Please also note that the article at the top of this page was written only ‘attacking’ the alternate theory of what may have happened (this was meant to be a model – and can ONLY be speculative – and therefore ‘easy to attack’).

The following are ordered in a semi-timeline sequence and not of greatest importance.

FACT (circumstantial): The administration and financial powers of this country had a heavy investment in seeking an excuse for war in Iraq and Afghanistan (the middle east) – see also PNAC documents via google.

FACT (empirical): Critical records were deliberately covered up by the administration and when their assertions were challenged with experimental data and conflicting records, the stories were changed (and becomes a circumstantial entry)

FACT (hybrid): The WTC’s owner had been trying for years to find a means of tearing down the financially ailing financial center. See Tom-Scott Gordon’s deposition via google

FACT (empirical): News organizations (CNN, ABC, NBC etc) were making a case against the middle east with false (canned footage) – i.e. ‘palestinians’ burning the American flag in broad daylight HOURS before the sun rose in palestine, etc

FACT (empirical): The US military did not respond even within an HOUR of the first attack – when one of the best equipped military bases was within a 7 minute grasp of an F-15 fighter. This directly contradicts NORAD/FAA rules which stipulate that loss of radar contact requires and IMMEDIATE military response (scrambling fighters). Responses from the administration has been highly specious -
1. Claim of a ‘stand down’ order due to war games modeling an attack on the WTC
2. Statement made by Condoleeza Rice that ‘they could not have envisaged such a scenario’, etc…

FACT (empirical): Structural failure of buildings whose damage was superficial (interview with structural engineers -predicated on the 1950 bomber hitting the empire state building – that the buildings were designed to sustain MULTIPLE Boeing 707 impacts – IN FACT – the amount of wind load the buildings were designed to sustain was MANY times greater than the force generated by a single 757 or 767 – therefore no damage to critical structures are even POSSIBLE. All theories proposed by NIST were inaccurate/implausible and have since been revoked.

FACT (empirical): Structural failure of the WTC towers was global (systemic) – due to rate of acceleration of center of mass of buildings. (this has been addressed above in a fashion too limited to ‘debunk’ – spot the rhetorical device!)

FACT (empirical): Building 7 collapsed under it’s own weight due to an office fire. The National and New York building code prevent construction of buildings which cannot sustain a major office fire. The tolerances for this are MANY times greater than all fires combined. No steel building has EVER collapsed due to fire. The safety mechanisms in place in the building at the time were redundant MANY times over.

FACT (empirical): The ONLY evidence for believing the story of an ‘arab’ or ‘al qaida’ attack was placed by PERSONAL cell phones, a clear impossibility at the altitude a commercial airliner is permitted to fly at. See also: ‘achilles experiment’ by japanese asahi tv (again – see google). This is yet another argument for some sort of cover up by financial concerns, the ‘media’ and/or the ‘administration’.

FACT (empirical): The attack on the Pentagon was not likely made by a commercial airliner (see relevant studies via google). All surveillance footage recording the attack was removed from a several mile radius around the Pentagon by authorities (AGAIN – WHY??)

FACT (empirical): Any inquiries made into acquiring records from the administration (via FOIA) are routinely denied (again – google) citing ‘threat to the security of the country’ as reasoning. Again – WHY?? One can only presume the reasoning has something to do with the fact that it would be terrible for public relations….

The list goes on and on – but these are the most important items countering the official version of events. I deliberately did not mention some of the more compelling studies (i.e. Harrit, Jones, et. al.) because they involve a CONSTRUCTIVE theory of what may have happened – but they are very well done and available for view via google. Here – I am only interested in calling into question the official version of events.

2: The buildings themselves when they go down… it just doesn’t look like it’s from damage. it’s too perfect and too fast. the beams where the plane entered wore damaged the most and some on the opposite side were damaged less… the ones on perpendicular sides had no damage… so why wouldn’t the top of the building fall over? Or something a little more haphazzard than just falling perfectly straight down.

Building 7 is another strong point.

No footage of the pentagon attack another strong point. Why not? There’s a zillion cameras there!! Release some of that footage NOW! Shut the conspiricists up real quick if a plane actually hit the pentagon.

That doesn’t prove shit… both conspiracists and “truthers” alike read the pop mechanics article. The fact that skeptic mag took a side on this issue instead of just presenting facts that may have supported both sides is already silly. How about BE SKEPTICAL OF THE OFFICIAL STORY. BE SKEPTICAL OF THE GOVERNMENT. BE SKEPTICAL THAT STEEL BUILDING DON’T JUST FALL FROM FIRE…. THAT BUILDING 7 HAD NO SUSTAINABLE DAMAGE AND THE LEASE HOLDER ADMITTED IT WAS TAKEN DOWN INTENTIONALLY. ETC. ETC. ETC. ETC.

Also, Mr Didier Kuckaertz, peak oil is a total nonsense that has been completely debunked by the constant process of more oil discovery (though i’ve no doubt it would have been a real issue if we really were going to run out).

1. How in the world could anyone precisely place explosives in three huge, always occupied buildings without being seen or caught? How did they get access to the interior structures sufficient to do so?

2. Why in the world would they bother since they presumably KNEW the planes were coming? The planes would do the job of at least ruining if not totally destroying the buildings(achieving virtually the same terror effect with either outcome) so why risk getting caught? Don’t tell me it was insurance in case the planes missed entirely: how would the explosions have been covered up in that case?

Skepticism for it’s own sake is no less a religion than creationism, or any other fringe factless wingnuttery. It is ONLY when skepticism leads to facts that it becomes useful.
That is why knee-jerk skeptics are always wrong.

‘Truthers’ are just like other willfully ignorant narcissistic wingnuts; devoid of facts and evidence, and demanding of equal time *without* equal work and evidence. Feh.

I’m from Belgium. Some weeks ago I watched a debate on a Canadian channel. John Ray was rather impressive, though I don’t share his views on 911. As an agnostic I keep wondering why people like him don’t use their skeptical skills to debunk the gvt’s version at the same time… Why starting with “truthers” ? Aren’t they sketptics as well ? I’ve got a few questions for John Ray.

1) There’s no doubt Dylan Avery and his team made several mistakes in Loose Change Second Edition. Within the 911 “truth movement”, Jim Hofman corrected them and was highly critical towards their counterproductive approach. Why do skeptics keep attacking the weakest links among truthers ? If John Ray is so sure to be right, why not forcing a debate with people like David Ray Griffin… He may be a theologian, I entirely agree with him when he says “911 is not a religious issue”.

2) I’ve read Mike Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon… Who among skeptics will be willing to attack this book ? Good luck ! This former LAPD detective says : “I don’t deal with conspiracy theories, I deal with conspiracy facts !”

3) Your approach is also counterproductive ! Given the number of professors, pilots, survivors, firefighters, rescuers rejecting the official version, the snowball effect on the web is on its way… You won’t stop it ! You might be well advised to change your approach ! Why ? Because we need people like you ! We don’t need you to view “truthers” like a bunch of nutcakes, but to prevent teens from being utterly hypnotized by conspiracy theories like “the illuminati stuff”. Why ? Because these conspiracy theorists read Griffin and integrate his analyses into their wider supernatural or esoteric theories…

What is your priority ?

John Ray ! You might be on the other side ! I keep wondering why you aren’t… I didn’t know being a skeptic in the US and in France implied trusting the governement of the most powerful military empire and the mass media manufacturing consent… The Bush Administration lied et cheated against Gore during the elections, and then lied at the UN Security Council about MDW… What makes a skeptic think it didn’t in between ?

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

There is a large difference between current events/issues that someone must learn about on their own and news that comes to you whether you are interested or not. For instance, compare the amount of news coverage Britney Spears received when she shaved her head to the collapse of WTC7. The break up of Brad and Jen received more coverage than the break up between Kosovo and Serbia. Practically everyone knew about the Britney Spears incident and the Brad and Jen break up. Only certain subsets of the population knew about the latter events.

Nevertheless, John Ray is making the argument that interest in the 9/11 Truth Movement waned due to the debunkers pointing out the spurious claims of the Truth Movement. John Ray writes,

“What should go down as a knockout blow to the 9/11 denier movement, what Michael Shermer called ‘just about one of the best things ever done in the history of skepticism,’ is the now-famous Popular Mechanics article turned into a best-selling book that debunked many of the top points the conspiracy theorists relied on.”

If the Popular Mechanics book is one of the best things ever done in the history of skepticism, then this doesn’t say much for skepticism. How many of it’s major claims still stand today?

Its explanations for the collapse of WTC1,2 and 7 are no longer considered valid even by the official story as promoted by NIST. It discussion of the Pentagon attack and Flight 93 was weak. The Popular Mechanics article/book was nothing more than baseless assertions(i.e. propaganda) masquerading as science.

John Ray; “Today, the 9/11 conspiracy movement is a shell of what it once was. The website masquerading as an academic journal, Journal of 9/11 Studies, has dropped from a high of six or seven articles published per issue to one…”

Of course, now the 9/11 Truth Movement has gone from publishing articles in their own journal to other peer-reviewed journals.

–Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction–

–Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials–

–Discussion of “Mechanics of Progressive
Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions” by Zdenek P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure–

–Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe–

If the arguments the debunkers made were sound, then we shouldn’t see organizations like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth continue to grow. At this point, they are almost up to 700 members.

The Truth marches on while the debunkers seek solace in ignorance.