Skeptic: Examining Extraordinary Claims and Promoting Science Skeptic: Examining Extraordinary Claims and Promoting Science

top navigation:

Monday, September 11th, 2006 | ISSN 1556-5696

eSkeptic: the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society

Share this eSkeptic with friends online. Subscribe | Donate | Watch Lectures | Shop


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<br />
towers at WTC

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

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

The Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
Figure 2. circled area shows an alleged 'squib' (actually<br />
air compressed by the falling tower)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By contrast, the story told by the 9/11 Truth Movement is riddled with holes. It assumes that Larry Silverstein destroyed WTC Building 7, presumably in order to claim a huge insurance payoff. But if this is so, why would he tell the world of his plot on a PBS special? Furthermore, what relationship does Silverstein have with the United States government who, according to conspiracy theorists, destroyed the WTC buildings in order to terrorize its citizens into accepting domination by a police state?20 And if the government controlled the demolition of the WTC buildings in order to strike fear into its citizens, why in 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

Flight 77 wreckage at Pentagon

010911-N-6157F-001 Arlington, Va. (Sep. 11, 2001) — Wreckage from the hijacked American Airlines FLT 77 sits on the west lawn of the Pentagon minutes after terrorists crashed the aircraft into the southwest corner of the building. The Boeing 757 was bound for Los Angeles with 58 passengers and 6 crew. All aboard the aircraft were killed, along with 125 people in the Pentagon. (Photo by U.S. Navy Photo by Journalist 1st Class Mark D. Faram) (RELEASED)

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

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

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

163 Comments

  1. Bruce says:

    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.

    • George Bush says:

      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.

      • Pen says:

        What?! The National Geographic programme “9/11 Truth and Conspiracy”? You think this was “well done”? You think this “CLEARLY” shows anything… other than that the people setting up the experiments either didn’t know the first thing about setting up experiments or that they were deliberately setting out to fail. Have you ever conducted even undergraduate science experiments? If you had, you would have laughed out loud at this programme.

        This ridiculous programme was one of the things that convinced me to look further into 911truth since it was so clearly an attempt to discredit the “truthers” and, instead, discredited the official story generally and National Geographic Channel in particular.

      • Marcel says:

        Calling those with whom you disagree a bunch of “nut jobs” is not persuasive in the least. In fact, I will take a leap and state that one who calls those with whom he disagrees such names is more likely than the opponents to be a real nut job.

      • Rj says:

        no evidence ask the fire fighters who even said themselves on the day the towers fell tht there was 3 explosions inside th towers after the plane hit that they didnt know where itcame from destroyin the tower more giving way to eventually calaspse. and if the stell melted and caused this after the plane hit why is there so much of the girders left and even if they melted do u know how many stell girders held the world trade enter up and they were all insulated to keep from meltiing in extreme het.after investigtion of rubble from the wtc they found that the paint they used on the inside of the wtc was some special paint in which i forget what its called that was highly flamable and could set off with a drop of a lit match.sdo dont say there isnt any evidenmce. i dont know what actually happend for all we know al quieda couldve have been planning that for a lot longer than we htought and they did it who noes.frankly i dont care how it happend but its intersted to look into all icare about is for all those peopl who lost their lives and whose familys lost there loved ones.

    • Dill says:

      Totally agree. So many reasons why people have concluded that 9/11 was an inside job and the reasoning given is amazing and the evidence behind it is logical. I believe that some people are ignorent and just want to believe that the government had nothing to do with the events that took place on Sep11th.

    • lian says:

      Glad the truth about 9/11 is being exposed and sites like this should be put to a shame. Stop living in your box of lies thinking the government loves you. They do not and this pseudoscience is the worse I have ever seen. LOL LOL LOL Building 7 never even caught on fire and was reported 22 minutes before it’s actual collapse. Whether you like it or not, the truth is the truth. 9/11 was an inside job!!!!

    • lian says:

      Where’s those weapons of mass destruction at? LOL LOL LOL

      • laursaurus says:

        Bush forgot to plant the evidence. Amazing how brilliantly they pulled off something so complex as 9/11, why would they so embarrassingly botched the overall narrative justifying the invasion of Iraq?
        And for heaven’s sake, why wasn’t 9/11 better orchestrated so Bush and Chenney appeared heroic? Did they forget to mark their calendars? Since shooting just one of these “hijacked” jets would have been a win-win situation, they ought to have taken personal credit for thwarting flight 93. Nope, some average unknown citizens got all the credit and accolades.
        Considering that Bush had taken office just 7 1/2 months before 9/11, he could have easily blamed it all on Clinton. Obama certainly blamed all his early gaffs on the previous administration. Especially when the abysmal lack of intelligence was so apparent, it certainly wasn’t Bush’s fault.
        These Truthers need to answer a few questions, themselves. Oh wait, they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear, since they have no evidence!

    • Raven says:

      You forgot to mention that the fires only burned at the top of the building… why wasn’t 3 quarters of the building left standing, if heat from fire weakened the steel? Or did it somehow in your opinion weaken steel that was a mile or two away from the fires?

    • Steve says:

      Each floor had about an acre of 3″ – 4 ” concrete flooring. The sound of that plus office furniture and equipment collapsing on an office below would make a very loud boom.
      Steel snapping under tension would make a very loud boom.
      Large transformers exploding in the building would make a very loud boom.
      Large oil filled transformers exploding from the fire in WTC 7 could account for explosions heard in the building before collapsing
      Many of the people who said they heard explosions also said they realized it was the building collapsing causing the sound.
      Even bodies hitting the ground sounded like explosions to some people.
      Some say “It was like” before saying what they heard.
      People generally try to describe something hard to describe by saying it’s like something most people know. Like the sound of a hurricane is often described as a freight train by survivors.
      You would expect a few people who are under attack by terrorists to think a loud boom is an explosive going off.

      • Marcel says:

        Repeat yourself to the guy who was burned severely over both arms in theTwin Towers basement before the first plane hit. Something happened down there that was totally unrelated to planes hitting the towers. Also, video footage of the lobby area of one of the towers clearly shows much damage. I doubt that the collision by plane 50 stories overhead could possibly cause such widespread lobby damage. But a jolting explosion just below in the basement, as reported by witnesses on the scene, certainly could.

        Likely we will never know the truth–whether the theory of the government or the truthers is the real truth.

    • Jaseph Howard says:

      Very sloppy reasoning throughout this thing. Conflating gas temperature with material temperatures… very amateur.

      So many problems with this article, I had to write an official criticism:

      http://murderformoney.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/skeptics-and-conspiracies/

      There is still much to understand about what happened that day.

  2. Chris says:

    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?

    • Eric Hamell says:

      @Chris, the government said it was keeping the Pentagon video classified because they were going to use it in the prosecution of Zaccharias Moussaui. They’ve subsequently released it.

      It should also be remembered that bureaucrats who have the power to classify love doing so for no reason in particular other than exercising their power, and their superiors defend their decisions reflexively in order to preserve their prerogative.

  3. Pspsup says:

    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.

  4. Tom says:

    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.

    • Tom says:

      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”.

    • Jeff says:

      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.

      • Todd says:

        Who needs evidence when you have a war to sell?

        These “skeptics” clearly have never heard of the old adage cui bono (who benefits). Why are they so keen to find evidence to support their existing bias when there is much more supporting the opposite viewpoint?

        If the truth was really as the “skeptics” believe then why has the Government avoided having a true investigation into 911 and not a obvious cover-up? And why do they not care about Bin Laden?

        The official story is clearly a sham- every finger points in that direction.

  5. tanabear says:

    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.

    • Todd says:

      Nice work, tanabear.

      I am always surprised at how self-proclaimed “skeptics” always support the Government/establishment view of virtually everything, no matter in what direction the evidence points.

      I see them as the adult equivalent of the ‘teachers pet’ phenomenon- desperate to side with whatever viewpoint they think “authority” holds, with a pathological fear of standing alone in truth.

      • Frank says:

        Well said, Todd. I hold a “skeptical” view of the official account of 9-11, too. Why does simply being skeptical of an incomplete view of events, based on examination of limited evidence, make me a “nut-job” in a forum where being skeptical is actually promoted? What’s the point in doing that? Using that kind of language only creates barriers to true dialog and it is in fact a disgusting display of a more primitive type of arrogance.

  6. David Johnson says:

    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.

    How 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.

    • G0560 says:

      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.

  7. Frazil says:

    The problem with conspiracy theories is that they rely on imperfect human beings with imperfect knowledge to consistently make perfect choices.

    • Janel FLeming says:

      This assumption of “conspiracy theorist” is entirely hypocritical. You say this without any evidence to contradict the debate that everyone on this is saying. At least both sides of this argument is giving their evidence to support or debunk the 9/11 report. You on other hand are just fueling a stereotype to intimidate people who seek the truth from speaking what they believe regardless of what the public might brand them as. I do not wish to belittle you but i encourage you to examine the facts, do not look at this debate as a “conspiracy” instead research it to form your own knowledgeable opinion. Branding the “truthers” as conspiracy theorist without a full understanding of what they are trying to do only makes you more ignorant.

  8. tanabear says:

    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.

  9. Matthew, Structural Engineer, LSU 1999 says:

    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.

  10. tanabear says:

    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

  11. Rich says:

    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.

  12. Jason says:

    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.

    • Marshall says:

      “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.

    • Raven says:

      You’re right, no one has sold something for “a bazillion dollars”, and neither have the ousters of any of the other government conspiracies. Instead, the “ousters” of all three events (9/11, WMDs, etc.) have given their stories for free.

  13. Rayne says:

    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.

  14. tanabear says:

    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.

    • fornss says:

      tanabear, you couldn’t be more wrong. According to the truther theory, dozens upon dozens of people were in on it to some extent. Not all of those people would have been directly involved in the murders, there would be researchers, etc. Whoever came forward would be regarded as a massive hero, the praise and money would be endless, but it wont happen, because it never happened.

  15. AlexJonesHasEvidence says:

    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.

    • AlexJonesWasBehind9-11 says:

      “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.

  16. AlexJonesHasEvidence says:

    go to infowarsDOTcom and see evidence and also see the movies Loose Change and 7/7 Ripple Effect before you even talk.

    • Raven says:

      LOOSE CHANGE IS SHIT AND PROVES NOTHING Why would you even think of recommending that to someone who supports the government if you want them to believe the attacks were falsified?

  17. AndyS says:

    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.

  18. Franco says:

    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.

  19. John Keelan says:

    Great article. Nicely done. Refreshingly sane.

  20. VERUS BONITAS says:

    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.’”

    • Franco says:

      Yeah, and Mary had a little lamb… so, what’s your point?

    • herpderp says:

      the comments section has now reached the level of youtube. always someone quotin the koran

    • Raven says:

      You’re right, the Muslim religion officially does advocate killing all non-Muslims.

      So does the Christian religion.

      Since when does New York contain no Muslims?

      • Eric Hamell says:

        I suppose your point is that some Muslims (aside from the hijackers) died on 9/11. This is quite true — but to a jehadi, the very fact that they were working in the World Trade Center (or the Pentagon) shoes they weren’t “true,” faithful Muslims, and therefore were fair game. Jehadis are quite open about this .

  21. Barry Lee says:

    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.

    • susan says:

      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.

    • Howard says:

      Wow, your personal story of your friend told to stay home on the morning of 9/11 is very convincing. I now agree with everything you have to say based solely on that anecdotal evidence. Thanks for opening my eyes!

  22. Thomas says:

    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?

  23. Janet Murphy says:

    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.

  24. Ben R. says:

    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.

  25. Matt R. says:

    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.

    • Franco says:

      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.

      • Jeff says:

        Franco, I think Matt has pretty much spelled out why it is you who are an idiot I am sorry to say. You along with probably 95% of the so called truthers here and out there. Your informed or not-informed status on the minutiae of engineering facts is irrelevant. I’ll grant a paltry 5% who walk the periphery and don’t necessarily doubt that airplanes piloted by islamofascist killers are the root cause that brought the towers down, but who point out minor legitimate weaknesses in the “official” report that have not been completely explained.

        Using arguments not unlike those used by the author above, in the first paragraph of his comment, Matt spells out why the whole list of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 collapses like a house of cards: common sense and Occam’s razor — nobody among the extensive number of operatives required to pull this off has ever so much as squeaked about their involvement in the conspiracy. Despite 14. tanabear’s weak response above to this argument, it’s hard to imagine that the army of conspirators required would all be involved at the same level. Therefore there would be different levels of relative guilt and innocence. At least one of them would have opened their mouth by now (accidentally or otherwise) or would been tracked down based on some trace evidence. Interrogations of domestic suspects would have been reported in the news. Deals would have been made to provide motivation to rat on others. It happens all the time (not just on TV). It all would have unraveled in the mainstream by now if the towers were brought down by anything other than what they appear to have been: the jets crashing into the buildings that we saw with our own eyes. The simplest and most obvious explanation is always the best. Thank you Occam.

        I can’t imagine how any of you can possibly believe that a hoax of this magnitude…this implausible…could even remotely be perpetrated in a society as open as ours with this level of precision. How anyone can believe that the perpetrators could rely on a perfect storm of evidentiary and cognitive obfuscation, so as to remain hidden to this day, is beyond me.

        • Fox says:

          What about the “Dancing Israelis”/Mossad Agents who were arrested on 9/11 and who later appeared on Israeli television saying they were in NY on 9/11 to “document the event”?

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X63CQ-dXkwU

          The whole 9/11 operation could have been outsourced to another intel agency like Mossad. That would keep people from talking. I would have to assume whistle blowers would be immediately killed or “silenced”.

        • Facilitate Truth says:

          Be careful not to use Occam’s Razor as an excuse for incredulity; I made this mistake for several years. Occam’s Razor is a concept best applied to natural phenomena, not acts of human will. It can be useful (not definitive) in determining the best hypothesis for a given set of data by removing the “number of multipliers” or at least choosing the hypothesis with the fewest extraneous elements. Unfortunately, history is literally teaming with examples of extremely complex and audacious events that would have seemed astronomically improbable at the time they were being carried out. They did, however, actually occur, which means that the perceived probability of an event is irrelevant. Another problem with citing Occam’s Razor is that you must assume that all data has been verified to exist before “weighing” which hypothesis best fits that data.

        • Raven says:

          Instead of spreading ridiculous lies, why don’t you go and watch some of the videos where THAT EXACT THING HAPPENS (insiders come forward)?

  26. jason says:

    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.

    • Franco says:

      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.

      • Jeff says:

        Really? You are hinging your argument against the legitimate common interpretation (and hence application) of Occam’s razor on the words “competing” and “prediction” in the presentation of a formalized theorem? Clearly you are so emotionally committed that you’ll grasp at anything. You really should seek help, and I promise you that I am not being glib or even patronizing when I say that.

        But if one insists on applying a formalization of the razor as you have stated, then please note dear reader that the alternative explanations should be in the same realm of possibility and plausibility to be so much as considered “in contention” in the real world. We’re not talking about different causal explanations of the events of 9/11 that float in the same magnitude of probability. This is why other causes have never been seriously entertained in the mainstream. There is no reason whatsoever for a rational, sane, and healthy mind to believe them.

    • Facilitate Truth says:

      Be careful not to use Occam’s Razor as an excuse for incredulity; I made this mistake for several years. Occam’s Razor is a concept best applied to natural phenomena, not acts of human will. It can be useful (not definitive) in determining the best hypothesis for a given set of data by removing the “number of multipliers” or at least choosing the hypothesis with the fewest extraneous elements. Unfortunately, history is literally teaming with examples of extremely complex and audacious events that would have seemed astronomically improbable at the time they were being carried out. They did, however, actually occur, which means that the perceived probability of an event is irrelevant. Another problem with citing Occam’s Razor is that you must assume that all data has been verified to exist before “weighing” which hypothesis best fits that data. My assertion is that the common knowledge of the events of 9/11 (the public data) is largely false.

  27. thebreadbinman says:

    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

  28. Matt R. says:

    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.

    • Franco says:

      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.

      • Bill says:

        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.

        • Franco says:

          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)

        • Facilitate Truth says:

          This peer-reviewed paper was led by Neils Harritt, a professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

          Here is a link to download it: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

    • david welch says:

      matt r. , there is no evidence that the 2 jets collapsed the 3 skyscrapers,,,, lots of propaganda, but no evidence.. and now, over 1000 architects and engineers dont believe the official story of collapse… so ,as the saying goes, put the shoe on the other foot,,,,, please explain , why you believe, the 19 hijackers collapse theory?, it seems much more logical that mossad, cia, the defence and oil neocons are more to be the cause rather then a bunch of camel jockeys flying 757’s. please demonstrate your logic.

  29. Rob says:

    @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.

  30. Franco says:

    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.

    • Bill says:

      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.

      • Franco says:

        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.

  31. gubmint drone says:

    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

    • Franco says:

      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/

    • david welch says:

      gubmint drone; you state that unexpected results might have caused the jet to heat the steel to melting point…
      talk about a fishing trip. good luck out convincing people of that,.. the basic problem with the govt. conspiracy theory is that it just has to many super natural events happen… if it was just one, or two, but this damm conspiracy theory has more supernatural events then the book of genisis. a good conspiracy theory has to stick to reality , pretty much.

    • david welch says:

      the basic problem with the govt. conspiracy theory is that it just has to many super natural events happen… if it was just one, or two, but this damm conspiracy theory has more supernatural events then the book of genisis. a good conspiracy theory has to stick to reality , pretty much.

  32. Rone says:

    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

  33. Daniel Bland says:

    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

  34. Armand Chase says:

    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?

  35. SilencioMan says:

    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.

    • Franco says:

      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.

    • david welch says:

      in your own words SilencioMan,,, “it caused a chain reaction”——- what don’t you understand about time…… a chain reaction of collapsing floors would take time,,,, these building fell as fast as a bowling ball dropped out of an airplane.
      so there ya have it SM, they fell to friggin fast to fit your theory,,,,,,, unless you think the video tape lied
      so , where is the next clown that needs to have a basic physics lesson.

  36. man of transparency says:

    I find it ironic that even ardent skeptics seem to accept the official line as the base line (gospel) truth, even though it is far from a full and frank treatment of the event. If ever there was a need for skeptics other than to bash religion, spon benders, clairvoyants or ufologists, it is now.

    Yes there seem to be a lot of nutters in the 911truth movement, and those that seek to link 911 to even greater conspiracies of world dominantion, the fact seems to remain, that the official story is weak and the level of information NOT being released is setting off warning bells with a lot of critically minded individuals who have looked further, and examined more of the story of before, during and after that terrible day.

    Like one person said previously – i would love it if the offical story turned out to be true, as the opposite is almost too evil to consider – but consider it we must based on the OVERALL evidience so far as well the shroud of secrecy and subdefuge emminating from the official channels.

    I dont know either way – but having poured over alot of material from both sides – and with no vested interest either way – i still smells a huge rat.

  37. big al says:

    wow.. if only the 9/11 commission or popular mechanics could produce as convincing a 1.5 hour documentary as all of the other 9/11 “conspiracy” documentaries could, I may actually believe 1/2 of what I just read. I’ll pull just one random “fact” from this. “people mistook liquid aluminum for liquid steel. Aluminum melts at a much lower temperature then steel.” o.k., but how do they explain the molten “aluminum” WEEKS after the incident found onsite, with traces of thermite throughout.
    Bottom line, this article makes sense to someone that isn’t privy to the facts

  38. little mohawk says:

    I liked the article and if you think 911 was done by explosives you are insane. If that were the case someone would have shot the higher-ups by now. Shermer, you are a genius.

    • Pen says:

      For those of you who “liked this article”, you might consider this…

      In 2006, the author of this article tells us, with great confidence that:

      “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.”

      Now this may explain one reason why some people are not convinced by the official explanation, because the NIST report on WTC7 (2008) says this:

      “Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”
      http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

      So, perhaps someone can explain how “the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained [from the debris]” but at the same time “had little effect in causing the collapse”?

      Are we supposed to believe the author of this paper – who seems to have convinced some of you here – or NIST, who we are ALL supposed to believe – or is it possible that they are both mistaken and another explanation fits the observations?

  39. Pen says:

    I realise this thread is rather out of date now but my comment above poses a question to all of you here – including the author – who think the article is a good and accurate one. I need to do a short preamble, so please bear with me:

    If someone is an atheist, the only thing you know about them is that they do not believe in God (or gods). That is it, no more, no less. They may be highly intelligent, rational, critical thinkers or they may believe that homeopathic treatments work beyond placebo, that crop circles are messages from aliens and that tarot cards predict the future.

    If someone is a “truther” the only thing you know about them is that they do not believe the official version of what happened on 9/11. That is it, no more, no less. They may be highly intelligent, rational, critical thinkers or they may believe that no planes hit the twin towers, that George Bush masterminded the entire thing (personally, I think this is less likely than crop circles/aliens heh heh!!!!)or any other nonsense.

    Bearing this in mind, it would appear that Phil Mole and those who agree with him here are “truthers”.

    If you believe that “the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained [from the debris from the collapse of building 1]”, you must be sceptical of the NIST report that claims that the falling debris “had little effect in causing the collapse” which, they say, was primarily due to fires. Congratulations, you doubt the veracity of the official report – like all other “truthers”.

    On the other hand, if you entirely agree with the NIST report and can see that the collapse of WTC7 is not consistent with the damage from the falling debris, then you must recognise that the author of this piece does not know what he is talking about and some, most or all the rest of the article could also be a load of cr… rubbish. Congratulations, you disagree with this article, like many or all other “truthers”.

    Welcome to the club!

    What I am interested in is whether Phil Mole or even Mr. Shermer himself still accept the official – as in the NIST report – on the collapse of building 7 or are they now sceptics?

    If they do accept that WTC7 collapsed because of fires – not because of collateral damage – perhaps they could explain what evidence so radically changed their opinion… that way, some of us who doubt the veracity of the NIST report might be swayed.

  40. david welch says:

    only a moron would believe 2 jets could collapse 3 skyscrapers. the 9/11 truthers have over 1000 architects and engineers asking for a new investigation because the chairman, vice chairman, commission chief council, (in his book) all say the 9/11 investigation is not all true.

    about the only people on your side are the popular machanics editor,,,,,, former founder of entertainment weekly. little jimmy m.- this guy is no science editor, good gieif, this is really insulting calling this guy a science editor….. hes a friggin entertainment editor,

    face the facts, you guys are clowns.
    i ‘ll be reading about you in the funnies, or the court report after the truth gets out and your all accused of treason.. have a nice day.

    • Larry says:

      1000 architects cant be wrong! How much of a percent do you think that is worldwide. 1/2% maybe less?
      Yea not so meaningful now is it?

      But you can take these guys out to lunch for an affordable price but is not a tax deduction because its not a charity. Wonder where the money goes?

      ps How come no one heard these super secret silent and flash free explosives? How did the planes or falling debris not damage them? Why did the collapse start at the site of the most damage?

      • Raven says:

        GOD I “love” it when these idiots say, “If 9/11 isn’t complete, why has X never happened,” WHEN IT DID HAPPEN. WTF really??!? “Not a single human heard all the bombs going off”… except, you know, all the reporters, firefighters, and various other eyewitnesses who describe that it “sounds like a bomb going off” during the initial reports =\.

  41. Dr Steven Jovan says:

    How does support of science result in a charge of treason?
    Who are these 1000 architects and how do they arrive at their conclusions? In other words be specific about the methodology!
    Since there are not a 1000 architects in the world that have experience in the design and building of structures of this size how is it that you get a figure of 1000?
    I coached a little league team for years yet am not qualified to evaluate the workings of the New York Yankees!

    • tanabear says:

      Currently, there are over 1,000 architects and engineers who have signed the petition demanding a new investigation into 9/11. The signatories are comprised of architects, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, aerospace engineers, electrical engineers, chemical engineers, industrial engineers, material engineers etc. Their membership also includes individuals who have expertise in specific areas, such as Scott Grainger, a forensic fire protection engineer.

      An architect or engineer doesn’t necessarily need expertise in designing large steel-frame high-rises to be able to question the official explanation. They merely have to look at the available evidence. Which hypothesis can better explain the destruction of WTC1,2 or 7? The demolition/explosive hypothesis or the fire hypothesis. Most people when they look at the evidence find the official story(fire) sorely lacking in explanatory value.

  42. Tom says:

    Do you think we will ever know the truth?

  43. sandy says:

    who was the president that started the gulf war?
    who was the president that started the iraq war?
    answer bush sr.
    answer bush jr.
    republicans both.
    the same republicans who like big business with no rules or guidelines.
    who got rich?
    everyone who supplied the war. big businesses.and all their major stock holders.
    follow the money.
    but mostly look at who owns the most stock in those companies.
    where have all the jobs gone?
    big business has taken them to other countries.

    when the middle class of america is decimated-what do we have?
    royalty rule(those with all the money etc. and serfs)those working for peanuts.
    exactly what americans left england and europe to escape.
    full circle in just over two hundred years.
    big business owns all the media and dumbs you down by feeding you crap and getting you to PLAY on their computers while your world comes unglued.
    they use to execute people for treason. what to do with big business?

  44. sandy says:

    p.s.
    911 was a real money maker.

  45. Janel FLeming says:

    how bout the people who support the official 9/11 report give us 1000 architects and engineers to sign a petition supporting the official theory!?? well at least give us 500? ok how about 100? someone?!?!

  46. Inayat says:

    I have a definite opinion in this debate, but expressing it will not bring us closer to agreement. I am curious about the PROCESS used here, especially in the context of this being a website devoted to skepticism. I just read “The Skeptical Manifesto” (under the “about” tab) to confirm that indeed skepticism is defined as a process of open-minded rational inquiry towards a universal truth, NOT a close-minded rejection of anything which contradicts ones subjective world-view.
    The “inside job/ outside job” debate is extremely complex. My observation is that name calling may be satisfying in the short term but adds nothing to a resolution of the question. Similarly, using one’s favorite “fact” as a missile to destroy the opponents “fact” has a trajectory which eventually leads to violence. Unfortunately, violence has been the default “solution” way too often in our history. Perhaps while we are discussing under this banner of scientific skepticism we should be using, refining and modeling the process of rational discourse as a preferable solution to human problems.
    My perspective is that everyone who has commented here is on the same side. WE ALL WANT TRUTH. I believe we will all get what we want more directly if we focus our efforts on building up a coherent body of undisputed observations TOGETHER rather than wasting our intelligence on tearing each other down.
    No one directly observed the events of 9/11. At best, we observed one small subjective slice of a vast phenomena. So in determining the reality of this situation, we are particularly vulnerable to the effects of “dogmatism: the basing of conclusions on authority rather than science” (from Michael Sherma’s SKEPTICAL MANIFESTO). It seems to me that our fundamental difficulty here is: who do we trust? We have many authorities with contradictory claims that fail to gather a consensus of peers.
    As skeptics, we know there is no ultimate reality. Science is just a bunch of theories. But as humans, we know we need meaning, and we find meaning in our theories through the disciple of OBSERVATION (not opinion, concept, belief, hope, fear, etc) and weaving those observations together (rational dialog, peer review, analysis and synthesis, etc).

    I suggest that on this site we dispense with the drama of exclamation marks and collectively seek the conclusiveness of periods through the healthy exploration of question marks. There are plenty of other sites dedicated to shouting matches. Let us see ourselves as an informal journal wherein we gather a body of evidence that is agreed to by all parties, thus giving us the power to respond effectively to what 9/11 actually was and means.

  47. victorio says:

    the fact is the u.s navy firefighting manuals 079 volume 2 and other books tell everything you need to know about steel structure shipboard fires.modern aircraft carriers are about 1100 feet long and have a 4and a half acre flight deck.the superstructure is over 25 stories tall.these ships are massive.i am an ex damage controlman who served on these ships that carry enough jet fuel to supply up to around 90 jets fuel FOR SUSTAINED FLIGHT OPS.the damage from the forestall fire(john mccain)and hundreds of other plane crashes on carriers,including ww2 kamikaze attacks has never resulted in ships melting or planes dissapearing into dust.THIS IS SIMPLE FIREFIGHTING FACT AND CAN BE CONFIRMED BY THE EXPERTS IN STEEL STRUCTURE FIRES. THE U.S NAVY

  48. Kris says:

    It’s been nearly ten years since the events of that day and I have never been satisfied with the official story. Even on that day, as it was happening and as shocked as I was, I suspected a controlled demolition. That’s just the way it looked to me. I was terrified to think that it was the government, but after the hasty deployment of the Patriot Act and the blazingly fast creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, the continued monitoring of citizens, ridiculous levels of airport security, wiretapping, email monitoring and so on – all in the name of counter-terrorism – I began to feel that there was a distinct possibility that the government was somehow involved.

    Then I considered what sort of people would do such a thing. For one, these people must despise normal American citizens. They must see us as subhuman and themselves as superior somehow. Moreover, their value system is not ours. They value something else; something that the rest of us either do not know about or would not want.

    These people must also be very good at manipulation and inspiring fear and adverse reactions within large populations. They have mastered the art of terrorism and made it into a science.

    If people such as I have described were in fact behind 911, then there is little hope. If it is true, that “they” did it, then all hope is indeed lost. It can only mean that the corruption has gone so far and so deep that anything we do hear is likely to be engineered to misdirect us. These folks would not be stupid or reckless. They operate with cold calculation and merciless resolve.

    That there are doubts about 911 and that there has been obvious corruption and misinformation surrounding the Bush administration, might well serve their aims. Moreover, the apparent ineptness of Congress these days exacerbates contempt people have for the government. Perhaps one day, someone will be forthcoming in exposing the “inside job” and pin it on G.W. or some agency. It will look like a whistle blower, but in fact will be a carefully engineered effort to enrage the American public. And just who would the people blame? They will blame those who have profited from it: Corporations, banks, defense contractors, and the wealthy. At that point, the puppet Congress will enact some laws that put all of these entities under government supervision.

    Rage is something a group like this would be good at cultivating. Rage, fear and panic have all served to make us put aside all caution and have gotten us into two wars that have no solid objective and have also encouraged us to relinquish our rights for the sake of terror. To do otherwise seems irrational, but only because we have not questioned the source.

    I think that such a group, a group that despises everyday Americans (enough to kill thousands at a gulp) and that is quite facile at engineering fear and panic, holds no good will in its heart for the world. I think we had better be prepared to be slaughtered, for that is what I see on the horizon. I have had nearly ten years to prepare myself – to go to my death quietly and without complaint. I think I am ready.

    Why fight it? And who would we fight anyway? There are no lighting rods like Adolph Hitler that we can point at. Not really. We would be merely beating the air in a fruitless endeavor to punish the evildoers. And yet this is exactly the sort of behavior a group like this is prepared for.

    This group (if it’s real), thrives on violence. Violence is how it gets things done. It cannot exist without rage and terror. If people were not reactionary and could keep themselves composed, this group could not function. If people rise up and become so angered that a revolt occurs, it will only provide an excuse to use the military to subdue all opposition and acclimate the population to more intense monitoring and oppression. I feel that such a group would be well-prepared to handle any threat from the public. I imagine the weapons it will deploy upon it will be incredibly unusual and terrifying.

    There is still one thing that must be accomplished for a group such as this to take over the world. It must somehow dehumanize those who have presence of mind enough to question what has gone on. It must make them seem as traitors and destroyers of peace. I have little doubt that this group (again, if it exists) has a plan for exactly that.

    For my part, I continue to question 911. But I also question myself while I’m at it. The conspirators, if there are any, are human beings like myself. If I dehumanize them as they have me, then I myself am just as culpable as they are. My own heart is just as black and cold as theirs. If we’re both that way, then how can there be a favorable outcome? It takes two to fight, but only one to make peace.

    If I have to die to reduce the violence they seem bent on committing, then so be it. They can kill a truly innocent man and learn to live with it. For myself, knowing that violence will only create more, I cannot resist them in good conscience. There is no real justice anyway. There is only the choice to forgive or not to forgive. I don’t see any other rational options.

  49. Tom says:

    For all the 911 comspiracy disbelievers, please can the US government simple show us a picture of a plane hitting the pentagon and all the pictures of the aircraft wreckage? That would quell the “nutjob conspiracy theorists” in a second. So why has it not happened?

    The truth will out. The USA, if found out, will be a world pariah. Just think about that, and think why this truth is being hidden.

  50. Chris says:

    Look, the commission report authors have come out and said it is a coverup,a whitewash,the report is erroneous….If you cant come to terms all the hard evidence,then perhaps you have a learning disability.

  51. Jonah says:

    Oh, man! It seems tiresome to be this ignorant.
    I´m glad I know the truth.

  52. infowars.com says:

    Maybe you should channel your skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission Report instead of those who question it.

    Riddle me this…
    What about the nano-thermite compounds found in the dust from the 9/11 collapses? Both slow burning and high explosive variants were found.

    See for yourself, google:
    Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

  53. Matt says:

    I find it amusing that the proponents of Phil Molé’s argument exhibit the same ignorant behaviour as what lead to their aquirement of their beliefs in the first place.

    And Americans wonder why the rest of the world laughs at them.

  54. Raven says:

    We believe it because the scientists, engineers, bomb squads, and firefighters say it’s true, as well as all the other evidence. Loose Change is a horrible documentary. If it was the only one I had seen, I certainly wouldn’t believe it. I am not sure why non-believers reference “Loose Change” as “the documentary that they all watched”. IN fact at this point I hadn’t even heard of “Loose Change”. That thing didn’t even show anything against the “official story”. Watch Zeitgeist (which has it’s own page of references as well) and you will KNOW why we all believe this. There is nothing in Zeitgeist that says specifically that the government had planned this, although there is obvious evidence that shows they ignored warnings of possible attacks and were friendly with people such as Saddam Hussein. However the link here will show all the professional interviews that non-believers want to see, all of whom say “This is impossible”.

    Your article has given sufficient explanations as to why this could have actually not been caused by bombs, at least for the two main buildings, assuming tat everything you say is true (unlike your opponents, you have not shown or linked video evidence/explanations unless it is in your “references”, which doesn’t quite count). However, it does not address any reasoning as to why the government may or may not have been involved in it. For example, why are all the people who were reported to have died on board the plane (victims of hijacking) still alive? Ron Paul, who is clearly honest etc., and who DOES NOT BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT PURPOSELY KILLED PEOPLE IN NEW YORK, is the main senate activist for an independent investigation. People on the “official investigation committee” even say they were blocked from some info they needed to know. So whether the towers were bombed or not, whether planes were hijacked or not, etc., we know SOMETHING is wrong. Your article also does not explain the “What would happen if some planes crashed into the World Trade Center” drill that was going on WHEN THE ATTACK HAPPENED.

    Then you go on to make ludicrous irrelevant statements like “The idea that Islamic terrorists would target U.S. buildings for attack fits well with recent events over the past two decades.” Well NO FUCKING SHIT. Of COURSE Middle-Eastern terrorists have done other things (or at least have been claimed to); this is extremely common knowledge that even the stupidest human being knows. That is part of why Middle-Easterns (especially those who follow Middle-Eastern religions) in America suffer prejudice; ONE attack would not cause such a thing. Your statement has NOTHING to do with whether or not any attacks were staged, ignored, etc. Obviously it COULD have happened. For example if I wrote a fictional novel outlining the exact occurrence as told by U.S. GOVERNMENT, such a story would be perfectly believable. So would the one told by government opponents. I COULD have eaten a hamburger today. That would be entirely consistent with the normal behavior of an American human being at home.

    …But I didn’t.

    wtf?

    One HUGE problem shown on both sides of any debate about history, government, etc., but which is FAAAAAAR more common on the side of, in this case, the ons who want to believe the official story in it’s entirety, is the ridiculous thins they bring up which have no relevance to fact or anomaly. Such as: To orchestrate an event this big would have taken a lot of people.” Okay… SO WHAT?? What in the FUCK does that have to do with whether they did it or not? NOTHING!! (Guess what? GETTING A GROUP OF PEOPLE TO HIJACK THREE PLANES AND CRASH THEM INTO SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS AS A SUICIDE ALSO TAKES A HELL OF A LOT OF PEOPLE!) If you want to be credible, stick to FACTS and ONLY FACTS. Not your irrelevant interpretations of what “would be difficult” or how “someone could not possibly have felt this way” or whatever other ludicrous shit you want to say. Using such statements as “evidence” that you are right dismisses the credibility of your entire article, much as it does when “self-defenders” against government intrusions use Bible quotes in their legal letters.

    Orchestrating a fake attack which kills some people but leaves others to survive yet still inflicts enough terror in the majority of people in the country/world that they will accept tyrannical laws such a nude airport scanners ALSO FITS IN PERFECTLY WITH WHAT AN ORWELLIAN GOVERNMENT WOULD DO. “Why would they have done this?” or “The following is difficult” are NOT VALID ARGUMENTS about the facts of what happened. I am frequently told online that “it is impossible that someone would be that abusive without physically injuring you therefore you must be lying”, What LUDICROUS logic! It certainly doesn’t change the facts of what happened. or, even in real life, “You couldn’t possibly be sad because of that”> And yet clearly, I am, therefore clearly, it is possible. You have entire paragraphs devoted to irrelevant statements and/or statement that are literally ridiculous. SHOW EVIDENCE AND SHUT UP. Otherwise you are not a credible source.

  55. Sam says:

    The simple fact that the term “conspiracy theorists” is used so naturally, as a common term of art, suggests to me that it is written from the point of view of the Matrix Thought Police. Too bad, previously I had a very high opinion of Skeptic Magazine. This just doesn’t strike me as an exercise in honest critical thought.

  56. Scott says:

    Since 911, there have been numerous claims that construction professionals support claims about controled demolition and even the use of thermite to destroy WTC buildings. There is no evidence of this from examining the current training and instruction of construction professionals. No civil or structural engineering program includes this as part of their curriculum. There are no textbooks dealing with the construction of steel framed buildings that make this statement. There is no record of WTC buildings being the tallest building destroyed in a controled demolition. On the other hand, numerous textbooks do deal with design problems highlighted by the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

  57. D.W.Shaffer says:

    The article itself is great! The rebuttles are a mixed bag. So many of the elements may sound credible. But why is it always The Government” behind it? Even if there had been some “inside prepping” of WTC, why is it not possible these after hours intruders (the sneaks!) not themselves terrorists and part of the scheme/plot?

  58. Allan Greene says:

    Very interesting article. I’m in the peculiar position of being, politically, a Marxist – a long-time Marxist (since about 1966-1967) – and left-wing socialist (since about 1965). Probably, you might suspect someone of my political views would side with the conspiracy theorists. But I don’t. Being a Marxist means, being a materialist, and being a materialist means, being a skeptic. That also means being a doubter (Marx said one of his favorite aphorisms was, “Doubt everything.”). And if one’s a materialistic skeptic, one has to operate on the basis that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I’ve been arguing with a range of people over the issue of the 09-11 attacks, people who claim it was an “inside job.” I listened to the Architects & Engineers for 09-11 Truth, but then went here, because I suspected Skeptic Magazine would address the issues of conspiracy claims, and I was right. So again, interesting article. Thanks.

  59. Andrew. says:

    You so-called skeptics are a laughing stock, blind freddy can see that building 7 was a controlled demolition, and in particular, an implosion, which is one of the most difficult for demolition experts to achieve.

    Just go to youtube and type in building 7, open your eyes and use your brains, then go and have another look at the towers being blown to smitherines. It’s bloody obvious.

    BTW Building 7 fell at freefall for 2.25s (officially acknowledged), this is only achievable with the removal of all resistance like the dozens of steel columns that have resisted collapse for decades, the only known way of removing all the resistance (columns) is through precision use of cutter charges. Slam dunk.

    • TruthMakesPeace says:

      It is amazing how those who gullibly believe the Offishy Theory call themselves “skeptic” and try to hijack the term, when WE are the real skeptics. We are the ones who question what we are being told. We are the ones who see in the inconsistencies in the Bush-Cheney-Zelikow theory.

  60. someone says:

    So far I’ve seen “Zeitgeist,” read a considerable amount about what the conspiracies say, have read this article (which I found to be very well researched in lots of areas…I’ve found information elsewhere about the burning of jet fuel and the difference between the heat and temperature at which it burns…I’m definitely not a physicist!) and several comments, and am in the process of watching “Loose Change (2nd edition),” and also tuned in for hours when the attacks happened. When I saw this comment, I was a little relieved b/c I feel like both theories (“official” and “conspiracy”) make impressive and believable arguments w/ SOME believable evidence. I feel the same way as Marshall; which is why I’ve started researching what happened. But I’m doing my best to figure out which things are truly backed up and which ones are absolute nonsense. A lot of the things I’ve seen in the “Loose Change” documentary seem completely absurd to me. And the more I watch it, the more I hear the narrator saying, “…It gets even better. Check this out.” WHAT GETS BETTER?? There is NOTHING good about anything that happened on that day except the brave rescuers that saved lives and all those who worked their a**es off to do what they needed to do in order to get things under control, so to speak. What makes the loss of thousands of people good? The narrator sounds like a kid who has just played a game and figured out a hidden passage or secret or something similar. It disgusts me. Yes, there may be government conspiracy involved in 9/11, but that doesn’t demean the lives of anyone that died that day. It only makes me question further as to the truth of what this narrator is saying.

    Bottom line, because evidence may have been compromised, confiscated, etc., Marshall is right…there is no black and white and there might always be the question of what happened that day (just as people speculate as to what really happened the day JFK was shot). Just don’t ever forget to be mindful of the folks who passed away. Every time I see those towers come down I think of all the people losing their lives, second by second. Be respectful; if not to opposing believers, to those who died that day.

  61. Andew says:

    Good on Ahmadinejad for raising this issue at the UN, this is a well overdue developement.

    It is also very timely because an advertisement is about to be played to millions of New Yorkers asking people to question the official version/lies. This issue is not going away anytime soon.

    Google “building what” to see the ad that millions will see

    • webmaster says:

      Read this critical analysis of the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint. The response to Assertion 7 addresses the fall of Building 7.

      • Andrew. says:

        That link is just a relatively cleverly written load of codswallop.

        One example is that he often refers to the seismic evidence from his portable field seismographs, yet these seismographs have never been released to the public and he admits in the clarifications/corrections that they are inadequate for drawing conclusions.

        His claim that “at no point during 9/11 were sudden or independant vibration ‘spikes’ documented by any seismograph” is simply untrue, the Lamont-Doherty seismographs which he acknowledges clearly show a very large spike in each collapse. I am not going to pretend to be able to analyse those spikes, but they are most certainly there.

        http://911review.com/errors/wtc/imgs/seismic-wave-24.gif

        Getting to building 7, he really doesn’t say much at all (unlike demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who says that it is certainly a contolled demolition “absolutely… it’s been imploded”).

        One thing that he does say about WTC 7 which is an outright lie is that there are photo’s of building 7 showing “several lower floors fully involved in a large fire”. The truth is that WTC 7 only had isolated pockets of fire and was never “fully involved”.

        The article you linked to is written by someone who shows no integrety at all, if you wish for me to comment on any point he makes which you think is valid I will be happy to respond.

  62. Bob T says:

    One thing that has been given little attention is the role of the viscoelastic dampers, attached to each floor truss. These things are made from thiokol (a sulfur compound, non newtonian substance) and can certainly “explode.” They explode in the manner of releasing the energy from an elastic band.

    I believe that what brought down the twin towers was a vertical Tacoma bridge effect, compounded by a vertical pyroclastic flow occurring in less than three seconds. The towers did work in literally “unbuilding” themselves.

    Read the letters in this thread and note the date
    http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/7551.html

    • Andrew. says:

      That day three highrise buildings went from standing bolt upright, and whatever anyone says about the extent of damage and fire the truth is that all 3 highrises were upright and showing no deformation, until they suddenly collapsed though themselves at near freefall speed, and in the case of WTC 7, actual freefall.

      You can hypothesise on new collapse mechanisms all you want to, but if you want to look at precidence then there is only one mechanism known for achieving the rapid and total destruction of steel framed highrises though themselves, and that is controlled demolition.

      Even if your largely ignored hypothesis has a remote possiblity of being true for the towers it cannot explain the implosion of WTC 7, only a precision demolition where all the columns are instantly removed in an exact manner can explain building 7s collapse.

      I urge everyone to go and have another look at the collapses of WTCs 1, 2, and 7. There is plenty of easily accessed archival footage at youtube.

      • Guch says:

        “I urge everyone to go and have another look at the collapses of WTCs 1, 2, and 7. There is plenty of easily accessed archival footage at youtube.”

        I had no idea you were in the building demolition business and understood exactly what you were looking at.

        Despite the fact that you have a bias to believe in your own view point to begin with and will see what you want to see that will fit with what you understand as the truth.

        “the truth is that all 3 highrises were upright and showing no deformation”

        I’ll assume the first 2 high rises getting hit by 2 planes don’t count as a “deformation”. If you are going to make a point try and make a good one as in “No structural damaing deformations”.

        Besides the point that the concept that the government did it and is hiding all the evidence really goes against Occam’s Razor. 9/11 truthers want us to believe the government, and the building owners, and those who profited from the drop in stock were all in on it. Then you want us to assume that the government secretly planted bombs in the building with no one really knowing and then flew planes into the building to cover up the destruction of the buildings all to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq?

        Or we could assume that terrorist organizations hijacked planes because they hated western civilization and flew them into 2 buildings.

        But we can go with your assumption for now. Prove it. Don’t prove that the building didnt fall “right”. Prove the government did it. Even if the planes didnt fall just because of the planes crashing into it, it is a major leap to go from “More than planes” to “OMG GOVERNMENT KILL US!” You are hearing hooves and yelling ZEBRA ZEBRA!

        • Guch says:

          some errors in my typing, give me credits its almost midnight.

          “Even if the planes didnt fall just because of the planes crashing into it,”

          should say buildings didn’t fall right… I should really proof read before posting, but this is just conversation on a forum.

          • Andew says:

            “Even if the buildings didnt fall just because of the planes crashing into it, it is a major leap to go from “More than planes” to “OMG GOVERNMENT KILL US!””

            No it’s not, and that is why people like the so-called skeptics won’t look objectively at the evidence for controlled demolition, because the implications are obvious.

            The latest evidence for explosives is from the NIST collection of videos from that day (obtained through a lawsuit), it shows firefighters talking about explosives going off in the buildings before they collapsed.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o&feature=player_embedded

            This was supressed evidence, it’s not ‘proof’ of controlled demolition like the 2.25s of pure freefall that WTC 7 experiences, but it all adds to a body of evidence that is overwhelmingly in favour of controlled demolition.

  63. Guch says:

    “This was supressed evidence, it’s not ‘proof’ of controlled demolition like the 2.25s of pure freefall that WTC 7 experiences, but it all adds to a body of evidence that is overwhelmingly in favour of controlled demolition.”

    K, well I can assume you aren’t even American so your obsession with this is interesting.

    Regardless, Free fall for Building 7 would be around 6 seconds. Reality it was over 6 seconds, indicating not a free fall, thus not a controlled demolition.

    Besides, that would have to be a pretty amazing plan to fly planes into buildings with controlled explosions in such a way to have debris hit building 7.

    The farther you have to reach the less likely your story is true. I think the concept that someone hating you so much they want you dead without even know you scares you more than a corrupt government.

    • Andrew. says:

      Why do you find it “interesting” that someone can’t stomach being lied to day after day as we are with the whole ‘war on terror’ BS?? Or that someone should find the wars and suffering that those lies cause unpalatable??

      WRT freefall, I was not suggesting that the building completely collapsed in 2.25s, what I said is that building 7 experienced a 2.25s period of pure freefall early in the collapse. This is very consistant with ‘implosions’ where the lower portions of ALL the columns are removed almost simultaniously via cutter charges allowing the upper section building to fall for a period before smashing into the ground destroying itself (often the upper section is also pre-weakened).

      Freefall is not only consistant with implosions, it is also completely inconsistant with the effect fire has on steel. Fire can only soften the steel until it yeilds, but the steel columns will still have some strength and therefore will not allow freefall but will typically fail slowly with lots of bending and buckling evident.

      All the columns had to be removed simultaniously to allow freefall and fire cannot possibly do that, so what removed the columns?

      • Guch says:

        You already assume it was a freefall, but you don’t know. You can watch as many videos as you want and time it with stop watches, but in truth you have know idea what was going on inside that building.

        Structures may have been collapsing inside that would not be noticeable from the facade and would make the point of answering “what removed the columns” pointless.

        By the way, if you had a fire burning and an equal temperature at a floor across the entire floor, it would be able to weaken all all the columns simultaneously.

        The point is, you don’t even have the facts to back-up the thesis that these buildings were a demolition let alone the facts that point it was a controlled demolition by our government. You are looking for facts to back up your argument instead of letting the facts lead you to a conclusion.

        You, for some reason, WANT the government to be behind it. Maybe to hate Bush for more reasons? I really don’t know. But if this was a government conspiracy someone would let it leak. Nothing of that magnitude could ever be kept a secret, for it to be carried out it would have to be talked about, electronically leaves an amazing trail, verbally can be overheard. Point is, someone outside their circle would have caught wind of something and it would have got out.

        • Andrew. says:

          There are more sophisticated tools available these days than stop watches, and people have used accurate software to time the collapses, also NIST, under pressure, finally acepted that freefall occured in their final report (for 2.25s), so it is official.

          WRT “if you had a fire burning and an equal temperature at a floor across the entire floor, it would be able to weaken all all the columns simultaneously”. WTC 7 did not have fires across entire floors as we have seen with other highrise inferno’s, and even if it did it fire could only soften or weaken the steel columns (as you acknowledge) which would not allow for freefall to occur.

          WRT “Nothing of that magnitude could ever be kept a secret”, nobody knows how many clandestine operations are kept secret, so this is pure speculation on your part and it seems to be the last desperate refuge of people who can’t handle the very obvious fact that the buildings were brought down through controlled demolition.

          Google Operation Gladio if you want to know of a clandestine previous operation to by western intelligence agencies to commit terrorist acts and blame them on communists, very similar to the BS “war on terror” except now we are blaming the Muslims.

          Operation Gladio was kept secret for decades.

          • Guch says:

            “There are more sophisticated tools available these days than stop watches, and people have used accurate software to time the collapses, also NIST, under pressure, finally acepted that freefall occured in their final report (for 2.25s), so it is official.”

            Im very sure we have accurate equipment. Tell me though, how did they determine what was happening beneath the facade? What damage was going on before the towers fell? Also you changed your stance from “near freefall” to “freefall”. Even citing that since its in an official report its true. Don’t official reports also state that terrorists committed these acts?

            “nobody knows how many clandestine operations are kept secret, so this is pure speculation on your part and it seems to be the last desperate refuge of people who can’t handle the very obvious fact that the buildings were brought down through controlled demolition.”

            The fact that you tell me to look something up lets me know one thing: It wasn’t kept a secret.

            Regardless, we are also living in a much different age. We live in a generation where we are all connected and information travels fast. Celebrities can’t order a latte without the internet knowing of it 10 seconds later. If secrets are so easy to keep, why couldn’t we keep the simple secret of WMDs in Iraq going? By comparison it would seem like a breeze.

            But that still doesn’t answer the question of, Why do it? To go to war? Did we really attack our own country killing thousands blame it on Al-Qaeda just to go to war with Iraq? If that is so, why did you try and say there was WMDs in Iraq to justify the war? Seems pointless.

  64. Andrew. says:

    I did not ‘change my stance’ from near freefall to freefall, when I talked about near freefall I was refering to all three highrises going from bolt upright (showing no signs of deformation) into essentially freefall.

    So, because the towers were involved in the mix I didn’t claim pure freefall, all my claims for pure freefall have been wrt the demolition of WTC 7. I have been consistant with this and have not changed my stance at all.

    I’m tired of this discussion so I probrably won’t comment again, please continue to avoid all the evidence because your belief system won’t allow you to deal with the irrefutable fact that those THREE massive steel highrises were completely razed through controlled demolition.

    As I said in my first post here, you so-called skeptics are a laughing stock, and your belief system is as strong as any religious nutter.

    You just don’t BELIEVE it can be true, or that it could be kept a secret (which it hasn’t been, it’s all over the internet in case you haven’t noticed), and that belief takes precidence over any evidence to the contrary.

    Go and have an honest look at those THREE steel highrise demolitions again, something is very rotten in the state of Denmark.

    • Guch says:

      “As I said in my first post here, you so-called skeptics are a laughing stock, and your belief system is as strong as any religious nutter.”

      And here we go with the personal attacks. Besides the fact that most people require some sort of proof to come to a conclusion and because I believe most people who would be a “so-called skeptic” are willing to change positions depending on the data we are rather far from a “religious nutter”.

      I have seen those buildings collapse many times, Hell I remember sitting on my floor in my bedroom watching it fall when I was younger. Nothing about it screams “demolition”.

      Perhaps you should look up the description of circumstantial evidence. If you make a bold claim as “The Government is behind 9.11″ you better have more proof than “they fell wrong”.

  65. Longshot Jones says:

    You need to update your files. 911 conspiracy advocates are not saying the US government is behind 911, they are saying American and Israeli Jews are behind 911.

    I suppose the whole point of your magazine is to gain trust by telling the truth about an inconsequential devining rods only to con people into believing the official government lies. Quite shameful.

  66. Theron says:

    Do you CT’s really believe that our boneheaded leaders are capable of pulling off such a perfectly orchestrated event that would have had to involved THOUSANDS of people who all kept their mouths shut despite knowing that they were going to be an accessory to mass murder? Really?! That they would have been able to create a controlled demolition originating at the exact points of impact? Really?! Do you think a pilot would be capable of hitting that precise spot while at full throttle in and extreme bank angle? Really?! And do you really believe that not one of the numerous people directly involved would come forward to the press (any media outlet at all) with solid evidence and make millions? Really?! Do you think every TV station and newspaper is the country is being paid hush money or threatened by the government? Really?! Come on people use your heads.

    • TruthMakesPeace says:

      The Manhattan Project employed 100,000 people, built cities in the desert, and blew off a test atomic bomb, and Vice President Truman didn’t hear about it, until FDR died and he became President. So secrets CAN be kept. We only hear about the mistakes. Besides, the 9/11 False Flag Operation has not been kept a secret. More and more people are finding out about it every day.

      >Do you think a pilot would be capable of hitting that precise spot while at full throttle in and extreme bank angle?
      No. It would require takeover by computerized Remote Control (with lockout of navigation and communications) to get such speed, accuracy, and emotion-less flight into buildings, aided by homing beacons planted during the “modernization projects” on the WTC and Pentagon.

  67. Steve says:

    One of the conspiracy sites published an article called “Popular Mechanics Attack on 9/11 Truth.” I was pointed in that direction during a debate on a forum, after citing the Popular Mechanics article.

    Since we had been talking about the “melted steel” argument, I scrolled down to that area, which claimed this:

    “Here PM’s counter claim implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF.”

    That seemed strange to me. They made a point of how steel temperatures are different from the atmospheric temperatures surrounding it, then went on to cite a study and only mentioned the steel temperatures, not the atmospheric. So I went to the website of Corus Construction Co, and found a section in their Research area that said this about the difference in temperatures between steel and atmosphere:

    “With regard to steel temperatures, these depend upon the size of the member but for typical unprotected beams and columns these would lag behind the compartment temperatures by around 100°C to 200°C.”

    So the tests that the conspiracy theorist cited only had atmospheric temperatures ranging around 800-900 degrees, while the Popular Mechanics article (and NIST report) mentions that pockets of the World Trade Center reached 1800 degrees. This would put the steel temperature in those locations at around 1600-1700 degrees, which is far above the 1100 degree mark that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity.

    I just thought it was a pretty striking example of dishonesty. The conspiracy theorist site could not have found that Corus study without finding the question on the atmospheric temperature, but left that part out. Some “truth movement”…

    -Steve

    • Steve says:

      http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

      I stumbled across this interesting site and would love some feedback from the people commenting on this article. I personally am still doing research and trying to make up my mind on the subject.

    • Jay Howard says:

      Steve, you say:

      “In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF.”

      Notice that letter at the end? F = Fahrenheit

      Then you say:
      “…tests that the conspiracy theorist cited only had atmospheric temperatures ranging around 800-900 degrees, while the Popular Mechanics article (and NIST report) mentions that pockets of the World Trade Center reached 1800 degrees. This would put the steel temperature in those locations at around 1600-1700 degrees, which is far above the 1100 degree mark that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity. ”

      This is where you make a couple of big mistakes:

      NIST tests showed that the hottest ANY steel that they got their hands on had gotten was about 600C. Which is about 1100F. Which is almost EXACTLY as hot as the office fire tests they ran. In those tests, only about 2 of the fires got that hot and only for about 10 minutes.

      So basically, your facts are all effed up, and you’re confusing Celsius with Fahrenheit.

      Don’t be so passionate when you have no idea what you’re talking about. Makes you look silly.

  68. Dave says:

    Thanks for posting this. I think you missed one other reason why the conspiracy theory is so popular amongst some of the more (the words I’d like to use is probably going to get the post removed).

    The idea that some swarthy foreigners could possibly attack the usa without the gov’t knowing about it, or being able to prevent it, is unacceptable to the exceptionalist yankee. The Government must have been involved, because only the usa could possibly be successful at pulling off such an attack.

    Yes. In short I am calling the truthers a bunch of bigoted, and willfully ignorant fools.

  69. Enrique Rivera says:

    I agree with your overall statement. I believe really solid evidence ought to be furnished if any conspiracy is going to be taken seriously. As far as the 9-11 truther’s go, I find some of the things they say to be interesting. By no means do I find that there is a smoking gun, but they do raise some good questions. As much as I would like to believe that you wrote this article based on any objective research, I don’t. I don’t even think you believe that. It sounds like you are not willing to believe such a high level of corruption, such as to kill your own citizens is possible. I don’t blame you, I don’t want to believe that either. However I am not convinced that the truthers’s are just nut jobs, nor do I believe that they are merely paranoid. As for the reason government thugs haven’t arrested them or killed them all, well, I think I am on safe grounds to conclude that even if the truthers were right on the money, the truth is no longer a threat to our government. Like I said, I am NOT sold on this truther business, but I do know that the American people are fully propagandized by now, if we were in the 70’s these truthers with the insufficient evidence they have would have rallied hundreds of thousands if not millions of supporters, as a matter of fact, I take that back, in the 60’s or 70’s the Government thugs would have stepped in, lives undoubtedly would have been lost, but maybe the truthers would have gathered enough steam and help to get to the bottom of things. The real truth is this, even if the truther’s are right, it doesn’t matter, not yet anyway. This article and many other “debunkers” prove that America doesn’t really want the truth anymore, furthermore and even more frightening, I don’t think with the media machine and modern day propaganda that we are capable of collectively recognizing truth anymore.

    Maybe one day Americans will once again find a way to come together when it matters, demand answers, fight for causes they deem to be just in ways that really matter, irrespective of the cost. Civil disobedience is practically a joke now. The days of the Huey Newton’s and Malcom X’s, Martin Luther Kings, and Hoffa’s are long gone. I find it to be both sad and tragic.

    That’s just my opinion

  70. SkepticScot says:

    What an intruiging debate.
    As an outsider I have looked into this with as little passion as I can produce. I am more with the official view than I am with the “truther’s”. But I have to say the whole thing is a lot more up in the air than I expected.

    I do have a few comments though…

    Occams razor is lazy thinking, when it is applied to human interactions it means almost nothing (even in science, would we have string theory at all if this theory was applied consistently?).

    Also when it comes to who has benefited. Of course big buisness has come out trumps, but please tell me in what situations big buisness has not come out well? In our economic system that is almost the only conclusion to every event. But nobody seems to acknowledge that this was also in AQ’s interests. What anti-western muslims would not want to join after they say what the organisation was capable of (allegedly!). I imagine many anti-western jihadists thought that victory against the west was possible upon seeing 9/11.

    As for the details and the arguments surrounding how the buildings came down…
    I don’t know, there is no explanation that is completely satisfying to me. As a true skeptic I am forced to conclude that both camps are incorrect.

    Maybe it was aliens!!!!!!!!!!

  71. Dave J says:

    Having looked with interest into both sides of 9/11 theories for a while now, there still seems to be one conversation that is never mentioned:
    “Excuse me. Hi, sorry to interrupt you, I know your just trying to get home from convention or whatever but I’m from the government and we’ve got this plan to murder a load of our own citizens so that we can enforce greater restrictions on everyone’s freedom, declare war on a few countries in the Middle East (don’t worry, you probably haven’t heard of them), build a pipeline through these countries so we can get more oil and to get a big profit for a few business tycoons. And we’re going to be using your flight to achieve this. So, if you wouldn’t mind just following us and living on a secluded military base for the rest of your life without ever seeing your family again, that would be great. Thank you, have a nice day.”

  72. Lloyd says:

    There is no explanation that is completely satisfactory to me.

  73. aaron fleszar says:

    Al-Qaeda or “New World Order” control the story online regarding the 9 11 Conspiracy

    My name is Aaron Fleszar and I’d like to expose, with your help, the largest conspiracy in world history. Most people don’t believe in conspiracies or conspiracy theories, I know because I was one of them. The thing about a conspiracy is it cannot be proven, if it could, it wouldn’t be a conspiracy. I will try and make this as simple as possible so that you can follow my logic and likely reach the same conclusions.

    What do we know about Osama Bin Laden that we haven’t been told by the media? We know that he is a spokesperson for Al-Qaeda. Once or twice a year, this guy appears in video, pointing his finger, from a tape that mysteriously arrives at the Al-Jazeera network. If Osama Bin Laden is only spokesperson, and not a mastermind, who makes up the organization behind him?

    Even a president is only a spokesperson. A president surrounds himself with an administration that advises him. There is always a force behind a president with an agenda. Sometimes that agenda is known, sometimes it’s not.

    Are we being mislead by Osama Bin Laden and the organization behind him? Could Osama be the spokesperson for a New World Order, the richest people in the world who would like to take over the government? Could Osama be a distraction, and a catalyst, for starting an endless war on terror, increasing defense department spending, lining the pockets of defense contractors, and driving up the price of oil?

    Could the attacks on 9/11 be attacks against capitalism? Is Al-Qaeda or New World Order’s goal to destroy capitalism? Would destroying capitalism allow the richest people in the world a chance to implement socialism, get wealthier by collapsing the dollar, and allow them to institute a one world currency, only to enslave the rest of the world to their New World Order government?

    Everyone knows that something happened on 9/11 that is being covered up, but what is it? Is it that planes didn’t collapse 2 buildings which fell with precision as if they were being brought down by a controlled demolition? Is it that no one ever talks about the third building which collapsed that never got hit by an airplane? Were the planes nothing more than misdirection, or an illusion, created by Al-Qaeda/New World Order, also known as “the Illuminati?”

    Written across thousands of get rich quick scams online there is a code. Al-Qaeda or NWO appears to be using the internet to take over all ecommerce and media. Several people making up this code are look a likes for people associated with the current administration, in addition to media moguls, and CEO’s.

    Several of the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists make up this code online. They are wanted for US embassy bombings in Kenya, Obama’s family’s birthplace, and Indonesia, a place where Obama spent many years as a child.

    These are the aliases of Most Wanted Terrorists. Check out Google images;
    Mark Joyner Simpleology-Seif Al Adel (Sarah Palin’s book Palinology)
    John Ferrero-Ramadan Shallah
    Yaro Starak-Umar Patek
    Armand Morin-Noordin M Top (said to have been killed in Indonesia and now removed from the FBI’s most wanted list)
    Michael Filsaime-Ali Sayyid Muhamed Mustafa al-Bakri (Die Hard 4 “Fire Sale” The cyber attack on our infrastructure)
    Dr. Mani Sivasubramanian-Ammar Mansour Bouslim
    Carl Galletti-Ahmed Garbaya, Samir Salwwan
    Ted Ciuba-Abdul Rahman Yasin

    What’s interesting about the Al-Qaeda organization online, that literally own the internet, is that this same group of marketing experts ran the last election on Youtube. Could the organization behind Osama Bin Laden be the New World Order Illuminati? Could the organization behind the election of Obama, be the same group? Could Osama be the look a like to represent Obama, and Biden, Bi(nla)den?

    It’s not a conspiracy when it’s taking place right in front of you. There is just an overwhelming amount of misinformation to try and prevent you from connecting the dots. Keep in mind that the Illuminati, or New World Order, are masters at illusion.

    It’s important for the future of America that you tell others immediately about this information. You can learn more by simply searching my name. Email and text everyone you know. When enough people start demanding honest answers, we will finally learn the truth to what really happened on 9/11.

    Thank you for reading this,
    Aaron M Fleszar

  74. steve says:

    I was dissapointed with this article. Was hoping to get a thorough discussion, this was rather biased.

  75. white noise says:

    I have a problem with thinking that all these professionals (check their CV’s) are dimwits… http://patriotsquestion911.com/

  76. Jen Gannon says:

    The towers fell because two very large planes crashed into them and ignited massive fires. There was more than enough fuel in the buildings themselves (have any of you BEEN in an office building recently?) to continue to feed the flames once the jet fuel was exhausted.

    The truther movement is nothing more than a sad–but entirely natural — attempt to regain some a sense of control and coherence when faced with an overwhelming fact: that a well organized terrorist network was (and probably still is) capable of launching an attack on American soil.

    By constantly looking backward and building their “inside job” theories, the truthers are building an alternate reality in which there is some possibility of control and –presumably–revenge. It’s a very basic psychological defense. It’s also an enormous waste of time. This energy should be focused on much more pressing issues in the here and now–including some very scary things happening in our government and our nation — if people really want to make some kind of difference.

  77. Robert Mockan says:

    How many years passed before the government declassified the truth about Pearl Harbor? How many people died in the attack on Pearl Harbor? How many of the people who had first hand knowledge about the pending attack came forward in the weeks, months, and years, after the attack, to speak the truth about what the US government knew, and when it knew it?

    You get the drift here?

  78. Jen Gannon says:

    @ Robert — 9/11 ‘truthers’ aren’t just saying that the goverment knew of an impending attack–they are saying that the government ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED in the attack. So while I do get the drift –and certainly could believe that members of the Bush administration ignored crucial intel — the two sets of conspiracy theories aren’t quite analogous.

  79. Shaun Park says:

    a good article i cant help but notice all those people who post attacking it the simple fact of the matter is the truth is the truth and some people just dont want to believe it

  80. Edwards says:

    All the enemies of religion ISLAM have become united to abolish the muslims from this earth’s crust. The so-called 9/11, was a planned, plotted and directed DRAMA by Jewish, Christians, Hindus, and other SATANIC powers of the globe. There is no evidence of AL-quaedah, movement that is assumed to be present in the dreams, and imaginations of ALL ANTI-ISLAM wolves. Let the Muslims live on this earth, Your dirty and filthy propaganda,against this peaceful and THE ONLY TRUE path and way of life, is unable to harm the TRUTH. The BIGGEST TERRORISTs are, JEWS, CHRISTIANS and HINDUS, who worship the Penis (SHIVA LINGHUM) and VULVA (YONI- POOJA), as their GODS. What a shameless and obscene religeon.

  81. Edwards says:

    The all FOUR aircrafts were passengerless remotely controlled. The basements of all THREE towers were exploded coincidentally, with the remote controlled kites. How Mr. AIHUD BARRAK, (ex Israeli prime minister) was surely blaiming the Muslims for this incident, just fifeten after minutes the incident at BBC news? Was’nt that a written SCRIPT by the Director? (Mr. G.W.Bush) and Mr. Kolan Powell and Co. PLEASE LIVE AND OTHERS ALSO LIVE.

  82. Arad Ron says:

    Does this article cover the Dancing Israelis? Who or what were they?

  83. Mbook says:

    These comments are intense. It’s hard to pick out who is trolling, who is anti-Semitic, who is well-meaning but misguided, and who is just plain dumb. It’s hard, but it’s not impossible.

  84. Ajones says:

    It’s either the blatant fiction below:

    1. Nineteen (19) people (allegedly Muslim Extremists) hijacked Four (4) planes.
    2. Four (4) planes were intended to hit buildings
    3. Three (3) planes did – Two (2) into the World Trade Center (WTC); one (1) with 64 people in it, hit the Pentagon; and one (1) went nose down into a field, because the passengers were about to play kickball with heads of the dudes (again, allegedly Muslim Extremists) in the cockpit
    4. The two (2) planes that hit the WTC caused so much damage the towers fell
    5. The one (1) plane that hit the Pentagon blew apart so violently and into so many pieces that the roof fell in

    OR, it’s this well thought out and executed plan:

    1. Three (3) planes were hijacked by suicide pilots from the U.S. Government. Betty Ong, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11 was a plant because she identified the hijackers as “mid-eastern” – that or the government has a cadre of mid-eastern suicide pilots. That’s one of those pesky little problems that Wikileaks (or someone) will correct.

    2. Two (2) planes flew into the WTC, but they were also carrying missiles and/or bombs that went off in the building right before they hit.

    3. A secret Government Demolition Crew (GDCs) also put bombs in the WTC and they went off right before each collapse. These were either put in before 9/11 – or they snuck in the buildings during the insanity of the moment and did it (when remains unclear).

    4. The government shot down the government suicide pilot flying Flight 93. And this is a crying shame because he was a really good actor. He was doing all that praying to Allah and stuff in the cockpit while those passengers (who had obviously lied about how strong their will to live was), and who were hand-selected by the US Government to die for BushCo tried to tear down the cockpit door.

    5. Wait, I forgot – the passengers on Flight 93 did not try to tear down the cockpit door. Those voice recorder sounds were a plant — from a sound studio.

    6. A fourth plane, Flight 77, was just plain kidnapped by the government. All the people on that flight either were put in the Witness Protection Program (WPP), duck-walked out to a cornfield and shot, or are being held in Gitmo— right now.

    7. The government kidnappers allowed the kidnapped people to talk on their cell phones (and in some cases Airfones©, but it took us a few years to figure out that the planes still had Airfones©) before they took them away forever. And don’t be fooled by DNA – it was all burnt up in the towers and in the Pentagon and in Shanksville, PA!

    8. The government launched a missile at the Pentagon, and of course blew it up.

    9. The government planted eyewitnesses all along the highway by the Pentagon who would say they saw a plane fly into the building.

    10. Or, the government used mind-control and made all the witnesses think they saw a plane (really should have numbered this 10a).

    11. Or, maybe the government used their Super-Secret Holographic Daytime Imager (SSHDI) to convince witnesses that they were actually seeing a plane (really, this should be 10b) – either way, we‘ll get to the bottom of this little puzzle eventually – Wikileaks! Although I personally know that George Lucas owns a CGI company that can make these Holograph images – and he’s JEWISH, so he’s conspiring with the Government!). [Gosh, I tell you, these soulless murderers will stop at nothing! The terrifying cabals and connections (which luckily I am able to put together for you Sheeple) just never ends!]

    12. The National Guard pilot of the C-130 Hercules that was requested by Reagan International to track the plane that the government kidnapped (and who was heard over Air Traffic Control channels) reported to the tower that the kidnapped plane had flown into the Pentagon; he is, of course, lying — because he’s attached to the military.

    13. The Government Plant and Cover-Up Crew (GPCUC) showed up in front of all the Pentagon employees – who can’t be trusted in the first place because they work at the Pentagon, and everybody that works at the Pentagon is a liar and part of the conspiracy – and in front of all the Firemen and EMT workers and police, and the mainstream media, who had arrived on the scene (all firefighters in NYC and Washington DC, and all ambulance drivers and all cops and the mainstream media all work for the GPCUC) — and started driving through the hole in the Pentagon and all over the lawn, dropping plane pieces and body parts like Easter eggs… only they were really stupid and sometimes they dropped the wrong kind of airplane parts… and it would be assumed they must have blown up all the passengers on the kidnapped plane so that they would have some body parts to spread around. This must have happened at the Secret Government Slaughter Facility (SGSF) where the plane was flown to be either destroyed and hidden from sight forever or blown up to make plane pieces to spread around. I’ll get back to you on this pesky little plane problem just as soon as Wikileaks clears this up – don’t despair, that should happen soon; sooner if the stupid Government would just release all of the security tapes from… somewhere; ah, yes, the Pentagon tapes of the missile hitting the building. [Sorry, so much info to keep track of… whew!]

    14. Then the stealthy Government Demolition Crew (GDC-S[tealth]) from the WTC (after planting demolition charges in Bldg 7) arrived at the Pentagon and blew up the roof and wall, so that it would fall in on the hole that does not match the plane that was kidnapped by the government.

    15. Then the stealthy Government Clean-Up Crew (GCUC-S[tealth]) snuck into the WTC debris pile and stole all the steel. [I’m still not clear on why this is so important.]

    16. Then the stealthy GCUC-S[tealth] crew flew to the Pentagon and stole all the missile evidence.

    17. Then Michael Moore made a lot of money.

    18. Then Alex Jones made a lot of money.

    19. Then Dylan Avery and a whole lot of other people made a lot of money; making documentaries and writing books and starting cool conspiracy theory websites — and, they got interviewed on TV and started up a really huge argument — worldwide!

    20. The government only wanted to attack the Pentagon with a missile (disguised as a plane) to start a war for oil (see BushCo and Blood for Oil) and take over the middle-east (especially lovely, super oil-rich Afghanistan), but Silverstein wanted to collect insurance money and because he’s Jewish, he made the government include the World Trade Center complex in the attacks as well.

    21. Silverstein contacted every single Jew that works in the WTC towers via his stealthy Zionist-shoe-phone and made sure they were on vacation that day. So, there’s your PROOF that all Jews (especially Israeli Jews, heck, let‘s just say it: ISRAEL – the country and all the Israeli’s that live there) are part of the cover-up, and nearly completely responsible for the WTC attack and collapse, and all the deaths that occurred (except for Bush & Chaney & Rumsfeld who are also partly responsible – all of this was foretold by the Illuminati and Free Masons years ago and remind me to show you how to fold a dollar bill so that you can see how Benjamin Franklin knew about this as well).

    22. To cover all this up the government got their trusty mid-eastern agent, Osama bin Laden (OBL), to confess to it all in a news interview. However, that makes sense, because he had apparently been on the government payroll in the job description of: “Bad Arab Guy Who Wants To Attack America (BAGWWTAA)” all through the Clinton administration.

    You have to apply Ocaam’s Razor to this theory or you will remain confused (as I trust you are now, but never fear, I can sort this out for you).

    Now…as you can PLANELY SEE – the first scenario, put out by the Government Conspirators and BushCo (GC-ABC) is just excessively complicated!

    Obviously, you’ll need to spread the word as loudly, obnoxiously, and rudely as possible (because it’s hard to get those damn Sheeple to see the light), and you should put it everywhere! Especially on the internet!

    You have all the research and scientific tools for independent testing right at your fingertips!!! Yes, I’m talking YouTube, Wikileaks, Wikpedia, and Google! Don’t let the Sheeple fool you! It’s all you need. You’ll be directed to websites and documentaries that have all the science you need to back up my our the truth!

    Don’t let the Sheeples accusations of pseudo-science and lack of correct research and test procedures get to you! We have our own PhD’s, who hold their degrees in Theology and Philosophy such as Dr. David Ray Griffin (he’s written a lot of books too!); a pilot who flew for over 50 years and flew both planes that hit the WTC (I mean the actual planes themselves!) – Capt. Wettenberg; we have pilot and son of the Lear Jet founder – John Lear – who has stated that he has secret information about aliens and soul collectors from Sinus Medii. We have Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis who are sales reps by day, but dogged conspiracy investigators by night! We have ex-Governor of Minnesota and high school graduate, Jesse Ventura, who was not only a navy frogman for six years, and a pro-wrestler with the WWF, and a member of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gang “The Mongols”, heck, he has his own TV show about these very conspiracy theories! The people I mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg intellectually!

    Some great documentaries to watch are:

    Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore (probably the earliest documentary, but he was afraid to cover the cover-up and conspiracy – however, he did expose BushCo!)

    Alex Jones has his own TV and Radio show on Public Access out of Austin, Texas. He’s great – just Google him. Plus he has a YouTube channel!!! (And, he’s hot! – squeeeeee).

    Loose Change with (super-yummy boy-toy) Dylan Avery and his friends (also a second loose change out last month)!!!

    Websites and books are just too numerous to mention – Google it!!!!

  85. GaNome says:

    Actually, the FSM did not approve of American influence in disproving the heliocentric cosmos. In his rage he brought the twin towers down, with a quick smack from his noodly appendage. Every thing that was witnessed, on that day, was a projection uploaded into the Matrix. Prove me wrong bitches!

    • Captain Falco says:

      This reminds me of another conspiracy that has retarded this west in past decades, and is starting to re-enforce itself today. Yep, I’m talking about Christianity. I hope you know that the man who disproved the heliocentric cosmos was not American?

  86. Skeptic webmaster says:

    Comments Closed.

get eSkeptic
our free newsletter

Science in your inbox every Wednesday!

eSkeptic is our free email newsletter, delivered once a week. In it, you’ll receive: fascinating articles, announcements, podcasts, book reviews, and more…


Popular Articles
on skeptic.com

Here are the articles that people have been sharing over the last few days.

Carbon Comic

Carbon Comic (by Kyle Sanders)

Carbon Comic, which appears in Skeptic magazine, is created by Kyle Sanders: a pilot and founder of Little Rock, Arkansas’ Skeptics in The Pub. He is also a cartoonist who authors Carbon Dating: a skeptical comic strip about science, pseudoscience, and relationships. It can be found at carboncomic.com.

Help the
Skeptics Society
at no cost to you!

Planning on shopping at Amazon? By clicking on our Amazon affiliate link, which will open the Amazon Store in your Internet browser, the Skeptics Society will receive a small commission on your purchase. Your prices for all products remain the same, yet you’ll provide essential financial support for the work of the nonprofit Skeptics Society.

amazon.com

See our affiliate links page for Amazon.ca, Amazon.de, Amazon.co.uk, and iTunes links.

FREE PDF Download

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

Who believes them? Why? How can you tell if they’re true?

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and why do they tend to proliferate? Why does belief in one conspiracy correlate to belief in others? What are the triggers of belief, and how does group identity factor into it? How can one tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Do you know someone who has had a mind altering experience? If so, you know how compelling they can be. They are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Things You Should Know About Alternative Medicine

Top 10 Things You Should Know About Alternative Medicine

Topics include: chiropractic, the placebo effect, homeopathy, acupuncture, and the questionable benefits of organic food, detoxification, and ‘natural’ remedies.

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

Copyright © 1992–2014 Skeptic and its contributors. For general enquiries regarding the Skeptics Society or Skeptic magazine, email skepticssociety@skeptic.com or call 1-626-794-3119. Website-related matters: webmaster@skeptic.com. Enquiries about online store orders: orders@skeptic.com. To update your subscription address: subscriptions@skeptic.com. See our Contact Information page for more details. This website uses Google Analytics, Google AdWords, and AddThis tracking software.