"Jakenewton asks: I would love to hear a good answer to this question, why would you complicate the job by *both* flying planes into buildings and demolishing them with planted explosives? That's just dumb."

Just because something is dumb does not mean the Government didn't do it, the Government do dumb things all the time, it's like saying our government would do this sort of thing to it's own citizens. As if.
Believing that the planes alone caused the towers to fall while ignoring several pieces of evidence to the contrary is dumb, what about building 7? the fires that burned hot enough to melt steel and continued for days after the event?

Sir, your question is dumb and an insult to the intelligence of the readers of Common Dreams.

"Sir, your question is dumb and an insult to the intelligence of the readers of Common Dreams."

IOW you refuse to answer as well. Thanks for nothing. Anyone else?

Great comments COMarc and PJD. I do not have the requisite physics or engineering background to do my own analysis on this topic, but I do trust myself in choosing credible sources, and I have read too many highly esteemed academic engineers and physicists, with no apparent axe to grind, on this topic to believe a controlled demolition was necessary or likely.

From the start an assumption of incompetent neglect or wilful neglect appeared to offer the most likely explanation, and it makes sense that as the story evolved that Rove would have thought to discreetly support or even set up groups that hold it was an "inside job" in order to distract from, and in part discredit, investigations into the possibility that the government posture had been to knowingly allow the attacks to proceed. Note that a similar charge was leveled against FDR with regard to Pearl Harbor, and it has not ever been completely refuted. And since the original "Pearl Harbor" led to a roughly successful outcome in the end, not too many dwelled on it for very long afterwards.

One question that is not asked often enough is "Does anyone really believe the Bush administration (the BUSH ADMINISTRATION!) could so cleanly pull this off, the operation and its cover-up?"

Hey folks, this is the real explanation about Building #7 imploding on itself for no apparent reason:

Remember the plane that went down in the field? That one was supposed to hit Building #7, but it didn't make it. Nevertheless, the explosives that were planted in there went off on time, and the building came down.

RE: INTERPRETING 911 CONSPIRACY THEORIES

COMarc September 12th, 2007 1:36 pm
PJD September 12th, 2007 3:36 pm
jakenewton September 12th, 2007 11:33 pm

In religion, the real question does not concern scientific vs. supernatural explanations of the universe, but social scientific vs. supernatural explanations of belief in God.

Likewise with 911 - it's not a question of 'evidence' supporting or leading to a belief in conspiracy; it's a question of the social causes of this belief.

Belief in a 911 conspiracy is a universe closed to normal rules of evidence and argument: notwithstanding 911-conspiracists' harping on evidence, the deep (and justified) distrust of government and search for overarching 'narratives' to explain social disorder obviously precedes and fosters the belief.

The declaration that 'I used to think it was terrorists, but now I know better' is the secular equivalent of 'I once was blind, but now can see': shedding false consciousness for truth is the 'narrative' of 911 conspiracy thinking as much as the ideas themselves.

Confirmed in their church of truth - against the rest of the evil and deluded US, agreed that 'everything you know is wrong' - they eagerly consign themselves to the irrelevant fringes of political existence.

The existence of this quasi-religious thinking is evidence of the failure of critical political thought in the US, and, also, the failure of organized left wing politics in this country: this thinking could only flourish in a setting where there is an impotent left wing minority; a vigorous antiwar movement and left wing politics would have totally rerouted the questions.

COMarc, PJD, jakenewton - good going with your rationalist and sensible arguments. You won't change one mind, but at least readers new to commondreams - or right wingers who would like to debunk this whole website as a whackjob fringe - won't won't think the website attracts only the paranoid conspiracy left.

PJD,

You state "The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one". This would be the modern day version of Occam's Razor. Its original form is "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Issac Newton stated it most eloquently as "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." In other words, Occam's Razor is referring to physical phenomena, not conspiracy theories.

Anyone know offhand (by name) who wrote the NIST research plan? Who coordinated the tests, etc? Who ensured that plenty of valid and representative physical samples were taken? I'd be interested in checking into the qualifications of mellalurgists, physicsts, civil and structural engineers, etc. who did the research, and who wrote the research plan.

A growing amount of government research now needs to be published openly. For instance, NIH's PubMed. How transparent was NIST's 9/11 research? Open to the same broader and academic scrutiny/analysis to which other government research is increasingly subjected?

Probably the single largest ommission to such transparent openness is research surrounding military secrets.

Wrote this @ 4PM, didn't have time to post then. Sorry if the discussion's moved on.
______________________________________________________________________________

I don't have time to Google for the exact reference, but I have seen programs (probably a NOVA) showing what a detailed and meticulous job the NTSA does (or can do) when investigating an airline crash. They actually dig or dive or do whatever they can to retrieve as many of the "coin-sized" bits of wreckage as possible-- I recall that they then actually reconstructed entire sections of the aircraft in a hangar somewhere, painstakingly sorting through thousands of scraps. Obviously the physical characteristics of the impact and the objects involved will determine just how much reconstruction is feasible.

And I certainly remember footage of the plane that crashed in the Florida swamp; there were recognizable items like luggage and even bodies floating in the vicinity. Or bits of them, anyway

If that sort of reconstruction was attempted with the aircraft that allegedly flew into the Pentagon-- by a novice pilot skimming and banking close to ground level, no less-- it's never been publicized. Forget reconstruction-- the physical detritus of such a large crash has never been satisfactorily accounted for. But "satisfactorily" is the point of contention, and apparently it's in the eye of the beholder.

One hears that "luggage" was found, and DNA matching samples from passengers. DNA? What, just lying there on the ground, waving its little helices and begging to be tweezed or vacuumed up? Not bone splinters or fragments of tissue, just the DNA? And yes, there are plenty of witness statements reporting a jet plane whizzing by low to the ground, but they're hardly consistent enough to be definitive. Then there is that Rorschach-test video-- to the skeptical layman, no more convincing that purported videos of the WTC planes shooting missiles immediately prior to impact.

Otherwise, there are a lot of bald assertions and scientific-sounding explanations that really do boil down to "Keep moving; nothing to see here." Put another way, if the investigation of the Pentagon crash had been conducted, and was presented to the public with anywhere near the clear and convincing evidence and analysis offered in that TV program I referenced, the controversy would at least diminish. But instead there is a mosaic of dodgy bits-- indeed seeming like an "official conspiracy" or at least collusion and groupthink-- that only seem to satisfy those who aren't, or can't tolerate being, skeptical.

And now back to our regular programming.

RE: 911 'CONSPIRACY' and the 'ALL-POWERFUL BUSH ADMINISTRATION'

kivals September 13th, 2007 11:10 am
"One question that is not asked often enough is 'Does anyone really believe the Bush administration (the BUSH ADMINISTRATION!) could so cleanly pull this off, the operation and its cover-up?'"

911 conspiracy theorists surely believe this; the reason the question is not raised is because it points towards the origins of their belief in conspiracy: political impotence, and, consequently, a phantasmic conception of government as possessed of vast powers operating unseen, directing all details of social life and consciousness.

In a word, belief in a 911 conspiracy is based on government as an evil and omnipotent god acting through all the details of perceived existence: not a plane falls in heaven that the all-seeing eye of government does not direct.

You won't change one mind, but at least readers new to commondreams - or right wingers who would like to debunk this whole website as a whackjob fringe - won't won't think the website attracts only the paranoid conspiracy left.

No, they'll realize at once that this website also attracts the pompous and supercilious left. It's a big tent.

"Please don't be offended by my criticism. I did not mean for you to take offense."

I am not offended. You've been civil.

"Now I ask you again, do you want to modify your statement?"

Not because I think I should but I would consider doing it temporarily to make a point.

So if I change "The document directly addresses Griffins latest book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" to "The document directly addresses a major chapter called 'Has NIST Debunked the Theory of Controlled Demolition?' in Griffins latest book, 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking '", where does that put us? Is this chapter very weak and a plum target? Do we expect similar treatments to the other chapters would not be as successful?

"Please let's not deal in abstracts. I'm merely pointing out that I'm going to read 200 pages by Mackey per your suggestion. "

I don't think you need to unless you really think you should or are interested. You get the idea early on. But abstractly speaking, the best bet on the fallacy possibility is one of the construction fallacies I think. You should check.

"But I ask you to concede that Mackey's treatise is not an attack on the entire Griffin book, but only that part covering the NIST report. Fair enough?"

Of course. But why do you think it so important?

to the improbable (the WTC buildings collapsed due to a demolition charge).

Again no mention of building #7.

I believe my eyes and the many videos I have viewed showing faulty demolitions that tip the building.

Both the first tower to go down and WTC-7 had gaping holes in their side that would of weakened that side and caused tipping.

Osama speaks:

"Your information media during the first years of the war lost its credibility and manifested itself as a tool of the colonialist empires, and its condition has often been worse than the condition of the media of the dictatorial regimes which march in the caravan of the single leader."

"Why are the leaders of the White House keen to start wars and wage them around the world, and make use of every possible opportunity through which they can reach this purpose, occasionally even creating justifications based on deception and blatant lies, as you saw in Iraq?

In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. When Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.

And so Kennedy was killed, and those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. The war continued after that for approximately one decade. But after it became clear to you that it was an unjust and unnecessary war, you made one of your greatest mistakes, in that you neither brought to account nor punished those who waged this war, not even the most violent of its murderers, Rumsfeld. Even more incredible is that Bush picked him as Secretary of Defense in his first term after picking Cheney as his vice president, Powell as secretary of state and Armitage as Powell's deputy, despite their horrific and blood history of murdering humans. It was a clear signal that his administration - the administration of the generals- didn't have as its main concern the serving of humanity, but rather, was interested in bringing about new massacres. Yet in spite of that, you permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you - with your full knowledge and consent - to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

History shows the genocide and holocausts which took place at your hands: only a few specimens of Red Indians were spared, and just a few days ago, the Japanese observed the 62nd anniversary of the annihilation of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by your nuclear weapons.

Then you claim to be innocent! It is impossible to humor any of you in the arrogance and indifference you show for the lives of humans outside America, or to humor your leaders in their lying, as the entire world knows they have the lion's share of that. Not taking past war criminals to account led to them repeating that crime of killing humanity without right and waging this unjust war in Mesopotamia.

"This war was entirely unnecessary, as testified to by your own reports. Among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't like those who give advice. The entire world came out in unprecedented demonstrations to warn against waging the war and describe its true nature in eloquent terms like "no to spilling red blood for black oil," yet he paid them no heed.

It is time for humankind to know that talk of 'the rights of man' and 'freedom' are lies produced by the White House and its allies in Europe to deceive humans, take control of their destinies and subjugate them.

Among the things which catch the eye of the repercussions of your unjust war against Iraq is the failure of your democratic system, despite it raising of the slogans of 'justice, liberty, equality and humanitarianism'. It has not only failed to achieve these things, it has actually destroyed these and other concepts with its weapons - especially in Iraq and Afghanistan- in a brazen fashion, to replace them with fear, destruction, killing, hunger, illness, displacement and more than a million orphans in Baghdad alone, not to mention hundreds of thousands of widows. Americans statistics speak of the killing of more than 650,000 of the people of Iraq as a result of the war and its repercussions.

People of America: the people of the world have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to your disappointment.

And here is the gist of the matter, so one should pause, think and reflect: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority?

The answer to this question is: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former president Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war. Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment in the Democrats' failure to stop the war.

You're the ones who have the saying which goes, "Money talks." After the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cities, then go back to your homes, but that will be of no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war.

It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of your 'democratic' system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations.

It has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations. Despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the resulting death and displacement of millions of human beings, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the 'democratic' capitalist system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.

And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown- still talk about 'freedom' and 'human rights' with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings. So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer and more dangerous? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system.

If you were to ponder it well, you would find that in the end, it is a system harsher and fiercer than your systems in the Middle Ages. The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of "globalization" in order to protect 'democracy'.

Iraq and Afghanistan and their tragedies; the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes; and the abject poverty and tragic hunger in Africa - all of this is but one side of the grim face of this global system.

So it is imperative that you free yourselves from all of that and search for an alternative, upright methodology in which it is not the business of any class of humanity to lay down its own laws to its own advantage at the expense of the other classes as is the case with you, since the essence of the laws under which you live is that they serve the interests of those with the capital and thus make the rich richer and the poor poorer."

Well, it is obvious that Mr. Ridgeway from Mother Jones is a neophyte as far as 9/11 truth is concerned. Cats who still peddle the official story as truth don't understand the depth of evidence that has been amassing from well qualified and credentialed observers who believe the official story is a blatant fantasy that many people bought completely (including myself initially).

The defenders of the official conspiracy (which is a motley assortment of neo-fascist Bush operatives and establishment leftists like Chomsky and Cockburn) have been doing a full-court press as of late because they know the evidence they are presenting is weak and unbelievable. They also know that most Americans are smart enough to surmise that somthing foul is afoot when presented alternative theories as to what happened on 9/11, so they are pressing hard to marginalize a movement that is far from being marginalized.

Popular Mechanics has been a staunch defender of the official 9/11 myth, yet their arguments have been repeatedly torn to shreds. Check out these clips (parts 1 and 2) in which one of the "researchers" named Gavin Coburn for Popular Mechanics anti-truth is grilled by radio host Charles Goyette on the magazines' research methodology. Everything that is science-related is not scientific.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb49MfDrwOo

Ridgeway and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory continue to insult the intelligence of those of us who have spent considerable time reading and researching questions about 9/11, and many of us are far beyond the flimsy excuses offered by the official defenders. Using the scientific method, you generally start with observations of a particular phenomena, form hypotheses based on those observations, test the hypotheses, and come to your conclusions.

Defenders of the official myth reverse the scientific method and this is why their repeated defenses are so infuriatingly condescending. They begin with their conclusion (that the WTC's were brought down by airplane impacts and fires from jet fuel, that a plane hit the Pentagon, etc.) and work backwards to try and make their conclusion work, and it simply doesn't! It would make more scientific sense to start with observations and work from there, but to do so wouldn't fit the official narrative.

The debunking is weak here, regarding the THREE towers that "collapsed" on 9-11. And "examination of the evidence" is a misleading phrase, because the evidence was hauled off and buried elsewhere.

There are two possibilities:

(a) The buildings were constructed very poorly, with very minimal reinforcement of anything, and dangerously substandard design;

or

(b) They were imploded by controlled munitions.

No three normal high-rise buildings with such mass would have collapsed from the causes cited. This is the major point of public ignorance that needs to be addressed.

Lets just look at the Pentagon issue. Where is the wreckage? Now I am not talking about a handfull of scrap bystanders picked up, or that very small jet fan. We have never been shown ANY photos of landing gear, or the massive jet engines from the "airplane" that is claimed to have hit it. We have never been shown any substantial weckage. This stuff just does not vaporize.

But Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. On May 23, 2003 in front of the 9/11 Commission, Secretary Mineta testified:

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned
and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

As the plane was not shot down are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?

Question: How was a plane which was known to be hostile able to have an unimpeded 48 minute joyride around US airspace before slamming into the heart of the US military?

Answer: Stand down.

On 9/11 there was no reaction from the USAF as hijacked aircraft flew through US airspace and plowed into buildings. This lack of response is inconceivable unless the USAF was stood down.

Can I trust you sheeple can do your homework on the other issues?
- v

"No evidence of explosives"

Anyone can go out and buy an explosives field-testing kit.

They may have changed their verbiage slightly since it was originally put up, but the NIST http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
at one point basically said that they didn't test for explosives because there was no evidence for explosives.

Supposedly 200+ investigators and 3 years. And no tests for explosives. Let's say the government's conclusions on something (for once) are honest. Isn't it possible that Bin Laden had some terrorists among the baggage crew pack the WTC planes with a little ordinance? So they'd pack a little more punch when they hit? Why not test for that?

Something's not kosher there.

James Ridgeway wrote...

Fact: Planting enough explosives to blow up the Twin Towers would have required considerable preparation, such as hacking away concrete and steel to position the charges. The work would have taken weeks, possibly months, and could scarcely have gone unnoticed.

My response...

You need not hack away at steel to place charges. You attach the charge strip directly to steel beams at an angle to cut and make the top piece slide off. How do you know someone didn't notice? Your incorrect statements do nothing to refute the suspicion.

James Ridgeway wrote...

Additionally, no evidence of explosives has ever turned up at Ground Zero or on debris from the towers.

My response...

How about the molten steel that burned for weeks under WTC 1, 2 & 7 (which you casually forgot to mention)? You admit that the fire couldn't have melted the steel…so what did? Almost all of the steel debris was taken away and not examined by anyone to determine what happened…clear signs of a cover up. Removing evidence from a crime scene is a crime within itself.

There are many witnesses (even on video, not shown by the corrupt media) that state they heard explosion before and during the fall.

James Ridgeway wrote...

The explosions set off by the crashes ignited fires that did not melt the buildings' steel structure but significantly weakened it, causing its design to fail. Floors crashing down upon one another with enormous impact took the building down.

My Response...

You admit that fire does not melt steel and yet you avoid mentioning the melted steel underground that existed for weeks. Why was concrete pulverized into huge dust clouds? How did all of the steel beams on lower floors (like 2 - 70) break into small pieces? How did the 100+ story building fall in under 12 seconds...close to free-fall speed? Why where squibs seen 20 stories below the pending collapse zone? How did huge steel clusters get ejected into other buildings if the building simply collapsed?

Of course the author never read the NIST report that dismisses the pancake theory for another collapse theory. His peddling of an early official theory debunked by another branch of the same official conspirators shows that he has not done his homework.

There is no point in going forward with this guy. Those of us who have done our homework are not moved by the shallow whimpering of PM, NIST and other so-called debunkers of the 9/11 truth movement.

Authors like this person jeopardize the reputation of Commondreams.org

I would love to hear a good answer to this question, why would you complicate the job by *both* flying planes into buildings and demolishing them with planted explosives? That's just dumb.

Has there been any independent footage -- not from the MSM or government -- of any of this?

In any case, I'd like to know why we're supposed to trust a government that operates secret prisons, unconstitutional wiretap programs, distorts/censors science, moves nuclear weapons from A to B against normal operating procedures, has closed-door energy meetings, grants no-bid contracts to the former (and evidently currently) employer of the VP, politically outs a CIA operative, and lies about reasons to go to war.

As a character witness on ANYTHING, this government ain't it. There's NO sensible reason for trusting anything they say at this point. Why trust compulsive liars?

Gee, I thought common dreams was reality based. Mr. Ridgeway you totally avoided WTC #7.

Case closed!

I'm sure that "Five Easy Pieces" is a wonderful book, and clears up minor mysteries and anomalies including passports dropping intact from catastrophic plane crashes and winding up in plain view, and how alleged high-quality cell phone conversations could take place between the ground and aircraft. Or why simulations and war games were conducted by the military on or about 9/11-- etc., etc., etc.

Unfortunately, the truth of the matter will almost certainly never be known. And for better or for worse, debunkers who try to settle the questions always come off as if they're looking for "facts" conducive to neat conclusions.

The devil may not have been floating in the clouds around the destroyed WTC, but the devil's still very much in the details here.

I have subscribed to Mother Jones for years, and I am so saddened to see them publish James Rideway's junk journalism. 9/11 isn't the first subject he's twisted. Is Mother Jones becoming just another Time or Newsweek?

Re the Pentagon incident - if the plane didn't hit the building, where did the plane and its passengers go? There must have been a Flight 77, airport employees must have known, it was a scheduled flight. Where are the passengers and plane now? If the flight was cancelled airport staff would know. Was the passenger list fictitious ? That could be checked easily. If not, those individuals are still alive, unless the plane was disposed of elsewhere. If so where is the wreckage? I understand that a lot of the passengers were government employees.

I kind of want to half believe the conspiracy theories, but these questions keep niggling.

Anniesee,

I'm no expert on this, but there is an easy and obvious answer to your questions: the plane and its passengers are in the Atlantic Ocean. It's hard to imagine how anyone could miss this possibility.

Something smells with this article.... Where is the mention of building 7??? What about the fact that 5 days later, the rubble was still hot enough to melt aluminum in many spots. Was this caused by fires that were mostly out? No stack of floors was found either, like the pancaking theory would require.

Oh BTW - In regards to: "Fact: Planting enough explosives to blow up the Twin Towers would have required considerable preparation, such as hacking away concrete and steel to position the charges. The work would have taken weeks, possibly months, and could scarcely have gone unnoticed. Additionally, no evidence of explosives has ever turned up at Ground Zero or on debris from the towers"....

It was noticed. There are many reports in the WEEKS leading up to Sept 11 about complaints of dust and powder coming through the vents. Lots of complaints about noise and constuction being done.... The towers were not full, there were plenty of open floors and business were moved around often, allowing plenty of oppurtunity for someone to place the explosives. There was even a suspicious power outage weeks before that was likely used to hook up the wiring for the detonators.

Its funny that 6 years down the road, nothing can be disproved with confidence. Why cant the FBI just release the footage of the Pentagon attack and prove that it was a 757, instead of lying about it???

The truth will come out.

Truth doesn't really matter at this point. Before we can even get there, it's trust and motive.

For being awfully dishonest about virtually everything else, there is no rational reason for trusting ANY sort of findings that come out of a Bush circumscribed investigation.

Secondly, for being such a tragedy, the Bush "base" sure made a killing on 9/11, didn't they? Bush's wars subsequently caused massive civilian damage in the mideast, resulted in more dead American soldiers than those civilians who died on 9/11, and billions of disappearing dollars.

Fact #1: Lack of any sensible reason to trust this administration.
Fact #2: Immense profits, at immense human cost. This suggests a complete absence of scruples.

One needn't resort to "conspiracy theory". These two demonstratively true statements are all that is required to have intense doubt.

In any case, I find it an interesting linguistic twist that it's a "conspiracy theory" if a non-official arives at it, but not even a "conspiracy fact" if this supposedly trustworthy government issues it. Indeed, it's just something we're supposed to accept as orthodoxical truth, beyond question, beyond analysis, beyond even perfecting. Outside of the realms of religion, only Big Brotherish dynamics request that sort of inability to think independently or critically.

You be a fool to buy this book just based on this article. The author does not give any definitive clues of why he challenges the theories. Nobody may ever know the truth because all the evidence was either destroyed or in the hands of the Bush Administration.

This book is 2 thumbs down!

Is this guy stupid or a government shill? Go here for some real news:

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?show=13&month=06&year=2007

This is the guns and butter site for kpfa radio. They have an archives page but I had trouble playing it from there. The above site seemed to work better for me.
"
"What Didn't Hit the Pentagon" with Dave von Kleist, April Gallop and Barbara Honegger. Dave von Kleist examines mainstream media coverage of the attack on the Pentagon; Pentagon survivor ...

Listen to how this Pentagon employee, April Gallop, was badgered by Pentagon authorities trying to get her to repeat the official story--even though she climbed out of the hole where the supposed plane went in. She says, there was no plane parts, no luggage, no debris, no bodies. Yet a few minutes after the plane was "vaporized" (except for the DNA Ridgeway mentiones, of course), she walked out of the hole and onto the Pentagon lawn.

While you are there, listen to the interviews of Michael Hudson--the economist who is working on the Kucinich campaign. The people who have given money to Bush have now transferred that money to Hillary and Obama. If you can't get one pro-war whore, get another--they are all for sale.

While you are there, listen to the presentation by Gage, an architect. Gage is not a very good presenter, in fact, he can be quite boring in his presentation, but at least he has his facts down. THREE steel buildings do not "collapse" into pulverized dust by the fall of gravity, regardless of how they fell. Ridgeway tells us there is no evidence of explosives--yet molten steel had melted into fireball shapes called "metorites" at the site--no building fire is hot enough to cause that. "Squibs" shoot out of the sides of the building. Steel beams are conviently cut at 45 degree angles (as are done by expertly placed charges). Steel beams weighing tons are shot into the sides of buildings blocks away--does Mr. Ridgeway purport to tell us that the fall of gravity caused these things? Firemen heard the multiple explosions. Buildings do not fall at free fall speed unless something has cleared the path, i.e., explosions taking out the floors below. Ridgeway uses the term "pancaking"--the buildings did not pancake--they pulverized--turned to dust with a pyroclastic cloud shot into the air. As the architect says, you get that in volcanoes and demolitions. The FACTS for demoliton go on and on. As for placing the charges--the security company (affliated with Marvin Bush) cut all power to the building the weekend before 9/11 "to upgrade internet connections" yeah, right. This meant no security cameras in the building all weekend--wonder what went on then???? Have you ever heard of such a thing??? A building such as this with all secruity feeds cut???

I am convinced that there is no journal, so-called progressive or otherwise ,that has not been infiltrated by CIA (or other alphabet) shills. We are sick and tired of the lies and tired of being treated as though we are completely stupid. "Shock and awe" works only for a while. I am shocked and awed at how murderous these people are who run this government. But they all make their money off of death, so why am I surprised? I would love to see a real investigation into 9-11 and would love to be proven wrong. Unfortunately, like the war on Iraq, it will be just lies and more lies with the subject ever being changed: WMDs, to bad old Saddam causing 9-11, to democracy, to whatever is next. Lies and murder--that's all this bunch knows.

Oh yeah, listen to Hudson talk about the worthless dollar and how all other nations are having to stock pile those dollars and can't do anything with them because our government threatens to do the same thing to them that it did in Iraq. Eventually, the rest of the world will get tired of bankrolling our wars and will put a stop to it--they will quit accepting worthless dollars. What will that bunch on Wall STreet do then????? So, all you smug non-Americans who are reading this post, remember, everytime your CENTRAL BANK stacks up greenbacks, it is bankrolling the wars for the U.S. YOU ARE BANKROLLING THE WAR if Mr. Hudson is correct. Americans are too busy paying interest to our CENTRAL BANK for the interest on our national loans--we don't have any money to bankroll a war.

Dissolve the Federal Reserve--put our money back under the Treasury and Congress where it beongs. Put those bankers in the rice paddies who have been stealing this country blind--DOWN WITH THE PRIVITIZED CENTRAL BANKING SYSTEM--THESE PEOPLE ARE TRAITORS TO OUR COUNTRY!!! Stolen idea for a bumper sticker: FIGHT POVERTY: KILL A BANKER!!!

As for the poster above who thinks Bush was actually elected--the first election was definitely stolen, the second seems to have been as well. But even so, our choice was one Skull and Bones warmonger or another. We haven't had a real president since John Kennedy and look what they did to him. The powers that run this country gave us no choice at all--one devil worshipper or another with Kerry and Bush. The illuision of a choice is just to keep the sheep bleating at one another as though they have a real choice. I know it is all a game, but if I can show up at the polls, I will vote for Kucinich, even if I have to write his name in. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO HAS THE BLOOD OF THIS WAR ON THEIR HANDS OR WHO IS A WATERBOY (read Obama) FOR THE EXTABLISHMENT and who will continue the war "because we just can't leave now as it would cause chaos." Heard that lie during the Vietnam era--don't want to hear it again. A war crime is a a war crime. The sooner you stop it, the better.

Bob K

Thanks - yes, I'd considered that explanation, but the question of motivation of the pilot(s) is hard to account for, and airport control would have been able to track the plane's flight path, would it not? The correct (as scheduled) pilot(s) must have boarded the plane initially.

I seem to remember that there were no Arab-seeming names on the passenger list though. Any "terrorist" must have been a western-style suicide nut.

OK - "Terrorists" could have forced the pilot to fly over the Atlantic and ditch the plane, I suppose, and contact with airport control could have been eliminated by the "terrorists" on board.

"How about the molten steel that burned for weeks"

Whether this is true or not is far from settled.

This is a good article that dispels many of the manufactured myths about the 9/11 attacks - but it also ignores the other major terror attack of 2001 - the anthrax attacks. This subject is in my mind far more serious than the 911 attacks, (1) because high-tech anthrax spores could easily kill far, far more people than 911 did, and also because the US government still refuses to sign the Biological Warfare Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It seems pretty clear that the 911 Truth Movement and its many affiliates is not a group of misguided and misinformed individuals, but rather a 'false flag' public relations campaign. It's odd that the 911truther love to talk about 'false flag' military operations, but they refuse to talk about a favorite strategy of Karl Rove and his ilk - the 'false flag' public relations operation.

Essentially, this is a strategy aimed at smearing anti-war protestors by portraying them as lunatics who believe in ludicrous theories. It is also used at anti-globalization protests - in that case, undercover police dress up as masked protestors and attempt to turn peaceful protests into violent confrontations, which are then used by the local authorities to condemn all anti-globalization protestors (as recently happened in Canada). These dirty tricks are straight out of the COINTELPRO era.

The fact that the authors of the various 911truth sites hide behind a screen of anonymity and refuse to discuss their funding sources is typical of secretive 'astroturf' public relations efforts.

This doesn't mean that the 'official government story of 9/11' is accurate. The actual truth is probably that 9/11 was preventable. It might even be true that the Bush Administration knew there were going to be hijackings, but allowed them to take place anticipating that the result would be an airplanes-on-tarmac media frenzy event - but that's speculation.

Think about it. Everyone knows that astroturf PR movements are very common these days - couldn't a large percentage of the 911 truth movement be one as well?

jakenewton, Project For A New American Century (PNAC) stated in their manifesto that they need a new "Pearl Harbor" to fully persue their aims. Look what has transpired in the six years since 9/11/01. Maybe those planes were not being flown by remote control, but they sure as hell were not being flown by those individuals the Government claims. The pilot who flew #77 into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, could barely fly a Cessna 172 according to his flight instructors. To jump behind the controls of a 757 and do they types of maneuvering that plane did was by someone with extraordinary flying skill.Consider this quote, "For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying. [LewisNews] More information about Hani Hanjour can be found at: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

ike:

Probably all sufficiently large organizations become dominated by their nutty PR wing. I agree that probably a large amount of the conspiracy mongering is false flag, deliberate disinformation planted to smear the whole movement into fringe status.

That said, one needn't believe in something "positive" as a surrogate to harbor extreme doubts about (a) the honesty of this administration on ANY TOPIC and (b) the subsequent profiteering without scruple.

And of course, the "Case Closed!" contingent would complain-- scold, typically-- that the comments here just "prove" that "conspiracy theorists" are unable or unwilling to accept the simple(r) truths about 9/11.

Even NOVA and Popular Mechanics can't convince them! They're obviously deranged! Every time you hand them an undisputed fact, they just spit back questions and skepticism!

They really play that "calm reasonableness" game very well.

Generally I agree with most of this article. The only part that would cause me concern is the number of the refutations that rely on the military or the 9-11 commission for their sources. But I've never seen any conspiracy theories that make more sense.

There are some excellent descriptions of the collapse of building #7 that don't rely on explosives. Two key causes. 1) Two 110 storied buildings just collapsed next store. A lot of debris and shock would have hit building 7. 2) there was a massive diesel fire burning in building 7. The backup generators were on the fifth floor, and the diesel tanks in the basement were automatically pumping fuel up there, which was then spilling through ruptured lines.

In general with 9-11, I do believe two things.
1) The Bush administration was seriously incompetent (surprise!) in its first 9 months, and fatally disregarded the growing warnings of this attack. Since the attack, they've done a lot of CYA covering up to try to hide this.
2) The Bush administration took advantage of these attacks to pursue its own agenda of war in the Middle East. There's been some obfuscation of the facts of 9-11 that didn't fit this agenda.

But in terms of a massive cover up of some conspiracy of the Bushies being behind 9-11, that just seems more and more silly to me.

And anyone who's focusing on this stuff has seriously taken their eyes off the far more important balls of what to do about an administration that's launched criminal wars and criminal domestic spying campaigns using what happened on 9-11 as a prop. When I think of all the wasted time and effort that's gone into trying to prove some conspiracy, I just shake my head.

Jakenewton asks: I would love to hear a good answer to this question, why would you complicate the job by *both* flying planes into buildings and demolishing them with planted explosives? That's just dumb.

The WTC buildings were specifically made to stand up to being hit by jet planes. The designers had this in mind--the outer beams were strong enough so that when a plane hit and punctured the outer perimeter the load would shift. It also had interior beams, 40, I think, to further provide support--I refer you to the Gage documentary and website for architectural details. One designer said, imagine a a pencil pushed through a window screen--this is the same effect as a jet puncturing the outer perimeter of this building. Those who planned this attack knew the buildings would not fall from plane attacks alone and they needed to achieve several goals: 1) they got their "new Pearl Harbor" which they needed to launch this pre-planned war against Iraq--I refer you to The Project of the New American Century. Bush had recently stolen the election with the help of the Supreme Court. He had eggs thrown at him as he made his way to be sworn in to the office. This guy was not going to achieve much of anything, unless you could rally the people around him...
2) The WTC were white elephants and the requests to demolish them had been denied several times because of the asbestos content in the buildings--it would have cost several billions of dollars to remove that asbestos.
So, how to blame the Arabs or middle-easterners so that a war could be launched against them (as they all look alike to most Americans--and if you've seen one raghead, you've seen them all). Thus, every time Bush or Cheney mentioned 9-11, they always mentioned Saddam--this was to tie the idea of the Iraqis and 9-11 in the minds of the sheeple--worked pretty good, too, as most Americans believed for a long time that Saddam had something to do with 9-11.

They had to "shock and awe" the people like they "shock and awed" the Iraqis. It wasn't enough to fly a plane into a building and leave it smoldering--you've got to bring them all down. You've got to kill a lot of people. Afterall, the FBI provided the bomb in the 1993 WTC bombing--Google Salem, WTC bombing and read the NYT report."Only" six people were killed and I think 19 injured. You've got to kill enough people to make Americans really angry. Since the planes alone wouldn't kill enough people or bring down the buildings, you had to have explosives placed. Ridgeway got one thing right, it does take a while to plant explosives. Yet, there was all of this foreknowledge that buildings were coming down that day, even though in the history of architecture, fires HAVE NEVER BROUGHT DOWN STEEL BUILDINGS. Yet the mayor knew the towers were coming down--said he got word of it--and I ask that you Google the BBC report of foreknowledge of Building #7 collapse. The BBC correspondent says "Building #7 has collapsed" and yet building #7 was still standing right behind her in her news piece, suddently they cut the feed, and twenty minutes later, it collapsed. She was reading from a script that foretold the "collapse" of #7. Yet building #7 had little fire damage--most windows were still intact when the building "collapsed." Silverstein said he thought that there had been enough loss of life and so he wanted to "pull" the building. He now says, he meant "pull" out the firemen. Building #7 housed the FBI, CIA, and command center for the Mayor as well as records relating to corporate scandals such as Enron. Silverstein collected 3 1/2 billion in insurance and looks like he is to collect that much more as he had taken out a 99 year lease on these white elephants only 3 months before. Soooo, he (Silverstein) makes out like a bandit, Saddam and Osama get the blame for the Oswald-like patsies on the planes--you got to admit, some powerful people kept those "terrorists" out of trouble all of those months they circulated in the U.S., taking their little flying lessons, snorting coke in topeless bars, and there was someone making sure the FBI underlings didn't get too close to them--or just as close as the FBI wanted them to get, in a word, these guys seemed too close to the intelligence community for comfort. WTC one and two are destroyed, #7 with all the evidence is destroyed, Bush all of a sudden is our wonderful president who can lead a nation into a war they've wanted since before he became president, and everything is going to plan.

Who benefits? Bush and his monied backers. Who loses: the American people and the Iraqis and any other people who have resources we might want and are not willing to give them up for little or nothing. Maybe it isn't such dumb a plan afterall,Newton.

What's wrong with this whole discussion?

This article already has some 30 comments. At the same time, the article by Mr. Scheer on Gen. Petraeus testimony has 9 comments.

This article that gets all the attention is a discussion of something that happened 6 years ago. The article with only 9 comments is a discussion of what's going to be happening in the next year.

All this BS about 9-11 is a distraction. It takes people's attention away from what's really important, which is trying to act to stop the death and destruction that's going to occur by following the same war policies in Iraq for the next year. The discussion about what happened on 9-11 will not save anyone's life. Thousands of people will die and many thousands more will be injured or imprisoned in Iraq. That's far more important than some arcane discussion about what did or didn't happen six years ago.

I'm sure one of the reasons Petreus is testifying on 9-11 is that the Bushies knew a big chunk of the opposition would be easily distracted into a meaningless debate on 9-11 conspiracy theories on these days. What a waste of words and effort.

At this point it seems to be a waste of time to argue about what happened on 9/11. People need to prepare for what's coming down the road.

Comarc says: And anyone who's focusing on this stuff has seriously taken their eyes off the far more important balls of what to do about an administration that's launched criminal wars and criminal domestic spying campaigns using what happened on 9-11 as a prop. When I think of all the wasted time and effort that's gone into trying to prove some conspiracy, I just shake my head.

Well, Comarc, shake your head, but I would like to know if elements in my government, besides doing all the things you mentioned, also killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11. "This stuff" that you refer to is the MURDER OF 3000 Americans. It may not be of any importance to you, but it is to me. Under your logic, we would never put anyone on trial for murder--we could be focusing our attention on more important things instead of trying to solve a murder case. In any civilized society, murder is investigated. After Bush and Cheney fought any investigation at all, they finally agreed only if their men could do the investigating and if the questions were narrowed. No thanks. We want a real investigation. The people who died on 9/11 deserve a fair and open investigation into their deaths. It hasn't happened yet. Keep shaking your head. I for one, shake my head and wonder why something like this isn't important to you, but then, again, maybe it is very important to you...

Again, it's trust + motive. The next time that the country is nailed, do we have any reason to trust Bush? D.C. in general? They've already lost the Republic.

I'd like to see someone, anyone, in D.C. trying to restore public trust.

And, as Lalo Jenkins indicates, one of the worst fallouts with regard to Iraq is its distracting nature. The manufactured war abroad has diverted attention from the ongoing class war here at home.

Little Brother wrote…

Even NOVA and Popular Mechanics can't convince them! They're obviously deranged! Every time you hand them an undisputed fact, they just spit back questions and skepticism!

My Response

NOVA and PM did not give any "facts" regarding the questions...only theories. In fact, NIST (another official conspirator) came out and disputed PM's pancake "theory". There are inconsistencies throughout the government's so called official story and the publications that seek to support them; these discrepancies from the same source cannot (by definition) be considered facts.

I'm sure many commenters here have read Robert Pirsig's superb "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Early on, the narrator lets us know that he is haunted by someone who died years earlier, but who wasn't "buried right". I think he refers to Native American tradition holding that unless a person is buried right, they are doomed to be a restless spirit.

Thus, I find disingenuous the argument that people could, or should, turn off lingering concern about the reality of the 9/11 attacks. The reason these articles attract so much supposedly unwarranted attention is because many people know that 9/11 wasn't buried right, and we're haunted by this. On this point, I even find the great Chomsky disingenuous; blithely waving off the admittedly vexing and probably unresolvable questions because they're a distraction isn't the same as burying it right. The implication is that those who continue to be absorbed by this event are intellectually weak or misguided; I reject this implication; methinks they dost protest too little.

Also, by the bye, the criticism that this question is unduly distracting and irrelevant could be made of many articles posted and discussed here. Why bother reading "Free the Jena Six", for instance? We all pretty much know what happened, and in any event it's a local issue that will be handled by locals.

I think that it is possible to become obsessed with an issue to a point which is psychologically risky, even damaging, but I refuse to feel stupid or guilty for being drawn to this peculiar catastrophe.

Six years ago; what really happened?

It still matters because it was used as the diving board into this mess.

I trust my eyes, if that hole in the Pentagon was a jet it would of sheared off the wings; where are they?

COmarc said
"What's wrong with this whole discussion?
This article already has some 30 comments. At the same time, the article by Mr. Scheer on Gen. Petraeus testimony has 9 comments."

It does seem unfair, but then there have been so many articles about Gen. Petraeus recently, here and elsewhere. People have probably already had their say on that topic. Not that the conspiracy thing hasn't already been done to death too, in the past, but it's a while since an article like this has appeared.

Remote Control: Just because Boeing said the planes were not equipted to fly remotely doesn't mean it wasn't possible. Look into Global Hawk and all the ties toUndersecretary of former Defense & Comptroller: Dov S. Zakheim, CEO of System Planning Corporation

The Twin Towers Collapse: Not even going to get into it. too much evidence.Mavin Bush was head of security(explosive rigging work could have been done at night??), the laws of gravity, conservation of enegy,
and thermo dynamics do not support official theory,
pancake theory was disproven. Remains were smuggled out of the contry by guiliani and associated before thorough analysis could be done. When has a crime scene especially one of this proportion been treated in this manner??. Read NIST report which comes to no real conclusion of cause of collapse.

Where Were the Fighters?
Read about all the drill going on that day. upwards of 7 I believe. Read about all the confusion of this being real world of excercise when planes were hijacked.

I could spend a month writing all the evidence .The truth is look for yourself it is all out there!!!

COMarc wrote..

All this BS about 9-11 is a distraction. It takes people's attention away from what's really important, which is trying to act to stop the death and destruction that's going to occur by following the same war policies in Iraq for the next year. The discussion about what happened on 9-11 will not save anyone's life

My response

You have to solve a problem at the root. 9/11 was the root of all evil that proceeded and uses it as justification.

The more the world knows that 9/11 was a hoax, the more they will rise against the crimes that use it as a foundation.

On another subject...

Your acceptance of Building 7 collapse explanation seems quite naive. Have you ever seen damaged buildings in earthequakes, or failed demolitions...or even those pounded with the old wrecking ball? The undamaged structure stays intact. A whole buuilding does not collapsed symmetrically and completeley in less than 10 seconds except by explosives. If such little damage and fire could bring a building down so neatly in less than 8 hours...there would be no reason for the science of "controlled demolitions" (which takes weeks of planning and prep work). Use your brain, Man.

Have you ever wondered why Buildngs 3, 4, & 5 never collaspsed. WTC 1 and 2 fell all over them?????????????

COMarc said: "All this BS about 9-11 is a distraction. It takes people's attention away from what's really important, which is trying to act to stop the death and destruction that's going to occur by following the same war policies in Iraq for the next year. The discussion about what happened on 9-11 will not save anyone's life. Thousands of people will die and many thousands more will be injured or imprisoned in Iraq. That's far more important than some arcane discussion about what did or didn't happen six years ago."

COMarc and others on the left try to dismiss those of us who believe the US government isn't telling us the truth about 9/11 because they feel it's a "distraction", that it's not important, etc?

What kind of bullshit are you talking about, man? Finding the true perpetrators of 9/11 is the MOST important job of our generation because everything that you mention happening, especially the Iraq War which you and your kind harp on about, occurred AFTER 9/11 happened. EVERYTHING the Bush regime has done to us since then has been justified based on the lie that was 9/11, and you think it's not important to find out who was responsible? Gimme a fucking break!

If you invalidate 9/11, you AUTOMATICALLY invalidate Guantanamo, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of criminality and aggression, the PATRIOT Act, the Dept. of Homeland Security, illegal wiretapping, and the entire "war on terror" in one fell swoop, and you think this is not important?

People like COMarc, Chomsky, Rothschild (of the Progressive magazine), Cockburn, the Nation magazine, Mother Jones, etc., all have too much invested in fighting post-9/11 battles to sit down as rethink the fakery they were sold (and all have diminished their reputations as a result). Their pride, egos, and reputations have thus far prevented them from looking at the evidence objectively.

9/11 is the most definitive opportunity for the people of this country to expose the criminality our elected officials are willing to carry out in order to "catalyze" pre-existing policies, and we have people who are still refusing to honestly look at the mounds of evidence available. The only way intelligent folks like Chomsky can maintain the position of non-belief that he does is because he simply has not looked at the evidence, and that is disheartening to believe.

Now is the time to bring down a corrupt form of government that has terrorized the globe with its incessant wars; now is the time to bring down the military-industrial complex and return our resources to the people. Ignoring what really happened on 9/11 is like ignoring the HIV virus and focussing only on treating the symptoms.

at the risk of sounding repititious, pick the issue that makes you the angriest and work on that. do people's efforts to discover the truth about 9-11 make you angry? then do the homework (simply parroting james ridgeway or michael schermer online won't cut it) and refute them if you can.

do stolen elections make you angry? the shredding of the bill of rights? the abandonment of the gulf coast after katrina/rita? the obscene profits of the insurance/banking/brokerage houses? the use of toxics by our troops and the subsequent indifference to their strange health problems? of course i could go on at great length, but let's just say that there's no shortage of things that ought to make at least some of us angry.

many are engaged in struggle to end the occupations of iraq and afghanistan; some hope to abolish corporate personhood; some, myself included, have fought homelessness and eminent domain abuse for years. whatever. just do the work that fires you up, and let others do theirs. it's my firm belief that any thread you pull on will help eventually to unravel this gordian knot of greed, corruption, and naked ambition.

"Holymoly" writes quite a bit to answer my simple question which was:

"Jakenewton asks: I would love to hear a good answer to this question, why would you complicate the job by *both* flying planes into buildings and demolishing them with planted explosives? That's just dumb."

Finally provides this fantastic speculation:

"They had to "shock and awe" the people like they "shock and awed" the Iraqis. It wasn't enough to fly a plane into a building and leave it smoldering–you've got to bring them all down. You've got to kill a lot of people. "

So you are trying to tell me that four airliners crashed into each of the WTC towers, the Pentagon, and the white House or Capitol building, all very well known as symbolic buildings in the national psyche, along with many hundreds killed, would be insufficient to get Americans angry? That instead you would have to go through the additional convolutions and complications of putting a considerable number of "agents" to the task of planting hundreds of pounds of explosives and miles of wire? So that you could get some more "drama"?

Can you see how this answer would leave a lot to be desired for many people? Anyone else want to try and answer my question?