptical. In this case the 9/11 conventional explanations create skepticism.

[dajudem]

104. What conspiracy theory is complete without

even a mention of the 4000 Jews? eh? I look forward to a clarification.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

111. I don't believe this issue...

...is placed in appropriate context when set forth as a contest between OV and CT. CT is private citizens offering their own analysis, speculation, and opinions on the events of 9-11, some of which are thoughtful, well reasoned, and compelling, and some of which are not. When we examine 9-11 as a contest between the two, does this mean exposing prevailing CT's to be somewhat less credible than the OV results in the OV somehow winning, and therefore is to be accepted? I think most of us would agree that this notion is ridiculous on its face. Review of 9-11 should be about applying intense and unrelenting scrutiny to the OV. They have not made a credible case for their contention of collapse due to heat from burning jet fuel and have left many other important questions unanswered. They made no attempt to explain the collapse of Building #7, which is an egregious and inexcusable oversight. They did, at best, a hurried, sloppy, non credible report, and at worst were complicit with a cover up. The burden of proof rests with the Commission to put forth a well researched and scientifically plausible explanation for 9-11, a burden they have not met, and THIS is the proper context in which to discuss this issue.

[Beam Me Up]

116. Excelent reply.

Thank you very much.

[gordianot]

118. There are many questions and few actual answers.

As poor as the 9/11 Commission addressed these issues remember the Bush Administration initially did not desire to for the Commission to be formed. We were being asked to accept the Bush Administration explanation. People do not really have the facts and now 9/11 is becoming legend and conspiracy theories. What people forget sometimes is and the official 9/11 story validates a conspiracy. On the other hand the Government has not done a good job presenting the facts. This will become an open wound that will be discussed for many years unless there is a real effort to provide answers.

I did read the released version of the 9/11 commission and have read the many theories. I have also looked out the window in the Pentagon where the plane entered the building.

[Bushwick Bill]

117. U.S. To Keep Evidence From Families

Nope, nothing to see here. Ongoing investigations? But, but, I thought we already know what happened, we can go ahead and hang crazy Zacarias, and call it a day?

Brinkema's order would allow the families' attorneys access to "highly sensitive" law enforcement documents and could compromise the continuing investigation into the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The inquiry is "the largest criminal investigation in our nation's history, which is still ongoing," the motion says.

"This order will likely provoke negative consequences for numerous criminal cases in the future," prosecutors said. Rosenberg requested a May 19 hearing.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/26/moussaoui.aviation/index.html

[dailykoff]

121. Wishful thinking.

I wish the official fairy tale were true, too, but it pretty obviously isn't. Amazing what five years of high-end propaganda can do.

[Douglas Carpenter]

126. Frankly, I wish the conspiracy theory worldview was true

"It’s always intriguing to talk about conspiracies. But it’s a diversion from real issues. They are attractive because they simplify problems and enable people to focus on a handful of people instead of on complex causes."----Professor Howard Zinn -

link:

http://perspectives.anarchist-studies.org/13zinn.htm
_________________




http://www.dontattackiran.org

[petgoat]

128. So let's see, there are no conspiracies.

When a liquor store gets robbed, and the surveillance cameras show
two gunmen and a bagman, the cops know the film was faked, and
let all the suspects go. 'Cause everybody knows there's no
such thing as a conspiracy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

129. obviously I did not say that

Al Qaeda to a large degree grew out of the American-backed anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan. Of course it is more complicated than just that. But that is a major part of its origin.

We can examine the history of this tendency and examine why they attacked America on September 11, 2001

This would require an analysis of America policy especially in the Middle East and an understanding of the resentment against American influence in the region.

This can be rather boring stuff compared to speculations about secret cabals. But it will provide a lot more insight as to answering the questions as to why the events of September 11, 2001 happened. Equally it a lot more insightful than dismissing the attacker simply as evil doers who hate us for our freedom.

These things like the American record in Central America are not so shrouded in mystery and secret cabals. The history of these matters can be examined without a whole lot of speculation.

Western hegemony did not begin with the Project for the New American Century - nor will it cease to exist if PNAC were to disappear; nor will the resentment against global hegemony or the policy of global hegemony disappear.

from:

Conspiracies Or Institutions: 9-11 and Beyond by Stephen R. Shalom
& Michael Albert

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm

snip:"First, the evidence conspiracy theories reveal can identify actual events needing other explanation. More, describing the detailed entwinements can become addictive. We find one puzzle and then another and another to uncover. The appeal is of the mysterious. It is dramatic, vivid, and human. And we can make steady progress, like in a murder investigation. Finally, the desire for retribution fuels forays into personal detail. It is a journalistic task with clear parameters and obvious satisfaction to be had, unless, of course, one rejects the entire premise, logic, method, and prioritization.

Second, conspiracy theories have manageable implications. They imply that all was well once and that it can be okay again if only the conspirators can be removed. Conspiracy theories explain ills without forcing us to disavow society's underlying institutions. They allow us to admit horrors and to express our indignation and anger or undertake vendettas, but without rejecting the basic norms of society. We discover that a particular government official or corporate lawyer is bad, but the government and law per se remain okay. We urge getting rid of bad apples, but leaving the orchard intact. All this is convenient and seductive. We can reject specific candidates but not government, specific CEOs but not capitalism, specific writers, editors, and even owners of periodicals, but not mainstream media. We can reject vile manipulators, but not basic institutions. And we can continue to appeal to the institutions for recognition, status, or payment.

Third, and least likely among Leftists, conspiracy theory can provide an easy and quick outlet for pent-up passion withheld from targets that seem unassailable or that might strike back. This is conspiracy theory turned into scapegoat theory. Some minority, some enemy, is tarred, and the talons are unleashed. Racism and conspiracies have long gone together, if not universally, certainly frequently.

Evaluating all this, it would be bad enough if conspiracy theorizing just attuned people to search after coteries while ignoring institutions, thereby reducing energies applied to useful ends as in the wasteful misallocation of energies of the many Kennedy assassination theorists of past decades. At least in that case the values at play could be progressive and we could hope, however faintly, that people involved would in time gravitate toward real explanations of more structural and important phenomena. But the sad fact is that the effects of adopting a conspiracy theory orientation can be and often are still worse."

snip:"Conspiracy theories often lead Leftists to establish connections to or tolerate alliances with right-wing crazies. One of the authors of this article was handed a stack of materials by a Leftist conspiracy enthusiast that included print-outs from Public Action, Inc. (http://www.public-action.com /), which, in addition to its 9-11 conspiracy claims, has links to many Holocaust denial sites. This is regrettably typical. "

snip:"Conspiracy theories lead us to counterproductive and wrong priorities. There are many pressing issues for U.S. Leftists today -- preventing war in Iraq, restraining Israeli aggression, fighting the assault on civil liberties, exposing the phony U.S.-Russian nuclear arms deal, and so on. Unfortunately too many Leftists have gotten wrapped up in supporting the... campaign to investigate what Bush knew and when. Just in the past few weeks, how much energy from people well on the Left has gone to the Bush question, with no credible gains, and away from directions where our energies are sorely needed? Leftists have gone from planning teach-ins on the Mideast to planning gatherings to talk about the detailed claims of who knew what when. (In fact, if we were to apply the "who benefits?" principle, we might ask whether conspiracy theorizing itself is a plot by the CIA to distract us all from the struggle against globalization? Imagine debating that conspiracy theory, hour after hour, and then debating about debating about...)

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm

________________



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[petgoat]

130. The 9/11 conspiracy is not that al Qaeda attacked.

The 9/11 conspiracy is that even though we knew the attacks were coming, there
was no air defence for two hours.

Warnings from 11 foreign countries and 3 FBI offices were ignored.

The al Qaeda Project Bojinka plot to crash hijacked planes into the Pentagon,
the WTC, and Sears Tower was known in 1995.

FBI investigations of suspected terrorist financiers were shut down on the
orders of the Bush administration.

[MervinFerd]

150. So.......You don't REALLY think.....

the planes were piloted by elite AirForce Suicide-Squad pilots, the P'gon was hit by a missile, the towers came down because of explosives set by invisible Jewish elves, skilled actors fooled relatives into believing their husbands, sons, parents were calling from doomed airliners, hundreds of people and several jetliners were disposed of by 'The Government'....etc.

Just checking.

[petgoat]

151. I never said any of that Straw Man stuff. nt

[MervinFerd]

156. Will you go to the 9/11 Forum and denounce it? nt

[petgoat]

160. No, and here's why. Unlike you, I won't pan a book I've never

read. I'm not going to read the book, because there doesn't
seem to be enough in it to justify the effort, but I'm not going
to prejudge it.

[rman]

133. So, conspiracies exist but we should not theorize about them?

Many is the "pressing issues" from which CT thinking is supposedly distracting the Left are the result of conspiracies; war in Iraq, phony U.S.-Russian nuclear arms deal, election fraud - just to name a few recent ones.

This "theorizing" is really not much more then trying to expose the conspiracies; the point is that it does have practical implications. So what could be wrong with that?
Didn't the exposing of Watergate and Iran-Contra start with CT? Well then.

[Douglas Carpenter]

135. by all means theorize to your heats content

as long as it is not a distraction from a serious analysis of Western hegemony and the underlining causes of resentment against America and the West

"It’s always intriguing to talk about conspiracies. But it’s a diversion from real issues. They are attractive because they simplify problems and enable people to focus on a handful of people instead of on complex causes."----Professor Howard Zinn -

link:

http://perspectives.anarchist-studies.org/13zinn.htm

[petgoat]

137. "They are attractive because they simplify problems

and enable people to focus on a handful of people instead of on complex causes."

True enough, but when you have a pack of mad dogs on the loose you don't engage in
a research campaign on the virology of rabies. You go after the mad dogs.

Have you read the PNAC Statement of Principles?

Are you absolutely sure that 9/11 was due to incompetence and that the Iraq war
was a mistake? If things are playing out exactly as the neocons want (with Bush
as a very dispensable sacrificial fall-chimp) then your complex causes are
irrelevant to the true problem.

Sometimes complex systems (like an automobile, for instance) have troubles functioning
for simple reasons (like they're out of gas).

[rman]

139. Tell me, what are the underlying causes of resentment against America

and the West, if it is not due to a bunch of para-political criminals who manipulate things so that they gain ever more control over the wealth (resources*labor) of this planet?
And tell me how exposing them will not help to make people aware, which in turn would be a first step in preventing such individuals from obtaining power?

[Douglas Carpenter]

161. I absolutely agree they should be exposed

I don't however believe that the misguided policy of global hegemony is limited to the nut-jobs in the Bush Administration and the PNAC. Unfortunately it goes back a lot farther and a lot deeper than that. The Bush-Reaganite PNAC gang just take a long term policy a bit farther.

I honestly have taken a look at the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. In fact I have a couple of DVDs around my place right now that someone from the UK sent me. I have sincerely looked at it with an open mind - I just don't find the basic premise very convincing.

I just happen to believe this long term misguided policy can be exposed on the basis of inarguable-indisputable documented facts and that there is simply not that much need for speculation or even theorizing. Documented history is bad enough. I have indeed read the original statement of the Project for the New American Century. This is not a secret conspiracy. It's an open declaration of intent by a list of people that reads like a whose who of the Reagan and Bush administrations; scary stuff to put it mildly. They have always been a particularly scary group. It is not some secret that many of these people were involved in a terrorist war against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. The International Criminal Court in the Hague concluded that and released its finding to the U.N. for the whole world to see. This was no secret cabal. It was public policy.



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[rman]

167. I know it goes back a lot further - doesn't mean it's not conspiracy,

and it doesn't mean trying to expose the conspiracies is futile or irrelevant.

[reorg]

132. a letter from Howard Zinn

(...)

Before 9/11, Bush's inner circle of neoconservative advisors proclaimed the need for a dramatic expansion of U.S. military might entailing "full spectrum dominance" over all other nations and regions (including outer space), long term petro-resource control with permanent Middle East bases, and a preemptive First Strike policy against recalcitrant states. In September 2000, however, the neocon's flagship think tank, the Project for a New America Century, warned that this "process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

After 9/11, this administration systematically nurtured the fear of further homeland attacks to justify its own assaults on constitutional rights as well as social and environmental programs that protected "the people" but fettered corporate power and control.

David Ray Griffin's book "The New Pearl Harbor -- Disturbing Questions About The Bush Administration and 9/11" asks "Were these tragedies simply the result of unprecedented failures and incompetence as the government maintains, or were there elements of foreknowledge and implicit welcome involved?" He attempts to answer this question, reviewing the facts, studying other possible interpretations of these facts, and observing the breakdown of the official story over time.

Griffin's status as a renowned theologian and his systematic approach to the documented evidence lend this work unique importance and authority. Although still shunned by the mainstream media, his book has already encouraged many thousands to debate the case for possible government complicity and at the very least to demand a full, transparent and truly independent public inquiry.

Democracy requires citizen vigilance, informed debate and official accountability. In that spirit, David Ray Griffin's book deserves to be widely read.

Howard Zinn


http://www.septembereleventh.org/alerts/zinn.php

[petgoat]

136. Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor can be read (and downloaded) online

here: http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php



Mervin, you got that?

[MervinFerd]

123. David Hume: "On miracles"

Ernest,

I think you refer to Hume's famous essay "On Miracles", in which Hume argues that there can never be enough historical evidence to prove that a miracle actually occurred because it is more probable that evidence was faked or misunderstood than that an actual miracle occured. "Which is more probable--That Nature should run out of her course, or that a man should lie?"

A similar argument, I think applies to ALL conspiracy theories. BY DEFINITION, a conspiracy theory requires a secret, nefarious and virtually all-powerful entity that can do things impossible to mortal men. If the 'theory' were not impossible on its face, it could be discussed seriously and not ridiculed as a 'conspiracy theory'. No evidence can ever prove such a theory because it is always more probable that the evidence is faked, misinterpreted, irrelevant than that there are secret organizations that possess supernatural powers.

The personnel of the Conspiracy have traditionally been Jews, Communists, FreeMasons, Liberals, Blacks, etc. These theories have been the staple of the Far Right and of scoundrels of all sorts at least since the invention of mass media. The adoption of Conspiracism by (supposedly) left elements is a new, distressing and destructive development. These theories are NOT just another legitimate point of view.

------

I think you accept as fact some assertions that have been thoroughly debunked already.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
http://www.911myths.com/
(and many others).

<<There were numerous reports of explosions below the impact points at the time the towers were hit. Others report that there were explosions before the planes hit.>>
By Whom? Does this make any kind of sense?

<<Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were destroyed.>>
Sez who? And what of it? Are the traffic controllers dead? If they know some awful secret wouldn't they come forward?


<<When news of the attack reached the Florida school where Bush was visiting, the Secret Service failed to remove the president from that previously publicized location.>>

Only the MSM and the Conspiracy Hobbyists ever said these guys were bright.

<<There was a flood of "put options" (anticipations of loss) on American Airlines and United Airlines stock, within the week before 9/11.>>

Debunked many times. There was a spike, but not anything that unusual. And any actual activity could more probably be attributed to Saudis with inside knowledge than to Mr. Bush.

<<Several prominent individuals, among them San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and John Ashcroft were warned not to fly on 9/11. In addition, events involving other key individuals were "rescheduled" away from the WTC on 9/11.>>

Untrue. And does this make sense? Why would the admin warn Willie Brown? And if you started warning high officials, what is the chance there would ANY passengers on any plane that day?

<<Prof. Steven Jones, to my mind the most credible of the 911 critics, claims that melted and congealed steel was found in the rubble, and that it originated at the base of the standing buildings. The only plausible cause of melting with these properties, Jones claims, would be a high temperature explosive such as thermite. Jones is well-qualified to make this assessment. He is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with a specialty in metal-catalyzed fusion.>>

The world community of architects and structural engineers--the people who actually know something about these issues---have a KEEN interest in the collapse of those buildings. If there really were anything remarkable about the collapse of ANY of those buildings that community would be all over it. The exact mechanism of collapse may not be known, but it is very clear that there were multiple POSSIBLE mechanisms. "Thermite" planted in the burning building by invisible Jewish elves would be pretty far down the list of possible causes.

And, again, does this story make any kind of sense? Why would the hypothetical Nefarious Govt Agency bother to plant thermite to cause the collapse of an already gutted building. And how could that possibly have been accomplished?

Prof Jones teaches at a Mormon University and his "metal-catalyzed fusion" is better known as "Cold Fusion", a notorious scientific fraud. That doesn't make his arguments invalid, but suggests we shouldn't rely on his unsubstantiated authority. He is, after all, a lone voice against many thousands of better qualified voices.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ernest Partridge]

138. David Hume, Miracles, and Conspiracies

As submitted, the essay had as a head quote:

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish..." David Hume, On Miracles

This was omitted in the DU version, making my allusion to Hume rather cryptic.

As for "conspiracy theories," I respectfully disagree with your definition. One might say that two or more individuals working toward a common purpose constitute a "conspiracy" (perhaps a lawyer could help us out here), but that seems much too broad for the ordinary language sense of "conspiracy." However, your definition ("secret, nefarious, all powerful...") is surely too narrow. There are such things as conspiracies, some successful. Presumably all coups d'etat are successful conspiracies (no individual can accomplish them alone).

I do not "accept as fact" the claims of the CTs. Nor do I dismiss all of them out of hand. Recall what I said about "evidence:" "All accounts of the attacks, whether the official version or any of the numerous conspiracy theories, rest upon weak evidence – "weak," that is, to all those who did not examine the evidence at the scene, or did not have access to evidence with a secure "chain of custody." For all others, including myself and presumably all who read this, the evidence is 2nd, 3rd and Nth-hand hearsay." I also noted that formerly-reliable government-sourced scientific information and the media can, in the era of Bush, no longer be trusted.

You seem quite certain of the falsehood of ALL the CT claims. Of some, I am very dubious. But remain troublesome.

There are mid-points between total affirmation and total denial: it's called "skepticism." That's where I stand, hence the title of my piece.

But if it gives you some comfort, be advised that I am more inclinded to accept the OV of the WTC attack. Of the Pentagon attack I am, as I wrote, strongly inclined toward the OV.

EP

[petgoat]

143. Problems with the OV of Pentagon and WTC

Pentagon

1. Why no air defense?
2. How did a lousy pilot like Hani Hanjour pull off a 270 degree turn diving 7000 feet to hit a
low building.
3. Why did the hijackers select the unoccupied wing of the Pentagon (where construction equipment
was conspicuous) so that they killed 100 civilian construction workers and only 25 Pentagon personnel?
4. Norm Mineta said he saw Cheney in the White House bunker at 9:25 discussing the approach of
an aircraft Mineta assumed was flight 77. Mineta's timeline is corroborated by Richard Clark.
The 9/11 Commission insists that Cheney didn't get there until 9:58, though Cheney told Meet the Press
that he got there much earlier.
5. F-16s that were scrambled from Langley might have reached Washington in time to stop flight 77, except they flew straight out to sea instead. The 9/11 Commission purports to explain this fact
by telling us they were launched not to meet the flight 77 threat, but in response to false reports
from the FAA that flight 11 was still in the air and headed for DC from the north. NORAD had said nothing about this phantom flight 11 during the three years it put out its timeline of events,
and the 9/11 Commission can not identify the FAA person who made this report.
6. John Judge reports that he was told by a Pentagon employee that there were SAM missiles defending
the building.

WTC

1. What brought down building 7? FDNY brass said structural damage, but their reports are mutually
contradictory and apparently FEMA didn't regard them as credible when it made its report. FEMA couldn't explain the collapse mechanism, but said fire brought WTC7 down. Of course, the photos only
show very wimpy fires. NIST seems to lean toward structural damage, but they have not delivered their
final report which was due in December, and I understand they are going to outsource the project.
2. How did jet fuel or a gravity driven collapse turn the concrete to dust?
3. How do asymmetric fires and asymmetric structural damage cause a symmetrical collapse?
4. Why did the tower hit second fall first? Firemen radioing from the impact zone saw only a couple of isolated fires. Brian Clark walked down right through the impact floors and saw only a few flames.
He stopped at 31 to make phone calls, and at the street he said "no way" could the towers fall. The
fires in the south tower were going out when it fell.
5. Most of the jet fuel burned up in the fireballs outside the building. NIST says the jet fuel
all burned off in ten minutes. NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees
Centigrade.
6. Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell.
7. The molten metal was observed in the basement soon after the collapse, so the theory that the
steel melted in some kind of charcoal cooker doesn't wash.
8. The FEMA/ASCE and NIST investigations have been shoddy. That the steel was recycled over the objections of family members, firemen, and Fire Engineering magazine is peculiar. That the blueprints
remain a secret is peculiar.
9. The FEMA/ASCE Appendix C report found that its steel samples from both the WTC towers and WTC7 had been evaporated by a sulfidation attack that remains unexplained to this day except by Dr. Jones's
thermate hypothesis.
10. Numerous witnesses reported explosions in the towers, including flashes of light from lower
floors.
11. The counterargument that wiring the building with miles of detonation cord and thousands of explosive charges makes controlled demolition impractical is easily refuted by postulating use of
radio-controlled charges, which could have been easily planted among the core columns in the elevator
shafts after midnight using the elevator cars as movable staging. Dr. Van Romero, an explosives
expert, said that a few charges in key places could have brought the towers down.

[dailykoff]

147. Yes.

Excellent summaries.

[dailykoff]

146. This type of Hamletic soliloquizing

is what got us into this mess in the first place. "Do I dare to eat a peach?" you wonder. Look at the videos. The buildings were demolished. Can you still be so far in denial that you can't recognize the obvious?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

152. And this is what is so frightening...

...about the discourse on this issue. We have high powered, well intentioned, respected, intellectuals with solid reputations (and Ernest Partridge is one I greatly respect) willing to entertain what's presented in the OV concerning WTC collapse as if it somehow merits serious consideration as a plausible explanation. It does not. The videos speak for themselves.

I wholeheartedly agree with the call for demolition, structures, and other technical expertise to be brought to bear in piecing together what actually did happen, and I accept and agree that we should generally try to reserve judgment until an honest, thorough, and independent investigation can be completed (if one ever does take place), but don't ask me to check my common sense at the door. Some kind of demolition, independent of the jet crash impacts and subsequent fires, brought those buildings down. To look at the videos and not recognize this is, as you rightly suggest, simply to deny what is obvious.

[MervinFerd]

153. A (Paranoid) Conspiracy Theory, in common usage, IS....

a highly improbable account that requires the existence of an overarching, very powerful, ruthless and efficient organization. It helps if several laws of physics are violated and the storyline is incoherent.

Traditional culprits would be The International Jewish Conspiracy, the Communist Conspiracy, the Freemasons or (in the Right Wing efflorescence of the '90s) the United Nations or 'The Government'.

OF COURSE there are 'conspiracies'. Three guys plotting to rob the liquor store, or 3 Generals plotting to take over Government, or the NeoCons planning to manipulate evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq are all 'conspiracies'. But they aren't PARANOID CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

"Those planes weren't piloted by Arabs at all (or there weren't even any planes) and the Pentagon was hit by a missile and the CIA faked dozens of cell phone calls to relatives and somehow planted explosives to create a controlled demolition so the building would fall straight down and explosives were planted in WTC7 after it had burned to a shell and hundreds of people were warned but didn't tell their friends and relatives, and the Air Force pilots had orders to fly slow except they weren't scrambled, and all the thousands of people who were needed to do this and the many more thousands who must know all keep the secret for 3 years......." .

THAT is a Paranoid Conspiracy Theory and it is dismissed out-of-hand for the very good reason that it is obviously ridiculous. Theories of conspiracies that are NOT obviously ridiculous would get a fair hearing.

It is a common modern fallacy that skepticism requires that all hypotheses be treated as equally valid. That's wrong. If claims are incoherent, or ridiculous on their face, they need to be immediately dismissed. Otherwise, serious discussion becomes impossible. It is ALWAYS possible to find isolated facts that support ANY crackpot idea. And isolated facts that do not fit the accepted version of reality. You have to make judgments.

Consider the Right Wing Conspiracy Theories of the '90s: Vince Foster, Black Helicopters, UN troops in the Midwest. Or think of the claim that the Apollo moon landings were faked. All those theores are backed by 'evidence' of exactly the same quality as that which supports the 9/11 theories. All are bogus on their face. But, to find the fallacy in each part of the supposed evidence---that is a herculean task. And while one claimed is refuted, three more can be generated.

So, YES, keep an open mind. BUT, the 9/11 conspiracy hobbyist are not helping the progressive cause. They disrupt serious discussion of the failures of the Bush Administration in preventing 9/11 and they make REAL progressives look like idiots.

I regard these folks as <agents provocateur>, and it is my opinion that such any such caller to a progressive radio show should be immediately disconnected. Just as any other deliberately disruptive individual would be.

And, the last thing we need is a LeftWing Timothy McVeigh setting off some explosion to avenge 'The Government's' role in 9/11.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MervinFerd]

155. OK, WTC7 was only well done......

Again, the collapse of those buildings is a matter of INTENSE, (FIERY) interest to the whole world's community of structural engineers and architects. These folks don't want -their- buildings fallling down. It's expensive and bad for business.

If this community is comfortable that there is a reasonable explanation for the collapses, I'm good with it. They have more credibility than a Physics prof who works on Cold Fusion.

The idea that ALL this community all over the civilized world (and even parts of France and Canada) is intimidated to silence by the International Jewish Conspiracy fits my definition of a Paranoid Conspiracy Theory perfectly well.

I'm not going to argue over how big the fire was. Evidently, it was big enough.

Having your house only a little on fire is a whole lot like being only a little pregnant.

I invoke David Hume again: Which is more probable--That Invisible Jewish Elves planted explosives in an already burning building, or that Conspiracy Hobbyists selected photos that supported their Paranoid Conspiracy Theory?

[Douglas Carpenter]

165. I do not believe I heard anyone say it was a Jewish conspiracy

I definitely do NOT believe in these 9/11 conspiracy theories either any more than you. And I have argued that point above and on other postings on this forum numerous times.

And it is true that some 9/11 conspiracy theories do amount to allegations of Jewish conspiracy. It is also true that a number of classic conspiracy theories about the banking system and the federal reserve have obvious anti-semitic overtones. But I have NEVER seen ANY postings alleging a Jewish conspiracy on this forum, ever; thank goodness.

___________




http://www.dontattackiran.org

[MervinFerd]

183. You are right.

I wish I hadn't used that.

However, it is important to remember that the conspiracist worldview was nurtured and perfected by the Far Right. If there is a Sinister Conspiracy, there must be Conspirators and eventually some minority group will get blamed.

Conspiracism isn't just another legitimate point of view. It's about blame and irrational fear and absolutist thinking.

[Douglas Carpenter]

186. unfortunately I see your point on this

However, I do not want to be too judgmental about those who have acquired a conspiratorial worldview. After all there are indeed conspiracies that are provable by real evidence. But they are not conspiracy theories. They are conspiracies. But in my opinion conspiracy theory thinking tends to focus on looking at trees and then it misses the forest-frequently misunderstanding or misinterpreting what real evidence really is.

As an example it is one thing to think the Federal Reserve System ignores the concerns of working people and that the system can be changed to be more responsive. It's another thing to believe that is run by a secret society consciously plotting world domination and the problem is not systemic but the personalities of this hidden cabal which must be exposed.

I do recognize a "kind of logic" to conspiracy theory thinking. I tend to think that many such people are otherwise reasonable folks. They just need to take a few steps back and look at the forest.

In the past most conspiracy theories were promoted by right-wing groups who presumed their enemies to be driven by conscious evil. There are plenty of pamphlets that can explain with detail and "evidence" why the National Education Association or the ACLU are conspiracies driven by the conscious desire to destroy America. I would hope those on the left could reflect on the right-wing conspiracy theories and question themselves as to whether or not they have not fallen into same essential patterns of thinking.



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[MervinFerd]

191. Hofstadter--The paranoid style in American Politics

If you are not already familiar, I urge you to read the famous essay referenced above. Google "paranoid style", or go to this link:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

Googling "Hofstadter" will get you the computer scientist, who is interesting, but not the right guy.

If you have read much of the local 9/11 conspiracy stuff, this quote from the essay will sound familiar. It was written in 1964:

<begin quote>
<<<
A final characteristic of the paranoid style is related to the quality of its pedantry. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates "evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it.
Paranoid writing begins with certain broad defensible judgments. There was something to be said for the anti-Masons. After all, a secret society composed of influential men bound by special obligations could conceivable pose some kind of threat to the civil order in which they were suspended. There was also something to be said for the Protestant principles of individuality and freedom, as well as for the nativist desire to develop in North America a homogeneous civilization. Again, in our time an actual laxity in security allowed some Communists to find a place in governmental circles, and innumerable decisions of World War II and the Cold War could be faulted.
The higher paranoid scholarship is nothing if not coherent—in fact the paranoid mind is far more coherent than the real world. It is nothing if not scholarly in technique. McCarthy’s 96-page pamphlet, McCarthyism, contains no less than 313 footnote references, and Mr. Welch’s incredible assault on Eisenhower, The Politician, has one hundred pages of bibliography and notes. The entire right-wing movement of our time is a parade of experts, study groups, monographs, footnotes, and bibliographies. Sometimes the right-wing striving for scholarly depth and an inclusive world view has startling consequences: Mr. Welch, for example, has charged that the popularity of Arnold Toynbee’s historical work is the consequence of a plot on the part of Fabians, “Labour party bosses in England,” and various members of the Anglo-American “liberal establishment” to overshadow the much more truthful and illuminating work of Oswald Spengler.>>>>
<<end quote>>

[rman]

168. You are quite desperate in trying to include "Invisible Jewish Elves"

In other people's CTs - CTs that you do not believe in.

You desperation is apparent from the fact that you keep repeating yourself about "Invisible Jewish Elves".
It is obvious that the sole purpose of this is to try and discredit 9-11 conspiracy thinking.

[petgoat]

253. Trying to link 9/11 skepticism with anti-semitism, to be precise. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

217. Black helicopters

I'm told that DEA helicopters are dark green and may look black when viewed from below. They fly over rural areas, looking for marijuana patches.

The interpretation of the black helicopter phenomenon is wrong (It's not UN troops trying to take over the U.S.), but there are in fact dark-colored helicopters flying over rural areas.

[MervinFerd]

185. Some additional thoughts....

Ernest,

If you are still monitoring this thread, I would like to add a couple of additional thoughts.

The OV is NOT a Bush admin press release and it is NOT equivalent to any old theory that gets posted on a web site. The OV, as you define it, is a shared reality constructed by many millions of people watching these horrible events on TV, by the many thousands who lost friends and relatives or witnessed these events, by many thousands of investigators from the entire world's police, security services and journalistic organizations. Without doubt there are errors in that account. And coverups. But to treat this shared reality as equivalent to whatever is the latest conspiracy story is, quite literally, insanity.

As a brutally practical matter we must always maintain a threshold of evidence and plausibility below which "theories" do not need to be refuted or considered seriosly. The world is full of con-men, lunatics, religious cults and conspiracy theorists. If we treat them all equally, as the media and some liberal academics are prone to do, discussion descends into chaos. You cannot have a seminar on Evolution if a Scientific Creationist must be treated seriously. And you cannot have a discussion of Bush admin failures before and after 9/11 if we have to listen to Conspiracists who reject the shared reality for wild speculations.

For most activists and for the general public, the 9/11 hobbyists are an ugly and infuriating group. Whatever the failures and crimes of the Bush Admin (and they are many and awful), we WERE attacked by insane religious thugs. It is a peculiar kind of asshole that devotes himself to finding evidence that thouands of our own government and military people did this deed. NOT George Walker Bush, but the soldiers and bureaucrats who would have had to execute his orders.

[petgoat]

189. "we WERE attacked by insane religious thugs"

And you know this how?

When Bush demanded that Taliban turn over Osama, Taliban quite rightly asked
to see the evidence that he had been involved in 9/11. Instead of evidence,
Bosh gave them air strikes.

Colin Powell promised a White Paper would be produced outlining the evidence.
It was never produced.

The alleged hijackers who were allegedly fanatical Muslims drank alcohol, did
coke, rented porno videos, got lap dances, and gambled. Atta's girlfriend was
a stripper. And the fact that six of them have turned up alive is ignored in
the US media.

You dignify the OV as a "consensus reality" and invoke the millions who believe
it to try to legitimize it. The OV is a story full of holes and outright
falsehoods, and that it is believed by people who have not bothered to
investigate the facts for themselves does not make it one bit truer.

For you to try to package all the information gathered by 9/11 investigators
into a homogeneous set of theories-it-is-our-duty-to-ignore-else-we-risk-literal
-insanity is to indulge the all-arguments-are-equal construct you pretend to
decry.

Your assertion that 9/11 as inside job would require a conspiracy of thousands
is a silly Straw Man. It required only a few people beyond the 19 hijackers:
Frasca and Maltbie in the FBI to squelch investigations, Myers, Rummy, Rice, and
Cheney to do nothing, and one person to tell al Qaeda when the war games would
disrupt the air defense.

[MervinFerd]

192. Yes, we WERE attacked by Fanatics. Get over it.

LOGIC! MR. GOAT!

<<It required only a few people beyond the 19 hijackers:
Frasca and Maltbie in the FBI to squelch investigations, Myers, Rummy, Rice, and
Cheney to do nothing, and one person to tell al Qaeda when the war games would
disrupt the air defense.>>

Possibly true. But, that wouldn't produce any of the "evidence" you are so fond of, would it?

Unless "Myers, Rummy and Rice" snuck into the towers and WTC7 and planted the explosives themselves. And then called up relatives and pretended to be hijacked passengers, etc.

And, if Mohammed Atta et al weren't flying the planes, and died on them, then
WHO WAS IT?

Definintely wasn't "Myers, Rummy, Rice and Cheney".


It really doesn't work. Does it?

[petgoat]

196. "we WERE attacked by Fanatics. Get over it. LOGIC! MR. GOAT!"

Non sequitur. I don't think I'd get very far arguing "The twin towers were demolished
by explosives. Get over it. LOGIC!" (Maybe if I tapped my temple for emphasis?)

that wouldn't produce any of the "evidence"

The behavior is the evidence. The squelching of investigations and the non-action
by authorities were essential to the success of the attacks.

if Mohammed Atta et al weren't flying the planes, and died on them, then
WHO WAS IT?

Who knows? Got any proof that Atta was on flight 11? The Dulles video pictures of
Hani Hanjour don't look anything like Hani.

Take a look at these pictures of Ziad Jarrah:



http://www.cooperativeresearch.org

Definitely wasn't "Myers, Rummy, Rice and Cheney".

Which undeniable fact has nothing to do with my proposition that the participation
of fewer than ten officials beyond the 19 hijackers (whoever they were) plus the
distraction (and classified hushup) of the war games made the attacks possible.
No conspiracy of thousands was necessary.

It really doesn't work. Does it?

You don't sound so sure. Do you? Read Griffin. Watch Dr. Jones's video.
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html

Check out the timeline at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org and also
Jim Hoffman's excellent http://911research.wtc7.net/

[MervinFerd]

221. Investigations of disasters are always embarrassing....

to the people in charge.

Especially, if they f'd up.

OF COURSE the admin doesn't want vigorous investigations. That proves nothing. The only remarkable thing is that the Dems and the media allowed them to get away with it.

As to the hijacker's identity, it's -possible- the FBI got the wrong man. They've done that before. It's also possible the Conspiracy Hobbyists have found an Arabs with similar names or that the whole thing is BS.

But if there was a deliberate framing of these people, that requires a lot of people beyond the Bush inner circle. And the story line makes no sense. Why frame a bunch of live Saudi's so the whole conspiracy would be blown when they turned up alive and well? Especially, if you wanted to blame Iraq?

This just proves nothing, even if it is true.

You cite evidence that requires a conspiracy so vast that it is completely implausable. Then, having "proved" Bush's guilt, you retreat to a tiny claim that the only the Bush inner circle was involved and they only did things that would leave no evidence.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[petgoat]

224. Investigations of disasters

It wasn't a disaster--it was a triumph. Many of those who were at fault (Condi, Myers,
Rummy, Frasca and Maltbie) were PROMOTED! Was anybody fired? Bush's approvals went from
55% to 90%. He was able to indulge his longtime ambition to invade Iraq, and there's
much reason (pipelines and opium) to think his cabal wanted to invade Afghanistan too.
Afghani ministers were warned in July that the US was planning to invade in October.

if there was a deliberate framing of these people, that requires a lot of people
beyond the Bush inner circle.

How do you know? How many? Who? Where? Since the Mossad warned before 9/11 of
19 terrorists planning something big, and since they named names, and since the
4 names that have been released are all alleged hijackers, it seems likely the info
about their identity comes from the Mossad.

This just proves nothing, even if it is true.

It proves this: the 9/11 Commission Report was extremely sloppy in that it simply
repeated the faulty FBI information (and published the pictures) when all the
newspapers in the UK knew it wasn't true.

It proves also this: that the History Channel and A&E and the Flight 93 movie that
repeat the erroneous information are also very careless with the facts--in the direction
of the official story--and are thus not to be trusted.

a conspiracy so vast that it is completely implausable.

Well you finally quit with the Jewish Elves; "Vast Conspiracy" is no more valid.
All it took was a bunch of hijackers, war games to paralyze the air defense, the
secret nature of the war games, Frasca and Maltbie to obstruct the FBI; Rummy, Cheney,
Condi, and Myers to do nothing, and somebody to tell the hijackers when the war games
were happening.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Time for change]

173. I will take issue with the statement that the attack on the Pentagon is

cut and dried:

1) You mention that the for the conspiracy theorists to be correct, body parts would have had to have been planted at the scene. I don't believe that body parts were found at the scene. Can you say that I'm wrong about that?

2) You mention hundreds of eye witnesses to the event. Some witnesses said that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, and there are also many eye witnesses who believe it was a missile. I can't tell which are more prevalent, but I can imagine that it would be difficult to tell the difference.

3) You note that one of the conspiracy theorists gives no citation for the disappearance of Flight 77 from the radar screen. I maintain that there is NO evidence of Flight 77 returning to Washington DC, other than the witnesses who claim to have seen it hit the Pentagon. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

4) You say that the conspiracy theorists on this issue must account of what happened to Flight 77. I disagree. This does not have to be accounted for in order to make the claim that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

5) Many believe that photographs after the impact show a hole that is way to small for a plane to have entered through. I realize that there are differences in the interpretation of these films, and I am no expert on interpreting them, but they certainly look at least somewhat persuasive to me. In the same vein, many claim that there were no large plane parts found at the scene. Others have countered by showing pictures of supposed plane parts (how they differentiate those from part of a missile is beyond me.) I guess it depends on your definition of "large".

[petgoat]

175. WaPo says 77 disappeared from radar

"Pentagon Crash Highlights a Radar Gap
Limited System in One Area Made Flight 77 Invisible to Controllers for Half-Hour

By Don Phillips
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 3, 2001; Page A06

The airliner that slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11 disappeared from controllers' radar screens for at least 30 minutes -- in part because it was hijacked in an area of limited radar coverage. That gap cost military and aviation officials valuable warning time, according to officials and other sources."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

I believe Norman Mineta's account of the discussion at 9:25 in the White House bunker between Cheney and the young man about a plane that was approaching constitutes evidence about flight 77.

Few people know that of the 125 people killed on the ground at the Pentagon, 100 were civilan
construction workers. Many of the 25 Pentagonista dead have job descriptions which may have
(I haven't investigated the claims) brought them into conflict with the Bush administration.

[Time for change]

176. Yes, I agree that Mineta's testimony would tend to support the fact

that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

But then, it would also strongly support MIHOP or LIHOP if one assumes that testimony to be accurate.

[dmoded]

179. this still baffles me

Thanks greatly for the article and in short, I've always wondered about this. There are many conspiracy theories about the controlled demolitions of it. How they imploded so neatly and collapsed, and with wtc7 having nothing to do with any of the impact why would that too go down.

On the other hand, I look at Al Queda's chatter and how theyve praised the 19 hijackers and are so hell bent on getting the states. That makes me believe it wasn't an inside job.

The evidence of transcripts of firefighters and witness's hearing bombs go off on lower levels to them is out there but when you take in the whole magnitude of it and although the biggest critic would say this would be a false pretense for bush to start war, it just doesn't add up. As much as the war machine makes money, and the obvious focus on oil it seems unlikely even the inside forces would want to do that to NYC.

I don't know what gives here. yes they collapsed very neatly in demolition style fashion, but even Satan wouldn't do that to his own people as an excuse for war.

Bush on the other hand.. :) (j/k)

d.

[petgoat]

188. Al Qaeda was a joint project of the CIA and the Saudis, created

to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

If the report in Le Figaro is true, and Osama met with the CIA agent
Larry Mitchell while in the American Hospital at Dubai in 7/01, then it would
appear that Osama is still a CIA asset, and then even if we have 19 actual Arab
hijackers the attacks could still be an inside job.

even Satan wouldn't do that to his own people

I've seen enough Freeper chat showing extreme antipathy to New York, and
glorying in fantasies of violence to Liberals, that I can't agree with you
on that.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[dmoded]

194. thanks for the welcome

yes, i realize osama and the boys were well funded by the US to topple russia which they did successfully.. man, 7/01 is hitting very close to the impact day..

but if osama and his henchmen want the states to be totally obliterated, do you think even the sickest of sick would help him in their mission for total destruction of their own people?
thats what gets me, if 9/11 was an inside job (because yes, the way those towers toppled perfectly inwards, demolition style being the most blatant example) with al queda's broad perspective being taken into thought, it doesn't add up.

if al queda were to stop there, then yes i could buy into the fact that it were in inside job, towers crumble, a reason to start war.

but unfortunately they didn't stop there, it seemed more of a gunshot in the air to call attention to their cause. seeing as how they want the us wiped totally off the map, something doesnt add up.

And believe me man, don't get me started on those Freeper hicks .. :) they are the epitome of hypocrites. Anything that comes to fault on this administration (Basically, EVERYTHING) they point the finger at Hillary and Bill for some reason, or find some way to point out how "the article writer is so and so, discredited, goddamn MSM again" .

Their list of excuses is thicker than the dictionary man.. funny, but at the same time how long can you pass gas verbally before realizing the mainstream is right?

d.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TrogL]

198. A theologian????

Theologian Dr. Ray Ray Griffin's article:

In a discussion of buildings falling down, I want to hear from engineers and architects.

Most of the "witnesses" cited here have the exact same problem I noted above.

Premise 1: All cows are blue.
Premise 2: My dog is blue.
Conclusion: Therefore my dog is a cow.

Premise 1: Controlled Demolition buildings fall straight down.
Premise 2: The Twin Towers fell straight down.
Conclusion: The Twin Towers fell by CD.

Sorry, it's invalid logic (fallacy of undivided middle) no matter how you swing it.

[TrogL]

199. How about some of these other people

BYU physics professor Stephen Jones BYU = Brigham Young University - Mormons

“here was just an explosion . It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

All the way around WHAT? "seemed like" - even he understands.

“I saw a flash flash flash the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

So the only possible source of the flash could be CD. Never mind breaking windows, fire coming down the elevator shafts or half a dozen other things going on.

“t was professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

So the only possible source of popping noises could be CD. Never mind the floors collapsing or half a dozen other things going on.

Police said that it looked almost like a ‘planned implosion.’

Are police qualified to make this distinction? Last I heard they were trained in law enforcement, not architecture, materials or engineering.

he and others felt an explosion

How the hell do you "feel" an explosion. You can either visibly see smoke, ejecta or fire or you can feel a "thump". A thump could come from anything.

blast that “sounded like a bomb,”

So the only possible source of a large noise like that could be a bomb. Get real.

This whole methdology of "logic" was popularized with the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail and resurrected (pun intended) with The Da Vinci Code. In these books, one of many solutions is presented as a vague possibility, no other alternatives explored, then a paragraph later the solution is presented as fact.

[petgoat]

200. Dr. Van Romero of New Mexico Tech is an expert in

explosives, explosions, and controlled demolition.

He said after seeing the video that the collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.... Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

Later he retracted his opinion that fires could not have brought the buildings down, but he
never retracted his opinion that the collapse looked exactly like a controlled demolition.

He also said that a few charges in key places could have done the job.

[greyl]

206. Jesus fucking christ!

You earn no respect, petgoat.

[petgoat]

207. Thank you for sharing. nt

[petgoat]

215. Is that supposed to be an argument? nt

[greyl]

228. No, commentary because of your continuous use of Van Romero

in a misleading way.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.
Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.
Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.
Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.
But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

[petgoat]

234. My use of the Van Romero quotes is in no way misleading.

Van Romero said it looked just like a controlled demolition, that controlled demolition was
practical, and that he didn't think fires could have brought it down.

Later he recanted and said he thought fires brought it down. He never recanted the points
I quote: It looked like a controlled demolition and CD was practical.

There's nothing misleading about it. You appear to be applying a "he recanted part of
it therefore he recanted all of it" argument. That's baloney.

[greyl]

240. It's subtle but meaningful.

Similar to a hardcore right-winger's fond memories of bush's high approval ratings before the majority of the country woke the hell up.

Dr. Van Romero's current opinion, which he gained after looking at the issue more carefully, is that it does not look like controlled demolition. Your way around this is to speculate another tinfoil hat theory that he changed his tune to fit in with the rational crowd that he wanted to work for.
That doesn't make sense, because a few hours after the attacks he speculated that bombs were planted as part of the larger terror attacks including the planes. As he explained on September 11, 2001, his bomb theory fit with a common terrorist tactic of diversionary attack. He never said our government was responsible, so how could he possibly feel pressured to dishonestly recant his first impression that bombs caused the buildings to fall?

Today, Dr. Van Romero thinks that fires brought the buildings down, and he isn't pleased that his quote from 9/11 has been twisted for careless use by conspiracy theorists.

[petgoat]

245. "Dr. Van Romero's current opinion"

Dr. Van Romero's current opinion, which he gained after looking at the issue more carefully, is that it does not look like controlled demolition.

Absolute hogwash. Dr. Romero's current opinion, after getting pressure from people, is that fire brought the buildings down, but the collapse still looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

He never said our government was responsible, so how could he possibly feel pressured to dishonestly recant his first impression that bombs caused the buildings to fall?

He could feel pressured if he WAS pressured, regardless of your opinions on how he should feel and why.

he isn't pleased that his quote from 9/11 has been twisted

There's nothing twisted about it. He said 1) it looked like a controlled demolition, and
2) controlled demolition was absolutely practical and 3) that fires could not have caused
the symmetrical collapse.

That he recanted 3 in no way changes his assertion of 1 and 2.

Note that Dr. Romero was named as one of six top lobbyists in 2003.

"From his perch 2,000 miles outside of the Beltway, this physics Ph.D. understands exactly how Washington works,” the article {in Influence magazine} states. “A major chunk of his
job involves lobbying for federal government funding, and if the 2003 fiscal year was any indication, Romero is a superstar.”"

http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2003/18dec01.html

[petgoat]

235. self-delete

[jberryhill]

203. New Orleans Was Destroyed by a Locomotive

A lot of people said that hurricane Katrina "sounded like a locomotive".

So it was REALLY a large locomotive that done it.

[petgoat]

208. The news reports at the time said again and again that FDNY

authorities had reported "secondary explosions". One would expect FDNY personnel to be
familiar with the kinds of sounds that normally occur in fires, and to know the kind of
things that tend to sound like explosions. That's what the reports said.

[jberryhill]

211. I have no doubt that they heard all sorts of things

...and I am certain that nobody on the FDNY was familiar with the kinds of sounds that normally occur when a jet plane flies into a skyscraper.

That's what I was driving at with the kinds of "Normally... one would expect..." lines of argument about 9/11. There was damn little that was "normal" about the event.

[petgoat]

213. Can you suggest a mechanism by which the concrete floors are

turned to dust in midair?

[jberryhill]

223. No

Nor do I have to, since CD doesn't do that either. I do not recall seeing a large pile of dust at ground zero, absent of concrete chunks, and containing steel members. It certainly looks as if there was quite a bit of turbulence on the way down, which produced dust among a wide variety of other debris.

Failure to produce an explanation for X does not validate any among competing explanations.

[petgoat]

212. Nice Straw Man. Eyewitness testimony is only consistent with,

not proof of, explosive demolition. Did anybody say it was proof?

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MervinFerd]

204. He could sell Cold Fusion, too.....nt

[petgoat]

209. He wasn't selling Cold Fusion, he was investigating it. It was

Pons and Fleischmann that jumped the gun with irresponsible and premature claims.
They did so out of fear that Jones would beat them to the discovery. Jones's own
work was sober and careful.

[MervinFerd]

210. Oh........nt

[greyl]

214. Hunter would kick your ass

when he found you were using his image to lend importance to your self.
I mean, totally wreck it.

[petgoat]

218. Thank you for sharing. Is that supposed to be an argument? nt

[greyl]

219. It's a summation. nt

[petgoat]

225. You invoke a dead man to kick my physical ass since you can't

kick my rhetorical one. Thanks for sharing.

[greyl]

241. No, I'm sticking up for a dead man

because I suspect he may have considerable difficulty speaking for himself.

"I posted a story yesterday, from The Globe and Mail, titles Alexander Pope In a Prose Convertible. In it the writer claimed that Hunter had called him the night before he died, and said that they were going to kill him. Hunter had apparently gotten hard evidence that the WTC was brought down by explosives, and not the planes. The Globe and Mail would only let you read the first paragraph of the story without registering and paying for the rest of it. I didn't bother. I did a google search of Thompson, and the writer of the story PAUL WILLIAM ROBERTS. The only thing I came up with was this Roberts guy mentioning fear and loathing in Las Vegas, in some other story he wrote. There was nothing linking the two, in any way. I concluded that this guy was a fan, and the story was bullshit.
Today I found out that in the second paragraph of Mr. Roberts story he admits that Hunter never called him.
http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/118.htm

[petgoat]

242. I've debunked the Roberts story myself, here and elsewhere,

so you can't hang that one on me.

But look what HST said on the radio in Australia in August of 2002:

"Mick O’Regan: You went on to say in that article, which I have in front of me, that ‘even ESPN was broadcasting war news. It was the worst disaster in the history of the United States.’ Do you think that the event completely transformed the way in which Americans see themselves and their own vulnerability?’

"Hunter S. Thompson: No, the event by itself wouldn’t have done that. But it was the way the Administration was able to use that event. Even use it as a springboard for everything they wanted to do. And that might tell you something. I remember when I was writing that column you sort of wonder when something like that happens, Well who stands to benefit? Who had the opportunity and the motive? You just kind of look at these basic things, and I don’t know if I want to go into this on worldwide radio here, but –

"Mick O’Regan: You may as well.

"Hunter S. Thompson: All right. Well I saw that the US government was going to benefit, and the White House people, the republican administration to take the mind of the public off of the crashing economy. Now you want to keep in mind that every time a person named Bush gets into office, the nation goes into a drastic recession they call it.

"Mick O’Regan: It seems a very long bow to me, but are you sort of suggesting that this worked in the favour of the Bush Administration?

"Hunter S. Thompson: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And I have spent enough time on the inside of, well in the White House and you know, campaigns and I’ve known enough people who do these things, think this way, to know that the public version of the news or whatever event, is never really what happened."

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/mediarpt/stories/s659555.htm

[MervinFerd]

260. The TERRIBLE problem of Cow Abductions----You laugh! But it's REAL

See the irrefutable evidence here:

http://www.cowabduction.com/

[petgoat]

265. I know it's real. It's called "rustling".

A young dairy cow can be worth $2500, or $700 as beef. I myself saw the
hide and head of a cow dumped in a pastureside creek. I suppose someone
rustled the carcass.

[reprehensor]

261. Ernest, here is a critique of your piece...

http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/open-source/org/sth/fact911/re-partridge-001.html

I don't know the author, but he/she seems to make a few good points, and a few typical ones.

Cheers.

[Bushwick Bill]

262. Kick and another rebuttal.

From one of the best truthers out there, the esteemed Jim Hoffman, and his colleague.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/commondreams/partridge.html

[blogbart]

263. You didn't have to do what you did

Mr. Partridge, if you have your own doubts about the OV please just put voice to them. Your integrity is not injured by the existence of other CTs. You don't have to question CTs which don't synch with your doubts because the investigation will do it for you. If your doubts are genuine, and they appear to be genuine, then all you gotta do is stand on the rooftops and yell and scream and demand a proper investigation. I don't think anyone, except of course, the perpetrators of the murder, fraud and deceipt will be angry with you then.

http://blogbartblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-conspiracy-skeptics-view-by-ernest.html

[Bushwick Bill]

264. Sorry.

I wasn't trying to call out Ernest, I just wanted to add to the healthy banter.

I totally agree with you about demanding a proper investigation.

[blogbart]

266. Oh no apology please!

No I am sorry, I wasn't criticizing you. I replied to your post bc the rebuttal to Ernest's essay which you linked to had a similar message to mine.

Cheers!

[wiggs]

268. I wish Sibel Edmonds could tell us what she knows.

For those who don't know her story, see DU Groups under Sibel.