In this week’s eSkeptic, on the 5th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center, Phil Molé takes a look at the “9/11 Truth Movement” and shares with us his experience attending a weekend conference held in Chicago, organized by 911truth.org.
9/11 Conspiracy Theories:
The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective
by Phil Molé
At the Hyatt Regency O’Hare near Chicago, a crowd of approximately 400 people has gathered on a pleasant summer evening. Some are old and some are young; some are dressed in colorful tie-died shirts while others wear dress shirts and slacks, but most seem cheerful and friendly. We are all waiting for the opening of the main lecture hall for the evening’s event, the first of many scheduled talks during a weekend-long conference. We bide some time by looking at the items for sale: DVD copies of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, the anti-Karl Rove documentary Bush’s Brain, and the more recent Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price.
There is nothing especially unusual here, since all of these are available at the Borders or Best Buy near you. But then as the doors to the main hall are about to open, one anxious attendee tries to start a chant of “9/11 was an Inside Job.” A few people join in before another attendee tells him, quite emphatically, “we already know!” The weekend conference is the Chicago meeting for 911truth.org, one of the most visible organizations within a larger coalition known as the “9/11 Truth Movement,” and most of the crowd believes that the United States government planned and orchestrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The statement “we already know!” well summarizes the attitude of the conference attendees toward the material presented during the lectures. Many at the conference do not seem to be looking for new information that might lead to more accurate perspectives about the events of 9/11. A fellow sitting near me admits, “We already know this stuff; we’re here to reconfirm what we already know.” The conference is a way for attendees to consolidate their group identity, and try to bring their message to those people at home and abroad who believe the “official story” of 9/11. As someone who does not share the views of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I have another objective. I want to listen to their arguments and view their evidence, and understand the reasons why so many likable and otherwise intelligent people are convinced that the United States government planned the murder of nearly 3,000 of its own citizens.
The Collapse of
World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2
When most of us recall the events of 9/11, we think of the image of those two seemingly indestructible World Trade Center towers crumbling to the ground. Not surprisingly, their collapse is also a central issue for the 9/11 Truth Movement. An overwhelming amount of the organization’s talks and publicity materials address the fall of Buildings 1 and 2. But as these materials show, 911truth.org does not believe the official story that the primary damage to the WTC occurred when two airplanes hijacked by terrorists crashed into the towers. Rather, they maintain that the towers fell due to a controlled demolition, planned in advance by the United States government.
Why do they think this? A primary reason seems to be that the collapse of the towers looks like the result of a controlled demolition. Since there is no structural resistance to gravity in a controlled demolition, the building collapses straight into its own footprint, with each floor “pancaking” onto the floors below at or near the speed of a free fall. Many of the presenters at the Hyatt Conference compared videos of the collapse of the towers with videos of known controlled demolitions, noting the similarity in both the appearance and speed of collapse. 911truth.org maintains that if actually hit by an airplane, the steel structure of the WTC buildings should have provided at least some resistance to the weight of the floors above, causing the falling structure to pitch over to one side rather than pancake straight down. They further argue that fires caused by burning jet fuel from the crashed planes could not have caused the collapse, since jet fuel burns at a temperature of no more than 1500° Fahrenheit,1 while a temperature of approximately 2800° is needed to melt steel. David Heller makes the point in a widely read article:
The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they’re built from steel that doesn’t melt below 2750° Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500° Fahrenheit.2
Since burning jet fuel is not hot enough by itself to melt steel, reports that melted steel was observed at Ground Zero suggest to conspiracy theorists that some other incendiary substance must have been introduced.
Finally, many of the leaders of the movement claim that demolition “squibs” can be seen in videos of the WTC collapse just before and during the time the towers began to fall. In professional demolition lingo, a “squib” is an explosive device used to weaken building structure during a controlled demolition. Several presenters at the conference pointed out small bursts of debris spraying out horizontally from the towers during collapse, and identified these as “squibs” secretly detonated to fell the buildings.
What can we make of these allegations? First, let’s examine the similarity in appearance between the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and the collapse of buildings destroyed through planned demolitions. In controlled demolitions, detonating devices weaken or disrupt all major support points in a building at the same time. Therefore, once the collapse begins, all parts of the building are simultaneously in motion, free-falling to the ground. However, this is definitely not what happens during the collapse of WTC Buildings 1 and 2. Carefully review footage of the collapses, and you will find that the parts of the buildings above the plane impact points begin falling first, while the lower parts of the buildings are initially stationary.3 The parts of the towers below the impact point do not begin to fall until the higher floors have collapsed onto them. This is not what we would expect if the towers collapsed from a controlled demolition, but it is exactly what we would expect if the building collapse resulted from damage sustained by the impact of the planes and subsequent fire damage. A conspiracy theorist may counter that the buildings were rigged to begin falling from the top down, but what are the chances that those planning such a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers, and prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there?
Additionally, footage of the collapse of the South Tower, or Building 2 reveals that the tower did not fall straight down, as the North Tower and buildings leveled by controlled demolitions typically fall. Instead, the tower tilted toward the direction of the impact point, and then began to pancake downward with the top part of the building tilted at an angle. The difference between the two collapses can be explained by the different way each airplane struck the buildings. The first plane struck the North Tower (Building 1) between the 94th to 98th floors and hit it head on, burrowing almost directly toward the core of the building. The second airplane struck the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors, but sliced in at an angle, severely damaging the entire northeast corner of the building.4 Compared with the North Tower, the South Tower sustained damage that was both less evenly distributed and significantly lower on the building’s frame, requiring the weakened point to support more upper building weight than the corresponding crash site on the North Tower. This explains both the tilt of the building as it fell toward the weakened corner, and the fact that the South Tower fell first despite being struck after the North Tower was struck. Again, this scenario makes good sense if the buildings fell due to damage inflicted by the plane crashes, but makes very little sense if the buildings fell due to a planned demolition.
The 9/11 Truth Movement often states or implies that steel would have needed to melt in order for the structure to collapse at the speed of a free-fall. While there are varying assessments of the temperature of the fire at WTC, most agree that the temperature probably reached 1,000° Fahrenheit and possibly higher than 1,800° F. Flames of this temperature would be far short of the approximately 2800° F needed to melt steel, but they would have been sufficient to severely reduce the structural integrity of the metal. Best engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650° F, and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800° F.5 Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse.
The unique structure of the WTC towers exaggerated the problems caused by the weakened steel. The towers had a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers, with 95% of the structure’s interior consisting of nothing but air (see Figure 1).6 Within this perimeter tube design there was a 27m by 40m core, designed to provide additional support to the tower. Steel trusses, or joists, connected the outer beams to the core at each story, and provided much of the overall support to the weight of each floor. The impact and explosion of the airplane crashes probably knocked off most of the insulating material intended to fireproof the steel beams, considerably increasing their vulnerability to flames. The heat of the flames reduced the steel to a fraction of its initial strength, while also causing the steel trusses to expand at each end until they no longer supported the weight of the building’s floors, triggering the collapse. The expansion and warping of the steel would have been particularly significant due to temperature differences within the burning structure.7 Thus, the trusses went limp much like a slackened laundry line, providing little or no resistance to the weight of the floors overhead.
Figure 1 A cutaway diagram of the
structure of the main towers at WTC
What about the “melted steel” that 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim was at Ground Zero? Dr. Steven Jones’ popular article cites several anecdotal sources speaking about flowing or pooled samples of melted steel found at Ground Zero.8 However, the sources in question are informal observations of “steel” at Ground Zero, not laboratory results.9 To many people, any grayish metal looks sufficiently like steel to call it “steel” when speaking informally. To actually establish that the substance in question is steel, we need analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or another suitable test. It seems far more likely that the metal seen by the contractors was aluminum, a component of the WTC structural material that melts at a much lower temperature than steel and can look superficially similar to it. As for the “squibs” conspiracy theorists claim to see in videos of the WTC collapse, these are plumes of smoke and debris ejected from the building due to the immense pressure associated with millions of tons of falling towers (see Figure 2). Videos of the WTC collapse show that these plumes do not begin until after the towers begin falling and increase in intensity as the collapse continues — this is not the scenario one would expect if the plumes were actually explosives used to cause the buildings to fall.
The Collapse of
World Trade Center Building 7
Figure 2 circled area shows an alleged “squib” (actually air compressed by the falling tower)
“Not so fast,” the 9/11 Truth Movement might say. How do you explain the collapse of WTC Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane? Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists maintain that the collapse of this building at about 5:20 pm on 9/11 would not have occurred unless it was already prepared for demolition. The conspiracy theorists assume that damage sustained by WTC 7 during the attack was not sufficient to trigger its collapse. The site wtc7.net claims that “fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires.” They further claim that any damage from falling debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2 would have needed to be symmetrical to trigger the pancaking collapse of WTC 7.10
These arguments only reveal the assumptions of their authors. First, the fires burning in WTC 7 were extremely extensive, as Figure 3 shows. The reason this is not obvious from 9/11 Truth Movement presentations and documentaries is that they tend to only show the north side of WTC 7, selectively causing the building to appear both far less ravaged by fire and structural damage than it actually was (see Figure 4).
Firefighter Richard Banaciski notes the difference in appearance between the north and south sides of the building in his first-person account:
We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.11
Figure 3 WTC 7 seen from the Southwest side, showing the true extent of fire and structural damage
Emergency response workers at Ground Zero realized that extensive damage to the lower south section of WTC 7 would cause collapse as early as 3 pm on 9/11, a fact reported on news broadcasts at the time.12 Video footage shows that when collapse occurred, the south wall of the building gave in first, which is exactly what we would expect based on the location of the most extensive damage. As noted for the collapse of the South Tower, the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained. The planned demolition hypothesis, on the other hand, fails to explain why collapse would begin at exactly the point where damage was inflicted, since the conspirators would have had to been able to predict exactly where debris from the fallen North and South Towers would strike WTC 7. And while the makers of the documentary Loose Change comment that WTC 7 “fell straight down, into a convenient pile,” the truth is that the pile of debris was 12 stories high and 150 meters across, hardly the kind of “convenient pile” described by conspiracy theorists.13
For those who believe that Building 7 fell due to controlled demolition, some of the most powerful “evidence” seemingly comes from WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein’s alleged “confession” that he authorized the tower’s destruction. The quote in question comes from a September, 2002 PBS Special called America Rebuilds, in which Silverstein says:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.14
Figure 4 The image of WTC 7 commonly shown by the 9/11 Truth Movement, showing apparently minimal damage to the building
To conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones at prisonplanet.com, this quote seems to be a “smoking gun” because they interpret the phrase “pull it” to be “industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.”15 Silverstein seems to be saying that he and the firefighters decided to pull (destroy) Building 7, and watched it fall after authorizing the demolition. No building could be controllably demolished so quickly, the conspiracy theorists go on to argue, so WTC 7 must have been prepared for demolition long in advance.
On closer inspection, this supposedly devastating evidence does not seem to mean what the 9/11 Truth Movement thinks it means. There is far from unanimous industry agreement that the phrase “pull it” always signifies a controlled demolition with explosives — more specific phrases such as “pull away” would be used to designate the specific operation to be performed.16 And of course, “pull” has many common language uses quite separate from demolition lingo. But if Silverstein wasn’t describing a decision to destroy WTC 7, what could the words “pull it” mean? A good place to seek the answer is this September 9, 2005 statement by Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesperson for Larry Silverstein:
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building [emphasis added].17
McQuillan’s response also indicated that firefighters were present at WTC 7 to evacuate tenants, and worked at the site until late in the afternoon shortly before the collapse occurred. There is in fact abundant evidence that firefighters were present in and around WTC 7 in evacuation and rescue missions until late in the day on 9/11. As one account describes:
The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center … It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time [emphasis added] and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn’t] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely.18
Another first responder adds that there were “tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled [emphasis added] us out.”19 The first-hand accounts of rescue operations at WTC 7 tell a consistent story, and the latter quote also uses the word “pull” to describe the removal of firefighters from the vicinity of the building, just as McQuillan’s statement does. Indeed, there is large agreement between McQuillan’s response and the testimony of the firefighters, including the fact that:
- firefighters were in fact in the vicinity of WTC 7 on 9/11;
- their activities involved evacuation and rescue missions;
- firefighters remained near WTC 7 until late in the afternoon of 9/11;
- firefighters realized that WTC 7 would probably fall by approximately 3 pm on 9/11; and
- firefighters pulled back from the building shortly after this realization, and watched the building collapse at approximately 5:20 pm. Despite the objections of conspiracy theorists, the “official story” is both logically coherent and supported by evidence.
By contrast, the story told by the 9/11 Truth Movement is riddled with holes. It assumes that Larry Silverstein destroyed WTC Building 7, presumably in order to claim a huge insurance payoff. But if this is so, why would he tell the world of his plot on a PBS special? Furthermore, what relationship does Silverstein have with the United States government who, according to conspiracy theorists, destroyed the WTC buildings in order to terrorize its citizens into accepting domination by a police state?20 And if the government controlled the demolition of the WTC buildings in order to strike fear into its citizens, why one this one case would it wait until all of the tenants were evacuated from WTC 7 so that there were no reported casualties?21 The government’s strategy appears wildly inconsistent in the Truth Movement account — killing nearly 3,000 people in the destruction of the two main towers, while allowing an entire afternoon for the tenants of WTC 7 to escape. We should also note that the alleged 9/11 plot was needlessly complicated, since the building was wired for a controlled demolition and targeted to be hit by airplanes — why not just do the controlled demolition, ditch the airplanes and blame it on the terrorists of your choice?
There’s also the problem that, as even the 9/11 Truth Movement admits, prepping a building for demolition takes considerable time and effort. Usually a building targeted for demolition has been abandoned for considerable time and partially gutted to allow explosives intimate contact with the structure of the building. But since all of the WTC buildings were occupied right up to 9/11, how did the government gain access to wire 3 towers for complete demolition without anyone noticing? Imagine trying to sneak wires and bombs into buildings while thousands of people are working in offices, riding the elevators and milling about in the halls — that scenario is unlikely in the extreme.
The Pentagon
Many people in the 9/11 Truth Movement believe that the Pentagon was not actually struck by Flight 77, as the “official story” claims. Instead, they believe that the United States government somehow staged the damage, perhaps through the use of a bomb or strategically fired missile. This claim first attracted attention in French author Thierry Meyssan’s book, Pentagate, which claims that the damage done to the Pentagon was too limited to have resulted from the crash of a Boeing 757.22 The documentary “Loose Change” claims that the hole left in the Pentagon by the alleged airplane was “a single hole, no more than 16 feet in diameter,” and that no remains whatsoever of Flight 77 were found at the crash site.23 To dramatically support this last point, conspiracy theorists cite CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre’s report from the crash site on 9/11, which says, “From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”24
Like the previously discussed arguments about WTC 7 not being damaged enough to fall on its own, complaints about the size of the hole in the Pentagon left by Flight 77 rely on selective choice of perspective. 9/11 conspiracy theorists like to reference pictures of the damaged Pentagon in which the hole made by the plane appears to be small, but aren’t as fond of the pictures accurately showing the full extent of the damage. Some conspiracy theorists also don’t seem satisfied that the shape of the hole matches that expected for a crashed airplane. But the expectation that the plane should have left an immediately recognizable hole in the building is delusional — a speeding Boeing 757 will not leave a snow-angel style impression of itself in a concrete building (versus the mostly-glass exterior of the WTC buildings, which did leave an outline of a plane). And the contention that no remains of Flight 77 were found at the crash site is simply absurd. Many pictures taken of the area around the Pentagon crash site clearly show parts of an airplane in the wreckage. In an excellent article about 9/11 conspiracy theories in Popular Mechanics, blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer describes his own observations as the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed:
I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.
Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”25
But if there is so much evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, why did CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre report that he could find none? The answer is that McIntyre did not report this at all, and the 9/11 Truth Movement is once again selectively manipulating evidence to fit their conclusions. When McIntyre noted that no debris from a plane was observable near the Pentagon, he was responding to a specific question asked by CNN anchor Judy Woodruff during the segment. Flight 77 came in flying very low, and there had been speculation that the plane might have struck the ground shortly before reaching the Pentagon. McIntyre’s response, when quoted in full, makes clear that he is saying that there was no evidence that the plane hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon, but he certainly does not deny that the plane struck the Pentagon itself.
WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier — or one of our correspondence was talking earlier — I think — actually, it was Bob Franken — with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.
Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?
MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that’s crashed in [emphasis added], and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse [emphasis added].26
Note that McIntyre never questions that an airplane crash damaged the Pentagon, and indeed describes seeing many pieces of the aircraft around the crash site in an earlier section of the CNN transcript.27 Of course, this has not stopped conspiracy theorists from picking and choosing the evidence to push their own agendas.
Flight 93 and Other Alleged Anomalies
On April 5, 2006, the creators of the 9/11 conspiracy documentary “Loose Change” and their supporters decided to attend the premiere of the film “United 93,” about the hijacked airplane that crashed on 9/11. They wanted to take the opportunity to expose the alleged lies about this flight, and in the words of one “Loose Change” forum member, to “bite these bastards where it hurts, and have this Fight 93 movie backfire on them.”28 To many Americans, the passengers on United 93 who fought back against the terrorists and caused it to crash before it could reach its target are heroes, but the 9/11 Truth Movement sees things differently. Depending on which conspiracy theorist you ask, you will either learn that Flight 93 actually landed safely, or that a US military jet shot the plane out of the sky.29 The first claim stems from confusion in the initial Associated Press (AP) reports between Flight 93 and Flight 1989, the latter of which did land at Cleveland’s Hopkins Airport on 9/11. The AP subsequently corrected the error, but many conspiracy theorists have not followed suit.30 The second claim rests largely on unsupported assertions that the main body of the engine and other large parts of the plane turned up miles from the main wreckage site — too far away to have resulted from an ordinary crash. This is incorrect, because the engine was found only 300 yards from the main crash site, and its location was consistent with the direction in which the plane had been traveling.31 Furthermore, the black box for the flight records the struggle onboard preceding the plane’s crash. Conspiracy theorists are left with not only an evidentially worthless theory, but also a confusing one. Why would the same U.S. government that allegedly destroyed the WTC shoot down Flight 93 before it could cause similar damage to other buildings? Of course, this question assumes a standard of logical consistency that the 9/11 Truth Movement seems to lack.
Another alleged flight anomaly concerns the supposed “stand down” order given by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) on 9/11 to allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their destinations without interference. The 9/11 Truth Movement believes that NORAD had the capability of locating and intercepting planes on 9/11, and its failure to do so indicates a government conspiracy to allow the attacks to occur. To support this assertion, they claim that NORAD could have quickly neutralized the hijacked planes because flight interceptions are routine, with 67 such intercepts occurring before 9/11.32 Significantly, this claim does not specify the length of time over which these alleged intercepts occurred, or tell us whether they took place near major cities or over, say, miles of open ocean. More specific and accurate information comes from the Popular Mechanics article, which states:
In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts.33
It is not a quick or easy matter to locate and intercept a plane behaving erratically. NORAD personnel must first attempt repeated communication with the planes in question to rule out more mundane problems, and then must contact appropriate military personnel to scramble the planes and direct them to the appropriate location. The situation on 9/11 was further complicated by the fact that terrorists on the hijacked jets had turned off or disabled the onboard radar transponders. Without a transponder signal identifying the airplanes, each hijacked airplane would have been only one moving blip among many others on NORAD’S screens, making it much harder to track. Thus, even a direct NORAD decision to intercept any of the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have still entailed a significant amount of time to reach the jet — time that was simply not available on 9/11.
Various other conspiracy theories focus on the government’s alleged foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks. One popular theory suggests there was a suspiciously high volume of “put” trading of airline stocks in the days just before 9/11. Since “put” trading is effectively a gamble that the price of a stock will decrease, conspiracy theorists surmise that trading “insiders” knew about the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. While this may look suspicious in isolation, the general volume of put trading on these stocks reached similar levels at earlier points in the year. The spike in American Airlines trading was the highest of the all airline companies involved, but that’s hardly surprising considering that the company had just released a major warning about possible losses.34 Indeed, general bad news about the airline industry prompted investment companies to advise their clients to take the put options, removing any need to blame the trading options on foreknowledge of the attacks.
Another theory alleges that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) arrived at the World Trade Center on September 10, 2001, thus showing that the government knew about the coming disaster. This claim is based on a statement by Tom Kenney of the Massachusetts task force, who told CBS news anchor Dan Rather on September 13, 2001, “We’re currently, uh, one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on, uh, late Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site.”35 The rather mundane explanation for this quote is that Mr. Kenney confused his days — not an unusual occurrence for someone who had been working for more than two long days in emergency response activities. Thus, a straightforward interpretation of Kenney’s response is that he arrived at Ground Zero on 9/11 (which he incorrectly identified as Monday, rather than Tuesday), went into action on 9/12 (mistakenly identified as Tuesday) and did not get a chance to work the whole WTC site until “today” (the day he was speaking to Rather, or Thursday, 9/13). Additionally, many sources document the arrival of FEMA on 9/11, and Kenney’s wife confirmed the day her husband was dispatched to Ground Zero as 9/11.36 The degree to which the 9/11 Truth Movement will exaggerate and exploit simple misunderstandings does not speak well of their concern for truth.
Much of this discussion has focused on explanations given by the 9/11 Truth Movement, but we should note that the explanations they don’t give are just as problematic. I have not been able to locate any significant discussion of al Qaeda, radical Islamic terrorists or the modern history of the Middle East in any of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s writings. The most likely reason for this is that, like most other Americans, many of them simply didn’t pay very much attention to the Middle East before 9/11. Yet, it is impossible to understand the threat of terrorism unless we also understand how the fall of the Ottoman empire, the fragmentation of much of the Middle East into new nations with largely arbitrary boundaries after WW II, Muslim reaction to the creation of the state of Israel, the birth of Islamic fundamentalism, conflict with and influence by Soviet Russia, and frustration over America’s support for Israel have shaped the ideology and mission of groups like al Qaeda. Islamic terrorist groups arose in this context, and have actively and repeatedly targeted American interests for over two decades. The idea that Islamic terrorists would target U.S. buildings for attack fits well with recent events over the past two decades, including:
- an attack by the radical Hezbollah faction on Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983;
- the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985;
- a truck bomb attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; killing 6 people and injuring over 1,000 more;
- a thwarted attempt to blow up 12 planes heading from the Philippines to the U.S. in January, 1995;
- an attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and injuring hundreds more;
- the bombings of U.S. Embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing 12 Americans and 200 Kenyans and Tanzanians;
- a thwarted attempt by Ahmed Ressam to attack Los Angeles international airport in late 1999;
- a suicide boat bombing against the U.S.S. Cole on October 12, 2000, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others.37
Additionally, there is well-documented evidence that Osama Bin Laden has repeatedly organized and prompted attacks against the United States. His role as a financier for major terrorist organizations and the leader of al Qaeda is well-established. Bin Laden issued a 1996 fatwa officially declaring a jihad against the United States, and a second fatwa in 1998 declaring “to kill the Americans and their allies — civilian and military is an individual duty for any Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.”38 Since bin-Laden and al Qaeda have officially claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11, there is no point in seeking alternative theories.39
The best explanation for the events of 9/11 is that it was the latest and most damaging attack yet in a series of attacks by radical Islamic terrorists who wish to end what they believe is an evil U.S. foreign policy. As a nation, we were psychologically and strategically unprepared for this attack due to our failure to acknowledge the seriousness of the threat. Sadly, the 9/11 Truth Movement continues to divert its gaze from the real problems, preferring the solace of delusions to reality.
Conclusion: The Power of Conspiracy Theories
This article has analyzed the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement and found them lacking. Yet, the 400 people who attended the conference and the thousands of others who support their efforts find these theories convincing, and the reason does not necessarily seem to be grounded in common political ideology. Based on my informal survey of the crowd at the Hyatt conference, I noted that attendees seemed to come from each extreme of the political spectrum. There were representatives of the far right who decry any form of government authority, but there were also members of the far left waging a tireless campaign against the perceived evils of capitalism and imperialism. We need to return to a question posed near the beginning of this discussion: Why do so many intelligent and promising people find these theories so compelling?
There are several possible answers to this question, none of them necessarily exclusive of the others. One of the first and most obvious is distrust of the American government in general, and the Bush administration in particular. This mistrust is not entirely without basis. The American government deceived its citizens about the real human costs of Vietnam, and resorted to military tactics that were ethically questionable even by the standards of war. The revelations of Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal, and other nefarious schemes great and small have understandably eroded public confidence in government. Couple that with an administration, that took office after the most controversial presidential election in more than a century, and one that backed out of international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, misled citizens about the science of global warming and stem cell research, initiated a war in Iraq based on unsupportable “intelligence” about weapons of mass destruction, and failed to respond in adequately to the effects of a hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, and you have strong motivations for suspicion.40 (Suffice it to say, admiration for George W. Bush is not my motivation for defending him against the claims of conspiracy theorists).
However, there are a few things to be said about suspicion. First, there is the simple philosophical point that suspicion alone demonstrates nothing — any theory needs evidence in its favor if it is to be taken seriously. Second, the mistakes made by our government in the past are qualitatively different from a conscious decision to kill thousands of its own citizens in order to justify the oppression of others. Most importantly, there is the fact that most of what we know about the bad decisions made by our government is only knowable due to the relative transparency with which our government operates, and the freedom to disseminate and discuss this information.
The full irony of this last point hit me while I was at the conference. Here was a group of about 400 people gathered to openly discuss the evil schemes of the U.S. government, whom they accuse of horrible atrocities in the service of establishing a police state. But if America really was a police state with such terrible secrets to protect, surely government thugs would have stormed the lecture halls and arrested many of those present, or would at the very least have conducted behind the scenes arrests and jailed the movement’s leaders. Yet even the most vocal leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement are still going strong, and no one at the conference seemed very worried about government reprisals. This fact seemingly indicates that at some level, the conspiracy theorists themselves don’t really believe what they are saying.
Another reason for the appeal of 9/11 conspiracies is that they are easy to understand. As previously mentioned, most Americans did not know or care to know much about the Middle East until the events of 9/11 forced them to take notice. (The brilliant satirical newspaper The Onion poked fun at this fact with its article “Area Man Acts Like He’s Been Interested In Afghanistan All Along”).41 The great advantage of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s theories is that they don’t require you to know anything about the Middle East, or for that matter, to know anything significant about world history or politics. This points to another benefit of conspiracy theories — they are oddly comforting. Chaotic, threatening events are difficult to comprehend, and the steps we might take to protect ourselves are unclear. With conspiracy theory that focuses on a single human cause, the terrible randomness of life assumes an understandable order.
The great writer Thomas Pynchon memorably expressed this point in his novel Gravity’s Rainbow: “If there is something comforting — religious, if you want — about paranoia, there is still also anti-paranoia, where nothing is connected to anything, a condition not many of us can bear for long.”42 The promiscuity of conspiracy theories toward evidence thus becomes part of their appeal — they can link virtually any ideas of interest to the theorist into a meaningful whole. This point was illustrated nicely during the Q & A session following the conference screening of Rick Siegel’s Eyewitness: Hoboken. An attendee wanted to know what role the Freemasons played in the plot, and seemed very concerned that Siegel’s account had neglected them. After waffling on the answer for a few moments without appeasing his questioner, Siegel finally relented and said, “Sure, they’re involved.” And why not? With the standards of evidence used by conspiracy theorists, there is no reason why the Freemasons, the Bavarian Illuminati, or the Elders of Zion cannot also be involved in the 9/11 plot — it just depends on what you find the most solace in believing. As it turns out, some conspiracy theorists do throw one or more of these other parties into the mix, as a popular and bogus rumor that 4,000 Jews mysteriously failed to come to work on 9/11 shows.43
Solace is something all of us needed after the horrible events of 9/11, and each of us is entitled to a certain degree of freedom in its pursuit. However, there is no moral right to seek solace at the expense of truth, especially if the truth is precisely what we most need to avoid the mistakes of the past. Truth matters for its own sake, but it also matters because it is our only defense against the evils of those who cynically exploit truth claims to serve their own agendas. It is concern for the truth that leads us to criticize our own government when necessary, and to insist that others who claim to do so follow the same rigorous standards of evidence and argument. 9/11 was a powerful reminder of how precious and fragile human life and liberty are — the greatest possible rebuke to those who would live in service to delusions.
References & Notes
- 2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
- Heller, David. 2005. “Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center.” Garlic & Grass, Issue 6. Available at www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
- This is clearly visible in the PBS NOVA Documentary Why The Towers Fell.
- 2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
- Eager, Thomas and Musso, Christopher. 2001. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse: Science, Engineering and Speculation.” JOM, 53(12), 8–11.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Jones, Steven. 2006. “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” Available at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
- A good discussion of this issue can be found at http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
- This claim can be found at http://wtc7.net/b7fires.html
- “World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Richard Banaciski.” Interview conducted on December 6, 2001. Transcribed by Elisabeth F. Nason. Available at graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110253.PDF - Ibid.
- www.loosechangeguide.com
- “America Rebuilds,” PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/
- www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
- A discussion of the “pull it” phrase by professional demolition workers is at web.archive.org/web/ 20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/
911_my_own_review.htm#222 - See “9/11 Revealed? A New Book Repeats False Con-spiracy Theories.” At usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
- “World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Daniel Nigrois.” Interview conducted on October 24, 2001. The text of the interview is available at www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/ 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt - “World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Richard Banaciski.” Interview conducted on December 6, 2001. Transcribed by Elisabeth F. Nason. Available at graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/ 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/
9110253.PDF - Read almost anything at www.prisonplanet.com for this idea
- The FEMA report on WTC 7 is available at usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
- Meyssan, Thierry. 2002. Pentagate. New York: USA Books.
- www.loosechangeguide.com
- The transcript: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html
- 2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
- transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html
- Ibid.
- www.loosechangeguide.com
- The claim that Flight 93 landed safely is at www.rense.com/general56/flfight.htm. The claim that it was shot by a missile can be found at www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/shanksville.htm
- A description of the confusion between the planes is in Kropko, M.R. 2002. “September 11 Tension Vivid to Controller.” Associated Press, August 15, 2002. The story is also available online at www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/08/15/loc_sept_11_tension.html
- 2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
- One such claim can be found at 911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
- 2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.
- See “AMR Corp Issues 3Q’ 2001 Profit Warning.” Airline Industry Information, September 11, 2001. Available at www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:78127985. For a general contemporary assessment of the viability of airline industry in the months before 9/11, see Hamilton, Adam. 2001. “Plummeting Profits.” Zeal Speculation and Investment. June 22, 2001, available at www.zealllc.com/2001/plummet.htm
- Schorow, Stephanie. 2002. “Independent Research.” Boston Herald. 5 September (Arts & Life). A sound recording of Kenney’s statement can be heard at www.snopes.com/rumors/sound/kenney.ram
- Ibid.
- This list is based on information in Strasser, Steven (ed.). 2004. The 9/11 Investigations: Staff Reports of the 9/11 Commission. New York: Public Affairs Books. More information about radical Islam can be found in Rashid, Ahmed. 2001. Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. New York: Yale University Press.
- This quote can be found in many sources, including Strasser, Steven (ed.). 2004. The 9/11 Investigations: Staff Reports of the 9/11 Commission. New York: Public Affairs Books.
- Bamer, David. 2001. “Bin Laden: Yes, I Did It.” The Telegraph. November 11.
- One source among many possible for this information is Alterman, Eric and Green, Mark. 2004. The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America. New York: Penguin.
- This hilarious article is at www.theonion.com/content/node/28079
- Pynchon, Thomas. 1973. Gravity’s Rainbow. New York: Viking Press.
- See, for instance, “Absent Without Leave” at the Urban Legends Reference Pages: www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm
In addition to the specific sources cited above, readers seeking responsible analysis of the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement can use the following general sources:
- www.snopes.com
- The Urban Legends Reference Pages, containing entries about conspiracy claims such as the put options, the alleged early arrival of FEMA and the Pentagon attack. The forum also contains some intelligent discussion of conspiracy theories.
- www.loosechangeguide.com
- This is a viewer’s guide to the documentary “Loose Change,” which contains many of the conspiracy claims discussed in this article.
- www.911myths.com
- A great general source for all manner of conspiracy claims.
Thanks for your efforts to answer many of the charges of conspiracy of 9/11. Unfortunately, your explanations for the collapse of the buildings did not satisfy me at all.
First, there were many eyewitness accounts of explosions emanating from the basement levels of the towers in staccato-like fashion. This was not addressed in your discussion.
Second, blaming the fires for weakening the structural integrity of perhaps one or two of the 6 primary support beams such that the two towers would collapse in free-fall fashion is far-fetched to say the least. Fires need additional fuel to burn more intensely (hotter). No such fuel existed in any of the floors damaged. Jet fuel burns rapidly and exhausts itself fairly quickly. This is probably the weakest counterargument and least-common-sensical thing you tried to present.
Third, you failed to respond to the night-shift maintenance crews’ allegations that a team of unfamiliar electrical maintenance men came with orders to check the internal wiring throughout the towers and did work throughout the towers infrastructure starting nearly six weeks before 9/11 and finishing the week before 9/11. Fourth, Murphy’s law still exists. If something can go wrong, it will. Reality is not so perfect and logical as you seem to suppose. Asking why a conspiring government would do things that appear contradictory to its ’supposed’ purpose (conspiracy to scare the wits out of American citizens)is to assume everyone was ‘in on it’ when in fact, very very few may have even been aware of what was going on. There are many good honest people in government.
Fifth, you didn’t address Pres. Bush’s reaction after he learned what had occurred while in Fl. Listening and watching him lie(?) was not comforting to me at all. He made me think he knew something before the facts presented themselves.
Sixth, when thousands of fairly smart and reasonable citizens are presented with evidence and circumstances, you assume that because of their ignorance of Middle Eastern politics that none of them are qualified to make a judgement of what happened in plain view of many. Don’t you think you’re being a little arrogant? This is the way you appear to me. It’s kind of like disagreeing with the judgement of a jury. The jury is still out about who did this and why it was done. Most everyone can see that at least a few people or agencies in the US Government may have coordinated their contributions to this event for nefarious purposes with the actual perpetrators of the crime with the intent to cloud the facts surrounding the event. If so, it would not be the first, nor the last time this has ever happened.
Seventh, much evidence has been sifted through and digested. The weight of the accumulated evidence points to an inside job – not unrelated or physically impossible circumstances. Your contribution has been helpful in eliminating some of the fog surrounding some of the misunderstood facts but falls far short of answering many questions.
Sorry.
Please watch the new “9/11 Truth and Conspiracy” special on National Geographic. It’s well done and CLEARLY shows that the 9/11 Truthers are a bunch of nutjobs who haven’t got a clue about the truth. There is no way these building were brought down by controled demolition and absolutely no evidence has ever been presented to the contrary. Anyone who continues to believe in these ridiculous conspiracy theories really needs to get some professional help.
This is a great debate that will rage on for years like the Kennedy assassination. I think the government could easily disprove the conspiracy theorists if they released the video tapes of the plane hitting the pentagon. Why are these classified?
This document is manifesto of the lies told. The Bush Administration have rewritten Physics as we know it and we are to accept it without prof? what on faith !
Welcome to the Bush ages.
pspsup.wordpress.com
Ah, yes, the 9/11 conspiracy movement. This is a good article debunking all of that nonsense. Thank you for publishing it. But yet, there will always be people who (for some reason) cannot understand that the Arab world does not like us.
They think, everybody loves us, so for sure it must be America who did this to herself. The US government must be responsible because all other governments love us.
They think that Osama Bin laden is a made up man. They think that hairy guy who planned 9/11 made it up. These people, (Conspiracy Nuts) are just plain dumb.
But, in this country, we have the 1st amendment, so we have to live with them. So I just don’t even bother to lose my temper with them anymore… Afterall, when you tell yourself things 10,000 times, you begin to believe it.
719 Architectural and Engineering professionals (at time of post) disagree with you.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
It is purely scientific, adhering to all of the guidelines to sensible scepticism that this site claims to promote.
Please watch the video. It is not a “conspiracy theory”.
Tom, Osama does hate America, and has attacked its interests in the past. He is on the FBI’s Most Wanted List, but if one takes the time to review this entry to the list, they’ll find it mentions nothing of Sept 11. Why? The FBI has admitted publicly it has no evidence linking him to the crime.
Hundreds of ’scientists’ also believe that man-derived global warming is the cause of the current global climate change. That doesn’t make it anything but hogwash. Stop deceiving yourself and rejoin humanity. That scratch on your window at night isn’t alien abductors. Please see the following website, duh, this is NASA, and pay particular attention to the following statemen about midway:
“Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth’s atmosphere,oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun’s total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year.”
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/solar_trend_change_climate.html
Humans are such inane sheep…or maybe lemmings are better xenographic analogy.
Jason, you have a real gift for making your point without directly addressing the points of others.
I think it is important for me to correct some of the inaccurate and unsupported claims made by Phil Mole in this article.
Phil Mole: “Best engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650° F, and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800° F.5 Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse.”
Here Phil seems to be confusing the temperature of the steel with the temperature of the fires. It is the former that matters.
What evidence is there that any of the steel reached these temperatures? What percentage of the steel would have to reach these temperatures before we should expect the towers to “collapse”?
NIST found that only 2% of the steel tested on the perimeter columns got over 250C(482F) and none of the core columns. They also found, “Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C, 1112 F).” Besides, if fire temperatures of only 1,000° F can cause an entire building to be destroyed, then why hasn’t this happened before? So Phil’s previous assertions are baseless.
His next discussion is whether or not there was molten steel found in the rubble pile of the collapsed buildings. He states, “However, the sources in question are informal observations of “steel” at Ground Zero, not laboratory results.” This is not entirely true. In Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination of the FEMA Report, they found, “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent INTERGRANUAL MELTING, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”
His discussion of WTC7 is weak. A lot of the discussion has to do with what did Larry Silverstein really mean when he used the phrase, “pull it.” NIST now admits that WTC7 did enter a period of free fall for 2.25 seconds. This is something that there original computer model did not predict. This should call into question the accuracy of their assumptions.
The new paper(Active Thermitic Material…) by Harrit, Farrer et al now provides solid forensic evidence to support the strong visual evidence of demolition. Intellectually, the debate is over. 9/11 was a false-flag terror attack. For political reasons the debate will continue.
Phil Mole concludes, “This article has analyzed the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement and found them lacking.” Maybe he found them lacking because his research was very poor and superficial. He goes on, “any theory needs evidence in its favor if it is to be taken seriously.” This is true. The evidence that the 9/11 Truth Movement has accumulated against the government’s story is overwhelming. Phil Mole did not set out to learn about the evidence. His goal was to write another hit piece against the 9/11 Truth Movement.
p.s. Phil Mole apparently wrote this in 2006. If he still believes this nonsense today he has no excuse.
It’s funny how every debunking article includes a few conspiracists upset that ALL their evidence was not presented. They seem to think that unless ALL of their claims are refuted then it ALL must be true. That’s not how evidence works. The article above correctly addresses enough evidence to demolish [sic] the whole.
Who it usually works is that after debunking 27 indivisual pieces of evidence, the claimant is suddenly back at claim number 1, demanding that you debunk it all over again. The “fire can’t melt steel” claim has been addressed so many times it’s ridiculous, yet it keeps coming up. And up and up and up. It’s pointless arguing with the Truthers because they will not budge on any piece of the evidence, no matter how flimsy.
Actually, it is the aider/abetters that keep moving the issues. For example, there is nothing written anywhere at any time that legitimately contradicts the presence of melted steel in the basements of the WTC. Hell, there are many photographs of it, and you can see it pouring out of the windows of the Towers. An i we have the testimony of all kinds of credible third paties who saw it. Indeed we even have satellite thermal pictures of temperatures in the rubble that exceed any possible temperatures reachable by jet fuel and office furniture fires. The building didn’t collapse, it turned to dust. Thermite is found throughout the samples of dust taken from all over NY city. Survivors, news reporters, fire fighters, testimony reveals many large explosions in the basement and throughout the buildings.
When your purpose is to hide the truth and not discover the truth, you rarely end up with the truth.
It simply must be said that you are either inexcusably ignorant or suspiciously incurious, such that you have no business feigning to “report” anything. It will probably be written in the annals of history that the false flag even known as 9/11 was first and foremost a failure of journalism; a cowardly display of personal journalistic cowardice in a time when America needed them most. When America needed journalisms best, it got its’ worst. Yours is a perfect case in point.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they rely on imperfect human beings with imperfect knowledge to consistently make perfect choices.
David Johnson: “It’s funny how every debunking article includes a few conspiracists upset that ALL their evidence was not presented.”
No, it wasn’t that ALL the evidence of the 9/11 Truth Movement was not presented, it was that his statements were baseless and misleading. He was clearly confusing the temperatures of the fires with the temperatures of the steel. Thus his statement needed to be corrected.
David Johnson: “it usually works is that after debunking 27 individual pieces of evidence, the claimant is suddenly back at claim number 1, demanding that you debunk it all over again.”
Please, inform of these 27 claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement that have been debunked. It is primarily the government’s story that has been debunked.
David Johnson: “The “fire can’t melt steel” claim has been addressed so many times it’s ridiculous, yet it keeps coming up.”
Yes, it keeps coming up, because the believers in the official story keep promoting it.
To this day, many people still have that impression. The 9/11 Truth Movement brings this up to correct some inaccurate assumptions that people still have.
Even as late as 2006, 9/11 Commission Co-Chair, Lee Hamilton, was still under the impression that the fires melted the steel,
Lee Hamilton: “What caused the collapse of the buildings, to summarize it, was that the super-heated jet fuel MELTED the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse.”
Popular radio talk-show host Michael Savage stated this while debating a 9/11 Truther, “…that’s why the steel MELTED so rapidly…”, referring to the lack of fireproofing materials.
Michelle Malkin wrote in reference to other “conspiracy” theories, “I believe Trig was born to Sarah Palin. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. I believe fire can MELT steel and that bin Laden’s jihadi crew — not Bush and Cheney — perpetrated mass murder on 9/11.”
Well, fire can melt steel under certain circumstances, but here she was referring to the 9/11 Truth’s movement claim that this did not happen in WTC1,2.
If all these people are still under the impression that the fires melted the steel, then the 9/11 Truth Movement still has a long way to go in clearing up this delusion.
Frazil: “The problem with conspiracy theories is that they rely on imperfect human beings with imperfect knowledge to consistently make perfect choices.”
I’m not sure which 9/11 Truther believes this. It is pretty obvious that 9/11 was a false-flag terror attack once you look at the evidence, or lack of evidence.
Hey Tanabear,
While I personally think that you are a dense moron, I will make this VERY SIMPLE, and I will use VERY SMALL WORDS.
You claim, “In Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination of the FEMA Report, they found, “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent INTERGRANUAL [sic] MELTING, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”
First off, intergranular means between the grains. Steel, when poured, will form grains. Much like wood. Wood is solid, but has very small folds, or grains. Now, on to the next.
NEAR SURFACE MICROSTRUCTURE. This means, under a MICROSCOPE, near the VERY TIPPY TOP of the steel, it was begining to melt. Yes, this is possible. But, it is MICROSCOPIC, meaning they had to view this UNDER A MICROSCOPE. Not one person on the faace of this planet, in this universe that we occupy, could anyone at the scene of GZ, have seen NEAR SURFACE MICROSTRUCTURE melting.
Now, go back to your crayons and My Little Pony coloring books, and leave the complicated stuff to the smart people. (This last group does NOT include you.)
I’ll discuss the rest of your idiotic claim when I am not busy. Right now, I have more important things to do.
I have yet to read your peer-reviewed, published, refutation of the “Active Thermitic Material Discovered In Dust From The World Trade Center Catastrophe” – http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM – the recent study which scientifically, conclusively, proves the presence of energetic nano-composite material in the WTC’s.
Until you do so, I suggest you apply your obvious ad hominem attack – “dense moron” – to yourself.
Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination of the FEMA report was based on the research of three science professors(J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.) from the Fire Protection Engineering Program of Worcester Polytechnic Institute(WPI). Their research was originally reported in the New York Times and eventually made its way into the FEMA report.
“Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.”
A Search for Clues In Towers’ Collapse, New York Times
“There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel–which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit–may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon–called a eutectic reaction–occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.”
“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some LARGER THAN A SILVER DOLLAR–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.”
The “Deep Mystery” of Melted Steel
“Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC…”
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
“Due to the effectiveness of the SFRM[spray fire-resistive material],the highest column temperatures in WTC7 only reached an estimated 300C(570F)…”
Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
I have always felt that we have not been told the truth about 911, and yet I will concede that this one one well-written article.
If any of you feel like going off on another truth tangent on this subject get the book “Triple Cross” by Peter Lance, this is one gentleman who has his facts together. and “proves” the government had the knowledge and wherewithal to prevent 911, but Mr lance attributes to a major ass-covering of incompetence and to trying to keep a mob-related case going, that they would have been unable to had they pursued the info they had on the impending World Trade center attacks.
You can neatly fit Mr lances story into a “False Flag” by omission scenario if you like, and I’m not being facetious.
The best evidence that 9/11 was not a US Government conspiracy is the fact that not one person involved has sold their “insider’s story” for bazillion dollars. Someone with the power to produce irrefutable evidence would have done so by now, for an astronomical sum. They couldn’t keep the lid on the lack of WMD’s in Iraq, and their lies via Colin Powell were so hamfisted that they were exposed in short order. The whole 9/11 thing is way more complicated than that. Face it: they’d've been busted by now.
“The whole 9/11 thing is way more complicated than that.”
All other points aside, I think that’s exactly the nature of why this debate is (and probably will be for a very long time) still ongoing.
If it were a simple scenario, it would be simple to refute one side or the other. As we can see just from the response to this article, however; complex arguments and collections of evidence are not so black and white, open and shut.
There are far too many credible sources to consider to make a ten minute conclusion about this issue. I for one have never been thoroughly convinced of either side, because both continue to produce compelling evidence and testimony.
I do not think that suspicion alone is enough to condemn, but it is enough to question the nature of the investigation. Granted that it is still ongoing, it just seems that the biggest crime in American history was wrapped up in a relatively half-assed fashion.
Looks like there are some people replying to this who do their research and maintain skeptical mind frames yet view events with an open mind.
There is a massive amount of information on 9/11, and there is very little information that truly supports the official story of that event. Search for “Jeff King MIT” on Youtube and you’ll find a large amount of information presented that is not mentioned in this article. Skeptic Magazine, you’ve got to do more research before making such a strong statement, saying that the information is lacking.
Jeff Kings points are:
o Dust Clouds are “pyroclastic flows” ~ common only to controlled demos and volcanic explosions
o Dust was atomized/pulverized which is something that cannot be accomplished with a mechanical pounding process.
o Residual heat cannot be explained by a short hydrocarbon fire, another source has to be present.
Or the recent study done on the dust by a Danish team, they found evidence of “nanothermite” in the dust, which up to this point has been the accepted method of demolition by the truth movement.
There are hundreds of problems with the official story, yet most are inclined to believe it because it comes from an authoritative source, and the mere thought of “what if Al Qaeda was NOT responsible” is actually an extremely scary thought.
I’d actually love it if tomorrow, a big study was published confirming the official story! It would make things SO MUCH simpler and would actually be a load off my mind. But the reality of it is; something screwy went on that day, and we’re not being given the full story or really any transparency at all. You also must ask the question “if they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding?”
This is all very simple when you think about what happened in terms of basic physics. For the towers to fall (basically) straight down through the path of maximum resistance, without experiencing really any resistance, is not something that happens by accident.
How many times have you played “Jenga” and had the tower come straight down ? Zero ? That’s the point here.
Jason: “The best evidence that 9/11 was not a US Government conspiracy is the fact that not one person involved has sold their “insider’s story” for bazillion dollars.”
If someone on the inside were to confess to being involved in the 9/11 plot this would be tantamount to confessing to mass murder. Confessing to mass murder will not get you a bazillion dollars. You might get a shroud put over your head and placed in front of a firing squad, you might get the chair, or the hangman’s noose, but not a bazillion dollars.
Hi my fellow earthlings. Im a skeptic. But that doesnt mean that just because a site calling itself skepticDOTcom has something to be skeptic about that I just swallow it all as GREAT JOB SKEPTIC GUYS! The feeling of the skepticism that this article gives you is chilling. It seems the author just trying to kill “The 9-11 Truthers” and “The 9-11 was an inside jobers” and he also does so. However the author doenst bring anything that the 9-11 truthers didnt know. We know that we cant have any HARDCORE evidence but that is because FEMA transported all the evidence and hid it from us. So a government hiding all the evidence isnt that suspicious in itself? 9-11 could be an inside job. The possibility of this beeing true is there. The truth is we dont know yet: A guy with beard did it!:?(really!!!!) or falseflag meaning USA did it. I must say all logic points to US doing this a s a pretext to go into any country they want and blame it on terror. USE YOUR HEADS PEOPLE: please.
“The truth is we dont know yet: A guy with beard did it!:?(really!!!!) or falseflag meaning USA did it. I must say all logic points to US doing this a s a pretext to go into any country they want and blame it on terror. USE YOUR HEADS PEOPLE: please.”
-Yes, the US Government needed an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, so the most convenient excuse to do so was to create a disaster that they could blame on a group of Saudi Arabians… And just because Osama has a beard does not mean he is retarded. Read a little about him. He came from one of the richest and most powerful families in Saudi Arabia, and he had the money and access to knowledge and personnel needed to organize attacks. But sure, a dark skinned man with a beard can’t possibly be clever enough to organize for a bunch of men to get a pilot education and hijack airplanes…
The best evidence that the US Government was not behind 9/11 is the fact that the attacks were carried out almost perfectly, and very efficiently.
go to infowarsDOTcom and see evidence and also see the movies Loose Change and 7/7 Ripple Effect before you even talk.
AlexJonesHasEvidence: This is exactly how I saw 9/11.
Such a catastrophe gave the US government a complete mandate to go into Afghanistan and then Iraq. We were told that there were MWD. There were not.
It is American Imperialism (British) on the march. Securing resources, contracts, control and power.
9/11 created an American identity and began the demonisation of Islam too. Todays enemy is no longer “Terrorists” but the Climate. But that is another issue all together.
I find it very interesting that the questions resulting from the July 22, 2004 release of the 9/11 commission report have not been effectively put to rest. To the contrary, questions have grown exponentially in response to the commission’s claim that their “final report provides a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11th, 2001.” In spite of its self-serving rhetoric, the commission’s investigation has proven to be deeply flawed and woefully incomplete, so-much-so that the commission, itself, has become the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism. So, too, repeated attempts to shore up the official version of events surrounding 9/11 have only added fuel to the fire of dissenting opinion. Books like “Debunking 911 Myths” have given rise to a new, and far more critical, wave of dissenting opinion. Groups like Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Architects for 9/11 Truth are comprised of the type of individuals who, by virtue of their professional expertise and/or academic standing, can not be easily dismissed (for instance, Architects for Truth is comprised of 750 architectural and engineering professionals). Their findings have further discredited the conclusions of the 9/11 commission, and those offered up by self-proclaimed 9/11 myth-busters like James Meigs of Popular Mechanics.
The Architects for Truth have conducted exhaustive studies of the scientific evidence surrounding the collapse of three steel-framed buildings on 9/11. Their findings have been disseminated on the internet in a video entitled “Blueprint for Truth-The Architecture of Destruction.” In my opinion, this video lays to rest, once and for all, the “scientific” explanations offered up by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in their final report entitled “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Towers.” Yet, the analysis offered up by the Architects for Truth has been completely ignored by the mainstream media. In concert, would-be debunkers, like Meigs, have shown their true colors by failing to come forward and challenge this new wave of professional critical analysis. Combined, their collective silence speaks volumes.
Great article. Nicely done. Refreshingly sane.
49. When hypocrites and those in whose hearts was disease said: Their religion has deceived them; and whoever trusts in Allah, then Allah is Mighty, Wise
50. And had you seen when the angels will cause to die those who disbelieve, smiting their faces and their backs, and (saying): Taste the punishment of burning.
SURAH VIII The Spoils Of War – The Qur’an
Qur’an (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.”
Qur’an (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
Qur’an (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.”
Qur’an (3:28) – “Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.”
THE HADITH
Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us” The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq: 327 – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Yeah, and Mary had a little lamb… so, what’s your point?
Isn’t it funny what the people that want to believe the official story will do to keep their bubble of safety in their mind intact. As many have pointed out and besides the myriad of things that the author did not approach honestly and the other myriads of things he didn’t even approach, there are some of us that know beyond a doubt it was an inside job. Besides all of the beyond reasonable doubt proofs that already exist.
I will give you one undeniable reason. That very morning a friend was to go to work in the towers but was called by his uncle at about 7am and told not to show up today because something was going down.. Pretty amazing huh.. how prophetic. Something was going down allright… The buildings.. There have been many people with this same story threatened if they publish these facts in an accountable way. I wonder why..
Sit in your bubble while the insider rulers rip your country out from underneath your comfy office seat.. And you will deserve that seat being yanked from out beneath you. That old saying is well at work, the bigger the lie the easier it is believed.
Your tale of woe sounds like a FOAF….typical conspiracy/urban legend/folk tale fodder. How about these – a woman was killed by spiders in her hair, a guy woke up to find he had a kidney missing, Proctor and Gamble are a bunch of satan worshipers, if your dorm mate commits suicide you’ll pass all your classes, and if you say ‘bloody mary’ three times, she’ll appear.
feh.
Have any of the ‘Truthers’ considered perhaps the government of the United States paid Osama bin Laden to organize and execute the attack on the United States? After all he was on the CIA payroll while fighting the Russians! I mean why get our hands dirty when someone else can do it for us?
Truthers do not say the Government planned the attacks to create a police state. They just say that the official story does not make sense, why did all those firefighters go running into the buildings, they had seen many high rise fires, no indication on the face of it that the buildings would come down pulverized. It was murder. why did the insurance adjusters never have investigations, where is the black box that person found from flight 77, how could Hanni Hanjour have piloted a Boeing airliner into the pentagon? they had the planes on automatic programmed flights, they set the charges in WTC over the weekend a few weeks prior when all security cameras were taken offline and bombsniffing dogs were not in the building. I would like to get a look at the guy who wrote this whole article and still says he believes the official story. amazing.
I find it incredibly frustrating that people supporting the official theory talk about 9/11 Truthers like they are a single, coherent group. Obviously people have said absurd things to support both sides of the argument, and this article does poke holes in a few of the crazy things said by Truthers. The fact remains that no questions about what happened on 9/11 will be answered definitively until an investigation is launched by people with no connections to the Bush Administration who have full access to all the evidence. That is what we should be fighting for, rather than bickering about which speculations ans pseudo-scientific evidence we choose to believe.
Regardless of what any Truther believes, the most damning data to the conspiracy argument is actually the lack of the most important information: the number of personnel needed to plan and execute an operation of this magnitude is staggering, and most likely approaches a number equal to a battalion of military operatives. Yet, to this day, not one person has ever stepped forward to admit that “yes, I helped rig charges on the WTC buildings” or “I was one of the video technicians who manipulated images from the pentagon”.
In this day and age of oppressively intrusive media and exposure, compounded by individuals who are willing to sell out their best friend, their employer, their husband or wife for the price of a now Toyota Corolla…not one man, woman or child (from the hundreds or thousands who would have been required to pull this off) has EVER verified a single piece of “evidence” from even the most tentative conspiracy argument.
We know the most ridiculously mundane and embarassing infomation about our politicians on down to our D-list celebrities…does anyone actually believe ANY government, much less the raft of inept dolts manning our halls in Washington, could so successfully hide this much information for this long? Bush’s administration could not contain damning evidence of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib but they were able to effectively silence the hundreds of people who would have to know what was going on in order to make this happen?
The last thing I feel compelled to point out (among the hundreds of retorts I could provide)is that there is a big difference between weakening metal and melting it. To “melt” a metal means to heat it until it liquifies. Metal can be shaped at temperatures far less than that required to melt it. Simply visit any modern forge and you can see how that works. Blacksmiths have, for thousands of years, used simple coal fires and pressure to shape or brake metals, such as steel, into the objects of their desire. Samurai swords are heated and beaten into shape,at relatively low temperatures, by a man using a hammer and an anvil. Yet the truthers want us to believe that it is more plausible that a crew of demolition operatives could wire both WTC buildings undetected with enough explosives to bring them down (and not talk about it later on) than that the heated and weakened supports gave way under the enormous pressure of the buildings above the weakened points.
How do you people say this stuff out loud and not laugh at yourselves?
And please stop asking those of us NOT in your camp to watch the gobbledygook presented in “Loose Change.” It’s simply nonsense.
It is clear that you have not viewed the exhaustive analysis that has been offered up by the Architects for 9/11 Truth. Before taking exception to the views of 9/11 truthers, take a look at the evidence first; else you run the risk of sounding like an uninformed idiot.
Oh, and btw, to all you conspiracist’s who continually purport this foolish nonsense I have but two words to say to you…Occam’s Razor. If you have to look it up, maybe you can be helped….if you don’t have to look it up, you are an ideologue and may you perish in your own foolishness and calumniations.
Occam’s Razor states that “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily” or, popularly applied, “when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.”
The key words in this statement are “competing” and “predictions. Has the official version of the events surrounding 9/11 been openly and honestly debated between those who support its findings and those who do not? If so, will you please provide me to the time and place of that forum? Again, does the official version of events surrounding 9/11 predict the same results as those offered up by the Architects for 9/11 Truth? Let me help you out… They do not! Now I suggest that you look up the meaning of “ideologue,” “foolishness,” and “calumniations” because I suspect that you will be hearing these words quite often in response to your own uninformed opinions.
if I could give you some sort of prize, I would.
I think perhaps the nobel prize for common sense? =p
I think the last part is the most obvious,
if the government was creating a ‘police state’ (which is doesn’t seem to have to me) then the freedom of using youtube to stare at pixels that will bring down democracy as we know it would be taken time.
Thank you for providing an articulate argument for those who believe the tripe they feed themselves
Sorry Franco. I’ve read about 15 published and reviewed SCIENTIFIC journals on this matter. They all come to nearly the same conclusions. Sell your crap in another market.
Matt R, have you reviewed the exhaustive analysis that has been offered up by the Architects for 9/11 Truth? Yes or no? If not, then your collection of all available data is incomplete. If you are going to make pseudo-scientific arguments, then you should, at least, generate the appearance of having employed a scientific methodology in coming to your conclusions. Everyday, the disclosure of new revelations necessitate adjustments to established scientific models; such is the evolving nature of truth.
LOL! Well I would recommend truthers look at the real science than touting a list of names as evidence. The clowns at A@E can’t get one article published in one real journal with regards to their nonsense about controlled demolition or the use of thermite, or whatever nonsense they have leap frogged to. So far all they have done is avoid real academic scrutiny and repeat inaccurate claims of free fall speeds, limited fires, etc etc. There is a reason the scientific community is laughing at you people.
Bill, Truth stands by virtue of its own merit, published or not. History is replete with examples of scientific visionaries being marginalized for their “fringe” ideas by the established political order. Science that has the potential of radically changing the political paradigm is always met with fierce resistance. From Galileo’s challenge of geocentricity to legitimate successes in cold fusion and zero point energy, the existing political order has systematically resisted those changes that had to potential to challenge its hold on power. Today, most cutting edge science is funded by government and/or corporations. Therefore, most scientists are employed by one or the other. Science funded by the corporatocracy is carefully controlled for the purpose of further consolidating its hold on power. Inconvenient truths arising from “mainstream science” are routinely suppressed until they can be released in a fashion that is consistent with the aims of those in power. The truth emerging from a review of the official version of events surrounding 9/11, have a very strong “destabilizing” potential. Specifically, it calls into question the legitimacy of the “official” version of events surrounding the attacks of 9/11, and the science upon which it was based. More generally, it is suggestive of a much broader conspiracy of global dimensions. Your seeming ignorance of these political realities is either contrived or, more sadly, reflects a level of political naivete’ that is disturbing. You might be interested in an article published by Prof Peter Phillips entitled “9/11 Truth. An American Enigma.” This article may help you understand your own reluctance to weigh the growing body of contradictory evidence on its own merit: (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15300)
@Franco
You use the phrase “scientific methodology” like you know what it means. I think you don’t have any idea about science.
If you’ve read all the evidence offered by the Architects for 9/11 truth, you’d soon pick up the fact that they just plain make stuff up. They lie. They set up straw men in order to knock them down with their stupid theories.
These people are charlatans who have only enough knowledge of science to make what they do seem sciencey. It may convince you but to me they’re the ravings of a demented lunatic.
Bob, just saying something does not make it so. If you are going to take exception with the findings of the Architects for 9/11 Truth, then present your evidence. If they lie, then it should be easy for you to to chronicle their deceptions. Again, if they use “straw dog” arguments, it should be no problem for you to provide substantiation of this fact. However, I suspect that we will not hear from you again as phrases like “ravings of a demented lunatic” are most often used by those who, when frantically looking for an exit from an untenable position, toss a grenade to cover their retreat.
A few of A&E’s nonsensical claims:
1. the fell symmetrically. nope, one tower fell with 15+ floors tilted at a 20 degree angle and preceding the collapse damaging other buildings. 7’s collapse initiated at the penthouse w/ a 5 sec delay from universal collapse. plus,how do they know anyway? the dust and smoke obscured the collapse of the towers.
2. WTC 7 collapsed at free fall speed. nope, collapse initiated at the penthouse. global collapse initiated just below that point (broken windows localized at that point demonstrate the location) and added to over 15 secs in duration. far beyond free fall rates.
3. WTC7 fell neatly into its own footprint. so neatly debris ended up across the street and damaged surrounding buildings.
that’s just a few. in fact the above article includes various arguments A&E actually makes and refutes them. maybe when you people stop ignoring evidence that isn’t convenient, maybe you’ll have a shot.
Bill, it is you that is ignoring the evidence. On the A&E’s for Truth website, a three part video series entitled “NIST Admits Freefall” speaks directly to the question of building 7’s freefall (located in left column of Home page). More importantly, this video reveals the degree to which NIST is intent on shaping the data to fit their politically sanctioned computer model.
Did building seven collapse into its own footprint? The video “blueprint for truth” speaks directly to that point. It shows the collapse from a couple of perspectives and provides eyewitness testimony. Furthermore, it provides sided-by-side video comparisons with other buildings that were purposefully collapsed with controlled demolition.. Yet, you choose to ignore this preponderance of evidence by citing the fact that an insignificant amount of debris ended up in the street directly adjacent to the collapse.
Lastly, you state “buildings 7’s collapse initiated at the penthouse w/ a 5 sec delay from universal collapse. How do they know anyway? The dust and smoke obscured the collapse of the towers. The information derived from the video series entitled “NIST Admits Freefall” clearly distinguishes between the slight sagging of the penthouse and the initiation of main structure freefall. The fact that NIST chose an arbitrary data point to establish this initiation point reveals the lengths to which to which they will go to skew the evidence to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. By the way, the collapse of building seven is highly visible as can be seen from the video footage.
When taking exception to any model, a good scientist always uses his best arguments first. Given that your arguments have collapsed at freefall speed, I am convinced that any subsequent argument will share a like fate.
Conspiracies are hard to maintain. This seems too big to keep under wraps for this long.
I understand the desire to want to know the “whole” story. I think the gov’t has hidden things, perhaps that there were explosive devices in the buildings, but I doubt they were put there by USG. AQ might’ve put them there or another group working with AQ as backup in case the planes didn’t bring down the buildings. But our own gov’t? Neocons? Big Bush himself?
There are a few hurdles that must be jumped first before the conclusion that the USG (or a small part of it) was behind this…let’s talk about a couple, because this is important, as we all agree.
1. Easier options. “don’t let a crisis go to waste…” paraphrase of good ole Rahm—-Sure I get the motivation of creating a crisis and then advancing your interests because of it. But there would’ve been far easier operations to choose from than this convoluted mess. I wouldn’t, as a military officer, in my wildest dreams plan a complex, multi-stage multi-part, reckless operation like this if my goal was psyops, propaganda, and social control. Too many moving parts means chance for failure or exposure of the op. Simple is better and easier to hide the strings.
Sending a small team with explosives in to blow up WTC (ala 1993) would’ve worked much better and been much easier to control and still garnered the public support for war. The buildings would’ve fallen and AQ would’ve taken credit. No mess, no fuss, no pilot training, no 19 hijackers to worry about, no missing the buildings, etc. Why risk your career, your evil political agenda, EVERYTHING on a wild-assed plan like planes colliding with buildings (with or without timed explosives)? The hijackers are loose ends. The people who coordinated them (gov’t handlers if USG is involved) are loose ends. The managers of the handlers are loose ends. How do you keep them all quiet? They can’t all be ignorant of the op and certainly after the op is sprung they are going to know their part.
If you wanted something more spectacular than just blowing a building from the bottom then what about a dirty bomb in NYC from a cargo container? That could be done with very few people and would be possible to conceal the nature of the nefarious conspiracy after the fact.
2. Terrorists. Why has AQ claimed responsibility for 911 and various other previous attacks? Another arm of the elaborate conspiracy? Perhaps. But what about sleeper cells that KSM identified that the FBI rounded up? what about other terrorists at GTMO that have helped us catch yet other terrorists who are ALL under the impression that AQ did the attack, including senior AQ members who funneled money to the hijackers, met with them on a few occasions, as well as helped plan the op originally, etc? Why do they believe their organization did this if the Neocons are the real culprits? How did the Neocons convince AQ that it was AQ’s plan from the beginning? I struggle with believing this conspiracy is so massive that it includes several dozen muslim fanatics who are the masterminds of AQ and who believe they ran this op (and who did the actual legwork aside from flying the planes). If they weren’t in on the plot then Osama must’ve worked for Bush directly and that most likely means Zawahiri did too.
How did Bush (or Rumsfeld, or whoever was the real mastermind) communicate and coordinate with Osama and Zawahiri to pull this off? You can’t just call them on the phone. Did Clinton actually start this back in 1993 when the trade ctr was hit the first time? Or did Bush Sr? Did they convince Osama to do this years ago and he’s been running his part of the show without input since then? If not, then who gives him orders and how? That person is another loose end.
And why wouldn’t the mastermind behind this snuff Osama and Zawahiri so as to tie up that set of loose ends? It would’ve been convenient in Bush’s last year, or even 2007, and would’ve netted the Neocons a minor political victory in 2008 at least in the House. The fact they didn’t implicates the current administration or at least a core group high up in our gov’t that is behind 911 and yet is persistent across administrations. Did the Neocons try to get Osama killed to silence him and merely fail?
If it’s not what it seems then we need to ask:
what is the motivation? if it’s social control then who wants that control? Why did they pick this unwieldy operation as a means to advance that? Why have they not followed it up? Why did they not manufacture WMDs (i.e. bought some from russia and smuggled them into Iraq)? Why do terrorist networks (AQ, muslim bro., IJG, etc) think they were involved and take credit for it? Why do they keep planning other ops? Why would the mastermind bother involving so many people (USG employees, terrorists, etc) in a plot like this? Why does AQ fight us in Afghanistan and Iraq and appear to be legit as a serious terrorist organization both to the press and to intel organizations? If Osama was a partner in the plot why has he not been found and neutralized or his #2 Zawahiri been neutralized so as to tie up that loose end? Are they still running ops for the mastermind? Is it Bush or is this a multi-president partnership with Osama (1993 indicates it’s multi-prez)?
We can debate the details of 911, and certainly there are points to be made, but if we debate the veracity of the gov’ts basic story it begs the bigger questions of motivation/etc.
In this instance I lean towards the simple answer which is that the gov’t didn’t reveal all the details because it may reveal blunders on the part of our security apparatus. Bottom line, a radical organization pulled off a crazy operation with limited success (2 out of 4 planes caused significant damage) and we’ve been fighting this organization and others for the past few years. They certainly think that’s what’s going on.
If there’s an inside “group” then they are so damn good that they never mess up, never rat on themselves, maintain power close to the CIC-level (cdr in chief) through multiple presidencies, and have a penchant for the absurd when they plan shock and awe propaganda operations.
The odds are definitely against any group of humans maintaining the requisite synergy to do this over a period of years. Killing President Kennedy (and part of his family) was a much smaller conspiracy than what is proposed here. From what i’ve seen there’s WAY too many people involved in this if it’s a conspiracy. I think it’s more likely we’re just fighting terrorists, our gov’t is somewhat inept, and we’re doing the best we can to stay on target and not get distracted by the latest American Idol, top 40, Action movie, or celebrity sleeping report.
I am open to other explanations if someone cares to draft them here. No dazzling with trees—I want a rough outline of the forest before we get too specific.
But one quick “specific”: as for the steel melting thing…the jet fuel may not burn hot enough but pressure can change temps. A collision like 911 could cause unexpected results. After watching the vids and reading various explanations (here and other places) it seems possible that the official story could be true.
I’m glad you truthers are out there to question and intellectually pursue this, and hopefully other, issues. But I do think you’re fighting an uphill battle on this one.
What do you folks think about the aggressive gov’t spending, gov’t expansion, and high gold prices right now? Is this intentional inflationary pressure to force systemic change or foolish adherence to Keynesianism or pork- politics-as-usual? Who’s really behind what’s going on?
Take care all,
G
Hi G, I appreciate the thought that you have put into the events surrounding 9/11 and feel compelled to respond. I believe that a top down approach to an understanding of 9/11 is a mistake. Rather, a careful examination of the evidence is all that is necessary to challenge the official version of events. Government culpability can be partially gleaned from the means by which various government entities conducted their investigations. If their science is unapologetically faulty then it is safe to assume that something is amiss. Again, if the commission on 9/11 conducts its investigation in a way that ignores a certain body of contradictory evidence then their motives must be called into question. The cloak of lies that has been woven around the events of 9/11 need only be disassembled a thread at a time; eventually, the truth will come out. A careful examination of the evidence radically undermines the official version of events of that day; this fact alone suggests a certain degree of government complicity. If you read the following articles, and follow the links they provide, then you will get a cursory sense of the range and depth of the ongoing deception:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI11Ak02.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI18Ak02.html
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/09/16/911-unanswered-questions/
It is one thing to be skeptical based on facts and empirical data versus just being skeptical based on minimal or no independant investigation.
Anyone, and I mean everyone who takes the time to read Dr. David Ray Griffin’s book “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” or view all of his nine part lecture on You Tube will realize that your skepticism is extremely naive; not to be mean here.
I believe people in front of the publics eye, whether they are in politics or run their own blog, are allowed to change their mind when new empirical facts are brought to light. In fact, this done honestly and openly can significantly improve ones credibility.
You have a chance to improve your credibility and still maintain your “skeptic” position. Be skeptical of the “Official 9/11 Report” put out by our government. I strongly feel that after reading the book mentioned above combined with watching the referenced nine part youtube lecture, if you do not change your mind and focus your skepticism towards the governments version of 9/11; well then, I really don’t understand what motivates you. Certainly not skepticism with the goal of getting at the real truth.
The Truth Grid
Let’s settle the 9/11 Debate, Once and for All! Please read my Open Letter to Charlie Sheen. Thanks!
Daniel Bland
http://blandyland.com/?p=388
Just a few or so words on this.
A band of 19 hijackers stole a few planes, crashed and burned and managed to “get the job done”. Highly efficient.
The most powerful military nation in the world is taking 8 years to do “what” exactly in the Middle East, to fight an ideological war, to hunt down and kill the perpertrator who we all know wasn’t Saddam, to fight the Taliban, and to do a bunch of “other” things.
To label anything a “conspiracy theory” works best on weak minded or I should say on the lazily informed because by strict dictionary definition there’s nothing wrong with that label, yet psychological speaking it works as a misdirection techinique.
My actual point though is in order for a whole lot of things to “not” work on one day (i.e. Air Force/Military, FAA, Pentagon, etc.) could mean a few things:
a) the hijackers knew exactly what they were doing and executed it to precision and the above groups were truly caught off guard
b) the most advanced, highly sophisticated and well-funded nation in terms of military, aviation, communications etc. was inept at best
c) a cabal of key players knew or were involved in order for the events leading up to that day happen
By asking these questions and other types of dimension changing thoughts can lead to other possible explanations and outcomes. To add to this, on whose watch did all of this happen?
How do these people believe in the conpiracy theories on September 11th. Facts prove all of these theories WRONG,and people just keep coming up with more and more ridiculous stories. The collapse of the World Trade Centers WAS NOT a controlled demolition. The impact of the planes were so great that they actually weakened the steel structures which couldn’t support the floors above them anymore. These levels collapsed and this caused a chain reaction all the way to the bottom. If there were bombs in the basement, the bottom of the building would’ve collapsed first, AND a controlled demolition would have caused the building to collapse to the side, not straight down. Where did the theory that a plane never hit the Pentagon come from? So the DNA from the people of that flight that was found at the site of the Pentagon was just fake? Or the plane’s black box which was found in the rubble? Really? Or the fact that bystanders saw faces in the windows of the airplane just before it hit, so I guess they’re just lying? PEOPLE DON’T SIT IN A MISSILE! It’s so frustrating to see these theorists who are so one-minded, the people who think that the government is ALWAYS after them. It’s sad actually, how ignorant these people are to these attacks. Seriously, i’m not just pulling this stuff out of a hat, these are FACTS, and a FACT is something you can’t fight because it’s TRUE! Not everything bad that happens is the cause of the government, sorry to burst the bubble of those of you who believe so.
SilencioMan, you state:
1. “the impact of the planes were so great that they actually weakened the steel structures which couldn’t support the floors above them anymore.” – can you provide the source for this “fact.”
2. “a controlled demolition would have caused the building to collapse to the side, not straight down.” – Controlled demolition is intended to cause a building to collapse within its own footprint. Furthermore, building seven was not struck by an aircraft.
3. “DNA from the people of that flight that was found at the site of the Pentagon was just fake?” – Did you hear the Charles Goyette taped interview of Davin Colburn of Popular Mechanics wherein Mr. Colburn claimed that DNA evidence was recovered from the Twin Towers crash sites. goto http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2432.0 and listen to this interview and decide if highly dubious DNA evidence is legitimate. This interview leaves little doubt that Popular Mechanic’s Meigs and Colburn are government sponsored debunkers! If key players within our government were going to stage four simultaneous false flag attacks, don’t you think that they would have the sense to plant on-site evidence that would lead the American public to a predetermined conclusion? – such as a pristine terrorist passport? or, a black box flight recorder?
It is clear that you are predisposed to a set of “facts” that are wholely consistant with the official version of events. If burying your head in the sand of disinformation makes you happy, then go for it… but, don’t complain when you get bit in the ass.