Over a month after I first wrote a column slamming the 9/11 Truth movement, I continue to get hate mail in massive quantities. A group of Truthers even picketed my office, and I'm still picking food particles out of my scarf after an incident in which the movement's house lunatic, a wild-eyed German blogger named Nico Haupt, tried to goad me into slugging him in a West Side diner.
"Go ahead, heet me, then I haf beeg story!" he roared, scream-spitting half-digested detritus in my face.
Of course I didn't hit him -- nothing in the world is more ridiculous than two writers fighting in a restaurant. If you're surprised that I would call someone who spit food on my lap a fellow writer, don't be. As I subsequently found out, Haupt is a literary juggernaut, one of the most voluble bloggers on the planet earth. His internet entries read like a MySpace mixture of MTV's Real World meets Che's Congo Diaries, only on meth and in a German accent.
His 9/11 conspiracy rants are full of little tidbits from the peripatetic revolutionary's hardscrabble life neatly gift-wrapped for his future biographers, ranging from the personal ("My girlfriend denied to marry me... I'm constantly broke.") to the heroic ("Maybe I'm scared that the Homeland Security will arrest me as a 'terrorist'? Not at all."). Haupt also makes sure to include regular doses of that other staple of pseudo-revolutionary diaries, i.e. the defiant salutation to the secret agents who of course have him under constant surveillance. "A personal note to the NSA, who's a regular log-in guest on my sites," he writes. "You're still bastards for me... Shame on you and go to hell!"
But my personal favorite was his theory about how the government's 9/11 conspirators tied up one particularly dangerous loose end:
I always was and always will be a big fan of Ed Asner's movies and TV series, especially "rich man, poor man." Last week, i was a bit disappointed that Asner "caved in" and basically made a u-turn, by writing that 9/11 was based on negligence. I heard a different view a long while ago, even personally from him on the phone. Someone else might speculate, why this has happened now. Maybe someone threatened Asner with some infos of his past?
Now there's a subject someone should investigate. What does the government have on Ed Asner? Photos of him shooting smack into Gavin McLeod's ankle? The lost pilot of Gay Lou Grant? If anyone out there has any idea, please don't hesitate to write.
Obviously, Nico Haupt does not represent the "mainstream" 9/11 Truth Movement, whatever that is. Even in my own experience I know this to be true. The colleagues of Haupt's from 911Truth.org whom I met that day were universally polite, respectful, and very sincere in their beliefs. True, they had some slightly bent ideas (one woman insisted with a straight face that the military was "behind all that Brad and Jennifer stuff"), but as a group they were nice, earnest people.
Unfortunately, I get the sense that these same nice people have a tendency to turn hostile, venomous and unrelentingly paranoid once they get logged back into an email server, which is why most journalists I know won't go near the 9/11 Truth issue more than once, if at all. On the one hand most reporters don't think it's a serious enough issue to bother with twice, and on the other hand nobody wants to deal with the torrent of abuse that comes with trying -- it's like shoving your head into a beehive. "I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick than write about that shit again," is how one columnist put it to me.
I'm sure I'll reach that point soon. In the meantime, I feel a need to share something I noticed while studying for a debate I'm supposedly having soon with some of the movement leaders. I doubt it will convince anyone who actually believes this stuff, but it's certainly worth pointing out that the 9/11 Truth movement is not only a cynical fiction, it's a recycled cynical fiction.
Take the central "fact" of 9/11 Truth lore, the rhetorical anchor of the entire movement -- the idea that the Twin Towers did not collapse as a result of the gigantic plane/jet-fuel explosions we all saw on television, but because of secondary explosions in other parts of the buildings that were hidden from view. This idea was rocketing around the conspiracy world in almost the exact same rhetorical format just six years before, after the Oklahoma City Federal building bombing.
In that case, it was mostly right-wing conspiracy theorists who came up with the idea that the McVeigh/Nichols fertilizer bomb could not possibly have felled the Murrah building, and that the real cause of the building's collapse was a much more powerful "second explosion" planned by the government and executed using more powerful demolition explosives.
Here's the lede of a report from World Net Daily, which shortly thereafter would become a major purveyor of 9/11 conspiracy theories, from May 18, 2001:
Multiple witnesses reported hearing more than one explosion the day the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was bombed, while other explosives experts contend that the damage done to the building could not have been caused by a single bomb placed outside in a truck.
Just like the subsequent 9/11 conspiracy theories, the Oklahoma "second bomb" champions applied intense focus to the initial news reports right after the explosions (ignoring reports published later, by which time various discrepancies were cleared up), during which time numerous reports surfaced indicating that second and third explosive devices had been found, and that secondary explosions had been heard. And just like the 9/11 Truthers, the Oklahoma conspiracists quoted TV anchormen and women who opined offhandedly that the bombings seemed to be the work of sophisticated demolitions experts. Remember the Dan Rather clip used in Loose Change in which the anchorman says the collapse of WTC-7 is "reminiscent" of a controlled demolition? Here's how that worked in OKC:
"This is the work of a sophisticated group, this is a very sophisticated device," says one Oklahoma newscaster, in a much-circulated video of early Oklahoma news broadcasts, "and it has to have been done by an explosives expert."
Remember, this is just newspeople guessing on live TV; they're not reporting. But in both conspiracy theories, these comments were presented as though they're evidence of something. But what is a collapsing building supposed to remind an anchorman of -- an Aboriginal dance ceremony? An auction of polo ponies?
In 9/11 lore we are often told that the fact that people could be seen standing in the craters caused by the planes proved that the fires could not have been hot enough to compromise the steel structure. In Oklahoma City, conspiracists claimed that the fact that the YMCA building across the street from the Murrah building was unaffected proved that the truck bomb could not have caused the damage. "Window washers weren't even knocked off their scaffolding!" screamed one site.
Conspiracy theories are always full of this kind of "it's just common sense" rhetoric, i.e. you can't throw an ice cube through the side door of a Buick, so clearly the Titanic was not sunk by an iceberg... Similar appeals can be found throughout 9/11 literature. One of my favorites comes from David Ray Griffin, who in his book The New Pearl Harbor posited that if the falling top-section of the second tower had paused just a half-section each time it collapsed a floor beneath it, it would have taken 40 to 47 seconds to fall, and not the "near-freefall" 11 seconds or so that it actually took.
Which is true. It's also true that if the top-section had paused for three seconds on each floor, it would have taken, not 11 seconds, but three minutes to fall! And if it had paused five minutes on each floor, you could have watched the whole first half of Ghost Dad on the fifteenth floor before you died! And so on. Griffin never explains why he thinks the building should have paused a half-second on each floor, but that's why he teaches theology, not engineering.
Murrah conspiracists also used the inevitable scientific mumbo-jumbo genus of argument. Here's a typical entry by J. Orlin Grabbe, a ubiquitous conspiracy barnacle who can be found sticking to the cyber-hull of almost every right-wing conspiracy theory from the last two decades, from Vince Foster to Whitewater:
The concrete in the columns had a compressible yield strength of at least (and probably higher than) 3,500 pounds per square inch. Since this value is almost ten times the strength of the blast wave hitting the columns from the truck bomb, the blast wave is insufficient to produce a wave of deformation in the concrete (and thus to turn it back into its sand, gravel, and clay components).
In these accounts structures like the Murrah building and the World Trade Center suddenly become architectural Bismarcks, unsinkable engineering wonders seemingly impervious to damage. Just as writers like Griffin went out of their way to quote engineers who said "nowadays, they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center," Oklahoma conspiracists focused intently on the remarkably tough core of the federal building. Here's an excerpt from a post-Murrah report by William F. Jasper, who not surprisingly would surface years later as a leading voice of the relatively small right-wing contingent of 9/11 conspiracy theorists:
Critics have argued compellingly that the blast wave from the ANFO truck bomb was totally inadequate to cause the collapse of the massive, steel-reinforced concrete columns of the federal building in Oklahoma City...
One need hardly mention that "steel-reinforced" would a few years later become one of the most-widely circulated phrases on the internet (third place, after "rock hard penis" and "buy vicodin online"), in connection with both the Pentagon and the WTC, which were variously supposed to be impenetrable or unshakeable. "For that hole to have been caused by Flight 77," barks Loose Change about the Pentagon crash, "the Boeing would have had to smash through nine feet of steel-reinforced concrete, traveling 310 feet." Says wanttoknow.info of WTC: "First Steel-Reinforced Skyscraper To Ever Collapse in Fire!"
"Steel-reinforced" made great waves with the Murrah revisionists, but the likes of Jasper and Grabbe were not quite reputable enough. For the conspiracy theory to really take off, a true authority was needed to put his stamp on the case. So along came Ted Gunderson, who carried the impressive title of a former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI. Gunderson's analysis of Oklahoma City was a staple of conspiracy websites. Here's what he wrote of the Murrah blast:
"A very high tech and top secret barometric bomb was the cause ... could not have been built ... without the knowledge of research classified at the very highest level of top secret by the U.S. government."
The Murrah conspiracy sites that referred to Gunderson's conclusions generally failed to point out that Gunderson had devoted much of his post-FBI career to the exposure of a plot called "The Finders," which he alleged was a vast CIA enterprise to kidnap thousands of American children for sex slavery in Satanic cults. Not surprisingly, Gunderson would resurface after 9/11 with a DVD called 9/11 Failure: The True Colors of the New F.B.I., which argued that the F.B.I. had foreknowledge of the attacks.
As if that weren't enough, Oklahoma City conspiracy theorists also pointed to seismic evidence proving the existence of secondary explosions. Raise your hands, kids, if you've seen anything like this graph before. It's a chart put together by the Oklahoma Geological Survey purportedly "proving" that there was more than one explosion in Oklahoma City that day:
Compare that to the seismic graph from the Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.J., frequently cited as "proof" that there were secondary explosions in the Towers.
In both cases the seismologists who actually compiled the data rejected conspiracy explanations, but the non-scientists peddling the conspiracy theories overrode them, apparently knowing better how to interpret their data.
Both Oklahoma City conspiracy theorists and 9/11 revisionists circulated "eyewitness accounts" of strange men in suits confiscating evidence -- the last link in the coverup. Regarding the Oklahoma City bombing, here's an account from www.whatreallyhappened.com:
The minister who married my wife and I was in OK City right after the Murrah Building bomb(s) exploded, and he volunteered to help dig for survivors. He told of three very odd occurrences. In the first, he was required to show his ID six times before being allowed to help look for survivors. In the second, he confirmed the stories told by others that men in suits and ties were literally stepping over the wounded in their haste to gather up files and certain other items in the debris.
Compare that to this account (complete with photo) from 9-1-1Research.com of the cleanup at the Pentagon after 9/11:
Photographs taken immediately following the attack show a number of pieces of apparent aircraft debris. One of the larger pieces was documented by a photograph by passery-by Mark Faram. It shows the piece on the lawn northwest of the heliport, a few hundred feet from the impact center, suggesting it may have been moved before Faram arrived. Other photographs show people, some in dress attire, moving pieces of debris.
How about the suspects, the patsies? Well, in both the OKC bombing and in 9/11, the supposed fall guys are reportedly seen on American military bases before the attacks. Here's how one conspiracy site described the OKC evidence:
Prior to the attack, a pilot flying over a small military base outside of Oklahoma City photographed a Ryder Truck similar, if not entirely identical, to the truck used by Timothy McVeigh, inside the compound.
Here's how this trick surfaced in 9/11 lore, according to one site (and repeated similarly in thousands of others):
Four of the hijackers trained at Pensacola Naval Air Station, a base that trains many foreign nationals.
The Pensacola story continues to circulate today, even though it was long ago established that these accounts of hijackers like Saeed Alghamdi living on U.S. military bases resulted from the same error -- confusing the hijackers with men with similar Arab names -- that initially led some journalists to think that some of the 9/11 hijackers were still alive (more on that nonsense in a future column -- I've almost finished chasing down the last of those reports, work that people like the Loose Change documentarians should have done long ago).
How about faked evidence? In the Murrah case, there was much suspicion about one crucial discovery. "The truck axle found at the site is alleged to have been moved or planted, or to have its vehicle identification number doctored to implicate McVeigh," recounts the Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories. Numerous Murrah conspiracy sites complain that the axle should have been destroyed in the blast, that the government must have known about McVeigh in advance and planted the truck-part at the scene (I love the idea of the government blowing up a normal truck axle, carving McVeigh's VIN number on it, surreptitiously leaving it at the scene -- probably dropping it through a pantleg a la The Great Escape -- and then finding it themselves a few hours later).
In 9/11 Truth, it's the fragment of hijacker Ziad Jarrah's passport that too-mysteriously survives, making it famous as the "crash-proof passport" which one source says strains "the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's War on Terrorism." Popular Mechanics, in its 9/11 Truth debunking, also recalled one site that listed all the evidence found implicating the hijackers, including Mohammed Atta's suitcase and the rental car, and wrote after each notation: "HOW CONVENIENT!"
How about the "the attacks were too sophisticated for such hicks to pull off" argument? It, too was present in both OKC and 9/11. In the Oklahoma City bombing we were told time and again that the bombing was beyond the capabilities of a pair of dolts like Nichols and McVeigh, while the line about "19 boxcutter-wielding Arabs led by a guy in a cave outwitting the U.S. military" is one of the most commonly repeated lines of the 9/11 movement.
One could go on in this way forever. What good conspiracy theory, for instance, would lack an allegation of some highly-placed insider who is warned ahead of time to stay away from the crime scene? This one you can find in almost any popular scandal dating back a hundred years. J.P. Morgan, it is said, was warned off the Titanic. Remember those rumors about Richard Nixon being warned off Korean Air Lines Flight 007? How about Lockerbie? Conspiracy theorists back then insisted that state department employees were "tipped off" in advance of the fateful crash.
In Oklahoma City, there were repeated whispers that government employees were warned in advance to stay away from the Murrah building. Some conspiracists were even more specific: "The first appointed trial judge in the OKC case, Judge Wayne Alley, was removed after it was learned that he was warned to stay away from the Murrah Federal Building in the days before the bombing," wrote William F. Jasper, who of course would surface years later with nearly identical allegations of government foreknowledge in 9/11. As for insiders serendipitously warned away from the bomb site, there are plenty of those stories in 9/11 lore, too -- I even got a letter from one Truther pointing to the fact that Bush nephew Jim Pierce had a meeting in the Towers rescheduled as evidence of foreknowledge. (The source saying Pierce's meeting was rescheduled was Barbara Bush, which would mean that the Bushes were intentionally informing the public about their dastardly efforts to warn off their relatives).
That the motive for the bombings would be the same in both cases is no surprise, I guess. OKC conspiracists believed the Murrah bombing was a smokescreen for the "introduction of laws cracking down on 'patriot' militias," while the usual 9/11 explanation, ironically, involves an excuse to pass the Patriot Act. "Can you imagine the Patriot Act passing without 9/11 having taken place?" screams one site.
No surprise, again, because the motive of most all secret government conspiracies is usually supposed to be some kind of aggrandizement of power. But it's certainly an interesting coincidence that both the Murrah and the WTC bombings were also imagined to have been committed to destroy actual physical evidence of the plot inside the respective buildings.
"There has been a U.S. government (primarily BATF and FBI) cover-up motivated by the desire to destroy evidence of a 'government sting gone bad,'" writes Grabbe about the OKC bombings.
This dovetails nicely with the usual explanation for the "pulling" of WTC-7: "WTC 7 was allowed to be taken down so it would destroy evidence of the greatest crime in American history," insists one of many 9/11 Truth sites.
I think this last contention has to be the absolute funniest detail in all 9/11 lore -- the contention that the CIA or whoever destroyed a whole building to get rid of the "evidence" of the 9/11 plot, which many alleged was masterminded from the CIA offices in WTC-7. The same people who complain endlessly that they can't get the evidence they need without subpoena power imagine that the Central Intelligence Agency somehow needs to destroy its own buildings in order to keep its "secret plans" (contained in a Mission Impossible-style folder, no doubt!) from leaking to... the 9/11 Truth Movement! Why would the CIA need to do that, if they don't even need a shredder -- shit, not even a four-dollar Master Lock -- to keep their 9/11 secrets hidden now?
And what evidence could possibly exist that would be so unwieldy that it would require the destruction of an entire building to be rid of? What, did the CIA carve its 9/11 plans in a 7,000-pound slab of New Hampshire granite in the WTC-7 basement? Were they doodled on the CIA bathroom stalls? Here I sit, broken-hearted. Came to shit, but only... planned controlled demolition of the World Trade Center! Seriously, what "evidence" had to go? And why wouldn't they just remove it surreptitiously, rather than blowing up a gazillion-dollar building on live international television, leaving the rubble to the mercy of firemen and whoever else was down there?
The obvious answer to this entire essay, of course, is that both conspiracies are absolutely true. The government committed both crimes, in both cases leaving no evidence except that which can be deduced by engineers, amateur seismological readings, mysterious forewarnings, pictures of men in suits concealing evidence, rumors about patsies seen on military bases, and, of course, the always-reliable Cui bono? If that's the case, one really has to give it to the government -- those guys are good. They can't keep sex scandals or fundraising corruption or classified Pentagon war assessments or clandestine wiretap programs a secret, but they can commit two humongous mass murders and get away with them, being arrogant and devious enough to leave exactly the same maddeningly incomplete circumstantial evidence behind for us to stew over in both cases. Almost like they did it on purpose that way, to fuck with us.
Which is kind of funny, when you think about it. In fact, if they did pull that off, they fucking deserve to get away with it. Anyone that clever must know what they're doing.
p.s. Truthers are going to complain that I still haven't addressed the science claims. That's coming next.
_______
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Those wacky conspiracy theorists
What I find interesting about this article is that when the Murrah building was bombed, immediately the blame was laid at the feet of "Arab terrorists" and people were talking about retribution.
Thankfully, responsible people kept their heads and apprehended the real culprit, a member of a, wait for it, right-wing conspiracy hate group! War with our brothers and sisters on the other side of the planet was averted.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might recall that "The Turner Diaries" was Tim McVeigh's favorite book, in which the "protagonist" immortalized himself by flying a plane into the Pentagon on a date enshrined for posterity, 11/9.
I might also recall that John O'Neill, a disgraced former FBI official who made a career out of yelling about Bin Laden, was made head of security for the Trade Center two weeks before 9/11.
And I might say, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it almost certainly can't pulverize concrete and cut massive steal beams into 30' sections.
Who ya gonna believe, me, or your own lying eyes?
With the thoughts you'd be thinkin, you could be another Lincoln
One can set up a straw man in the following ways:
- Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
- Quote an opponent's words "out of context" -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy)
- Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
- Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
"These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."
– George W. Bush, March 6, 2003
Taibbi's straw man argument
Matt Taibbi's piece is almost entirely the classic straw man argument, along with other fallacious modes.
Taibbi uses the typical "ad homenem," or irrelevant name-calling, when he employs terms such as "had some slightly bent ideas...I get the sense that these same nice people have a tendency to turn hostile, venomous and unrelentingly paranoid once they get logged back into an email server."
He uses the fallacy of "hasty generalization," which amounts to false claim that if some conspiracy theories are "wacky," all are the same. Though he claims to acknowledge not all theories are equal, he goes on to write as if they are: (For example, he says: "Conspiracy theories are *always* full of this kind of 'it's just common sense' rhetoric.")
He uses "argument from ignorance." His overall approach implies he thinks the fact that a given theory hasn't been conclusively proved automatically means it's false. As Robert Baum writes in my old Logic 101 text: "The fact that a proposition has not been conclusively proved to be true or false establishes nothing but one's inability to prove or disprove it."
The problem with using fallcy to argue any case is that such an argument is deceptive. I'm not talking about whether any given 9/11 theory is correct, but just suggesting that if debunkers are going to make their case against 9/11 conspiracy theories in general, they should stick with logical means of doing so. It would be more fair-minded and less misleading than the way Taibbi argues the subject.
The govt's own man said others were involved.
Let me see, Matt....you're not very interested in 911. So others who are interested in this key historical event should STFU, is that right?
Ok, here's why you're wrong. We can all disagree about the WTC buildings. Or whether they got the names of the hijackers right. But there is one thing absolutely everyone can be clear about: 9/11 was not carried out by 19 sole hijackers acting under the direction of Osama bin Laden. We know this because the leading US investigator officially appointed to examine 9/11 has said explicitly that other people were involved.
A senior US Government official has admitted that a foreign nation has been identified as complicit in the events of 911.
Senator Bob Graham, Head of the 911 Joint Congressional Inquiry from Feb - Dec 2002, was interviewed on the PBS Lehrer Hour in 2002:
"I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.... I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now." (link) (link)
The implications of this claim are quite profound. It means that the 19 hijackers were not operating in isolation. There was a support base, and others - beside the 19 terrorists - who were aware of the impending attacks.
There it is, folks.... a person who should know what he is talking about is telling anyone who cares to listen that there were a lot more people than the 19 terrorists behind 9/11 going right up to the leadership of a sovereign foreign government. Those are Sen. Graham's words, not mine. And the evidence is for Pakistan and Saudi involvement.
I understand that you don't want to bring these foreign officials - and any of their American supporters - to justice, Matt. But you don't mind, do you, if a bunch of Americans refuse to be a sheepie like you, and exercise their democratic right to bring some criminals to justice? Go back to sleep, Mr Taibbi. The 9/11 Truth movement doesn't need your brand of wisdom.
The "Truth" movement could stand an skidful of Taibbi's wisdom
What you have mentioned (almost certainly Pakistani involvement in critical support of the 9/11 hijackers) is hardly something Taibbi would deny.
But all the Flight 77 denial and controlled demolition twaddle is what Taibbi is talking about. Scolding him because of the information you mentioned is the essence of strawmannery.
Matt Taibbi is a lazy, self-aggrandizing ass
About 9/11. The undisputed facts are that a) three steel-framed skyscrapers collapsed in a manner that conforms, in every particular, with the predictable consequences of controlled demolition and b) that several parties, so far un-named, made big profits by short-selling those stocks likely to be depressed by the 9/11 "event," indicating highly specific foreknowledge. The other fascinating discrepancies -- suspension of SOPs by Secret Service and NORAD, selective no-fly warnings, near-instantaneous collection (and subsequent suppression) of forensic evidence by pre-positioned FBI teams, bizarre and inexplicable observations of the Pentagon "jetliner" impact, unprecedented non-involvement of NTSB in airliner crash investigations, presence of Mossad agents videotaping the event, etc. -- are less easily parsed. But facts a) and b) are rock solid and together point at DOD and intelligence agency complicity. Not that any of the fuckers will ever be charged, let alone prosecuted.
Tiabbi is self-important show-off who cannot compose a logical or coherent essay based on facts. His ignorance of basic physics and slavish dependence on rhetorical tricks disqualifies him from any legitimate reporting or editorial position. I'm surprised that The Smirking Chimp allows him in the door.
"Undisputed facts"?? Horsesh*t.
The collapses of 1, 2, and 7 "conform in every particular" with controlled demolitions only in your fevered imagination. In every particular, they conform to the NIST studies of those collapses. When you state something like that, you immediately discredit anything else you have to say.
The put options have been painstakingly investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Both the United Airlines and the American Airlines options have innocent explanation. The indication of specific knowledge is only that - it bears no fruit on study.
You go on to indicate your belief in nutso theorizing like Flight 77 denial. You are probably a nice person who loves his dog when you're not talking about 9/11 crapola. You should find more time in your life for Fido.
A reluctant reply to a tedious twat
OK, boloboffin, I’ll respond to your attack.
You write, referencing my post: “The collapses of 1, 2, and 7 "conform in every particular" with controlled demolitions only in your fevered imagination. In every particular, they conform to the NIST studies of those collapses.â€
Not true. NIST has no explanation for the collapse of WTC 7. As you note elsewhere, NIST’s report on WTC 7 “is due next year.†I’m sure that you will concede that a non-existent report has zero credibility. To attempt to rebut my assertion with a non-credible reference fatally undermines your own argument.
The NIST explanation for the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 relies on the “pancake theory,†which rests on the assumption that the stored kinetic energy stored in the floors above the alleged point(s) of collapse was sufficient to instantaneously pulverize the supporting structure below (and conveniently shear steel beams into truck-sized lengths). This assumption is easily disproved – the kinetic energy available was insufficient to destroy the undamaged 47 central supporting columns (which were built to support 600% of load capacity) and the peripheral columns (which were built to a lower overload capacity but were largely undamaged, despite the jetliner impacts). Further, the kinetic energy available was insufficient to create the billowing clouds of pulverized concrete. This is all fairly straightforward physics and is easily verified by calculations and experiment.
Another issue that the NIST report fails to address is the near free-fall speed of collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Since free-fall implies no resistance, the pancake theory -- which maintains that each collapsing floor impacted the next lower floor, instantaneously obliterated it, and then accelerated at 32 ft/sec/sec to impact the floor below, and so on -- cannot be reconciled with Newtonian physics, specifically the principle of conservation of energy. If the alleged cause of an observed event cannot be reconciled with the laws of physics, then there must be a problem with the hypothesis that attempts to explain the alleged scenario. The pancake theory, and hence the NIST explanation, fails this test.
To illustrate the fallacy of the NIST argument, we can look at the video record, which shows that the “wave†of collapse of the towers advanced in front of the descending cloud of debris. So the floors below the pancaking floors descending from above actually disintegrated before they were allegedly struck from above. Does that agree with the NIST hypothesis? Of course not.
Moving on to your next point, you state that “The put options have been painstakingly investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Both the United Airlines and the American Airlines options have innocent explanation.â€
Not true. The 9/11 Commission report claims that its investigation revealed no suspicious behavior, only innocent coincidence. Yet it is a irrefutable fact that a) no put or call options may be placed by anonymous traders and b) many of the options were placed through Deutsche Bank and/or Alex Brown, both linked to former CIA officials. If the investigation had been thorough and honest, then the traders would have been called to give evidence as to how they obtained specific foreknowledge of the 9/11 events. We must conclude that the investigation was neither painstaking nor honest.
There is no innocent explanation for the sudden spike in put options on UA and American stocks, just as there is no innocent explanation for the spike in call options on Raytheon and other defense industry stocks.
Finally, you go on to claim that I “indicate [my] belief in nutso theorizing like Flight 77 denial.†I said nothing about Flight 77 denial. You aimed at the wrong target and missed.
You are a fathead, boloboffin, as anyone reading this thread can clearly see. Give it up. Get a dog.
Let the cork out, Chris
NIST has released a preliminary report on 7. There's absolutely no evidence of controlled demolition.
You have not a single clue about the forces involved in the collapse of the towers. You can talk about "near freefall speeds" all you want, but there is little that could resist the momentum of the upper section of both towers after each had fallen a mere ten feet, a single story -- certainly not the joints of the floor below. Both upper sections plowed through the lower floors like a hot knife through butter. There was no need of explosives. The gargantuan energy of the falling upper section would not be denied.
Your statements about kinetic energy and physics are bald faced lies. If you really are that ignorant, please tell your mother to take your computer away from you. However, I don't think you are that ignorant. So you're a liar.
The jets of debris and smoke that "led" the collapse is simply and completely explained by the air being pressed out of the building by the upper collapse. Smoke was filling the floors above and below the impact zone. The air had to go somewhere, and out the windows it went, carrying along whatever loose materials it could.
Again, you lie about the put options. One airline's put options was purchased by a company who had actually purchased stock in the company at the same time. It was an investment strategy meant to minimize risk. The other airline stock options had been the subject of a online tip sheet. They had been purchased by a large number of investors. All these option purchases, on actual examination, were innocent of the understandable indications that they suggested on face value. I wish I could say that you were ignorant of this, but your post proves that you are willfully spreading false information. Again, in this instance, you are a coldhearted liar.
The most complete proof of your lying here is this statement: "I said nothing about Flight 77 denial." From your first post:
bizarre and inexplicable observations of the Pentagon "jetliner" impact,
Why, pray tell, Mr. Truthtelling Michie, did you put jetliner in quotes? Why did you question the idea that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? And why, when I called you on it, did you deny you'd said anything about Flight 77 denial, when your reference to Flight 77 denial was right above you in that post?
Because you are a callous liar who doesn't care if anyone knows you're a liar. Your objection is to spread disinformation and idiocy about the 9/11 attacks on any forum you can. Go fuck yourself, "Chris Michie".
You wrote:
The NIST explanation for the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 relies on the “pancake theory"
Incorrect. The NIST report rejects the pancake theory:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory†of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses†integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
You wrote:
Another issue that the NIST report fails to address is the near free-fall speed of collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
Again, false. The NIST specifically addresses just that at: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.â€
There is no innocent explanation for the sudden spike in put options on UA and American stocks
There are never any coincidences in Conspiracy Theory world. However, the government found:
ome unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options – investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price – surged in the parent companies of United Airlines [UAL] on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 – highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC [Security and Exchange Commission] and the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments.
sorry matt, but your article
sorry matt, but your article is inadequate. it's easy to take lots of the far-out theories and dismiss all unaddressed concerns under the 'whacko' umbrella, or to fill the bulk of your article with how the various 911 claims are as batty as the OKC bombing chatter.
the TRUTH is that we were not given, in any manner, a complete and thorough accounting/investigation of 911 from the Zelikow-led commission.
bush/cheney did not go under oath before the commission. the administration's and military's and intelligence community's witnesses were allowed to skirt fully answering the panel's questions by 'running out the clock' because they were limited in time. ever hear of a murder case where there was a time limit on people's testimony, or where the 2 biggest fish were allowed to give their 'testimony' on their own turf and not under oath?
also unaddressed (because of the imposed limitations on what the committee could investigate): the put stock options, the timing of the military exercises (was it Able Danger?) mirroring 911's events on the same day as the atrocity which crippled the real-life response to 911, the limited funding/scope of the investigation, and a host of legitimate questions raised by the book you disingenuously skipped over, "distortions and omissions of the 911 commission report".
there is nothing wrong in demanding a full accounting of this tragedy, a tragedy it appears that was known about in advance, wished for in advance, and completely exploited every day since by a group of people who stole 2 presidential elections and have used 911 to stay in power, eroded our country's health and rights, profited obscenely from, increased terror worldwide, kept a corporate press at bay (first via the anthrax attacks, which if you recall, targeted dems and the 'liberal' media on the eve of passage of the patriot act, and remains unsolved), etc.
the accounting of the 911 commission is/was a ruse, a thoroughly unacceptable and incomplete investigation of the event, used for political means. if YOU are satisfied with their report, you do not belong in the investigative, or even 'armchair' class of journalists. if you, like myself, feel that the 911 commission needs to be re-opened with different investigators and a fuller scope of investigative power to get to the bottom of what we can plausibly find out, it does not mean you/i are a loonie who also must side with those who say planes never hit the towers, or rumsfeld used remote control flying on the pentagon crash, or cheney planned the details. "pooh-pooh"-ing legitimate concerns unaddressed by the official report and dismissing all the 'conspiracy theorists' with a broad brush, is to give assent to the very people who, at the very minimum, allowed 911 to be as bad as it was and then the next morning on 9/12 were trying to get richard clarke to somehow pin it all on iraq. you should be ashamed.
Okay...
I'm trying to find the place in his article where Taibbi rails against people who want a broader investigation of the Bush Administration's inability to prevent this tragedy. Perhaps you could point me to it. Otherwise, you are scolding him for something he didn't say.
All I see him talking about is the wacko stuff that you yourself eschew. I'd expect, based on your desired objective, that you would welcome this kind of twaddle-bashing article. The sooner the woowoos pipe down, the sooner legitimate questions will be heard.
The most significant thing
The most significant thing about 9/11, that convinced me something was not as it should be, was the collapse of the towers, especially when I saw all the footage available. Those towers did not collapse because they were struck by airplanes. I could believe it if the tops tipped over, or chunks fell off. But for BOTH towers to collapse in almost exactly the same way does not make sense because they were not struck the same way, and furthermore, they both collapsed into their own footprint, aside from the dust and smaller debris. How likely is that from an impact at the upper stories, off-center?
And then there is building 7. What on earth could cause that one to collapse in place? Debris falling on it from the burning towers? Let's be realistic here. The thing about that one, even if you allow that it was desired to destroy that one (one hears about some conversation to "pull it"), such an action is not possible without a lot of time analyzing the building and setting the charges to bring it down in place. You can't just say, "Oh, lets bring down that building", pop a bomb in its middle and fire it off. First of all, if you did that, things would go flying off everywhere, and might not really do the job. Secondly, to do it properly takes a lot of time. We are talking days, even weeks.
My contention is that whatever happened with the airplanes, whether it was masterminded by a bunch of terrorists or some other group, the towers were brought down by specific and deliberate action, not by the airplanes or their fuel. And that, my friends, was mass murder, because I believe that most of, if not all, the people that were alive when the towers started to collapse, could have been rescued, if the towers had not collapsed.
So Mr. Taibbi can say what he wants about the truthers, but he will never explain how those towers collapsed that way by jet fuel in any way that agrees with physics.
One more time for people who can't be bothered
to read the NIST analysis of the collapses.
Collapse initiation was completely different in both towers because of the different strikes. However, once the collapses started, the same basic factors were in play in both towers - massive chunk of undamaged structure with a staggering amount of momentum bashing its way down through the structure beneath.
Seven was gashed open by falling debris from the North Tower. Huge fires were started on several floors - videos clearly show the thick, billowing clouds of smoke pouring out of Seven. Pictures are giving a better look at the terrible damage that 7 took that day. Finally, due to the fires and the damage, 7 experienced a "classic progressive collapse".
Mr. Taibbi doesn't have to explain how the towers collapsed. NIST has done this (the report of 7 is due out next year). It is you that needs to come up with a more convincing scientific explanation, or just sit down and stop yammering about what you know nothing about.
This article is basically a
This article is basically a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory. It's easier to do that than construct an original one, and neither of them requires - or offers - much evidence, just incredulity and a measure of satire.
None of us knows what really happened, except that planes flew into the WTC and the towers came down in a way that looked to me mightily odd. The rest is could-haves and might-haves. One thing though: 9/11 served BushCo unbelievably well - they've rested almost their entire subsequent behaviour on that one act of terror. What were they planning to do if 9/11 hadn't come along?
For what it's worth, here's my conspiracy theory. The WTC was built way below the official standards. Corners were cut everywhere. Why make a building tough enough to withstand a 200mph hurricane? Why build a building tough enough to withstand a plane flying into it? How often do these things happen? So you got a building with a fatal flaw - given the "right" conditions it could pancake into dust.
I suspect BL, with his building trade connections, knew about this. Maybe someone high up told him. Maybe not. If there was covering-up going on afterwards it was to hide the corruption that had been taking place, and maybe avoid criminal liability.
Now you can debunk that idea, Mr Taibbi, and think you've struck a blow for truth.
Every test done shows the WTC exceeded safety standards.
Yay, truth!
For those who care, here is the contemporaneous news coverage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMXMo3Z0qms&eurl
Of course Taibbi would attribute all this talk of defusing other bombs to - what ? Just an innocent mistake. Maybe the second and third bombs were hurled from the Ryder truck into the building (without exploding).
A normal writer might content himself with exposing the lies behind the 9/11 truth movement, but Taibbi can do that AND expose the lies people spread about OKC, all in one quick column. I am definitely NOT impressed.
Hunter S. Thompson
How different things would have been at Rolling Stone, had Hunter S. Thompson lived. (He often wrote for, and was interviewed by Rolling Stone) Hunter Thompson was writing an article about the towers being destroyed by controlled demoltion, when, while working on the story of a life time, he "committed suicide". No doubt this story would have been featured in Rolling Stone. Now we are stuck listening to this hack Matt Taibbi.
Wasn't Hunter Thompson's son in the house with him?
From the Wiki:
Thompson died at his self-described "fortified compound" in Woody Creek, Colorado, at 5:42 p.m. on February 20, 2005, from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. He was 67 years old.Thompson's son (Juan), daughter-in-law (Jennifer Winkel Thompson) and grandson (Will Thompson) were visiting for the weekend at the time of his suicide. Will and Jennifer were in the adjacent room when they heard the gunshot, though the gunshot was mistaken for a book falling, and so they continued with their activities for a few minutes before checking on him: "Winkel Thompson continued playing 20 questions with Will, Juan Thompson continued taking a photo." Thompson was sitting at his typewriter with the word "counselor" written in the center of the page.
They reported to the press that they do not believe his suicide was out of desperation, but was a well-thought out act resulting from Thompson's many painful medical conditions.[15] Thompson's wife, Anita, who was at the gym at the time of her husband's death, was on the phone with Thompson when he ended his life.
A suicide note delivered to his wife 4 days before his death was published by Rolling Stone Magazine. Entitled "Football Season Is Over",[16] it read:
"No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun — for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax — This won't hurt"
Artist and friend Ralph Steadman wrote:
"...He told me 25 years ago that he would feel real trapped if he didn't know that he could commit suicide at any moment. I don't know if that is brave or stupid or what, but it was inevitable. I think that the truth of what rings through all his writing is that he meant what he said. If that is entertainment to you, well, that's OK. If you think that it enlightened you, well, that's even better. If you wonder if he's gone to Heaven or Hell — rest assured he will check out them both, find out which one Richard Milhous Nixon went to — and go there. He could never stand being bored. But there must be Football too — and Peacocks..."[17]
Ooo, those sneaky ninja CIA types! Able to suicide a man who'd mailed a suicide note, always talked about committing suicide, and was in constant pain.
Put Down The Bong.
Jackass
Jesus, no this fucking idiot again! Why are this fool's articles on here?
Three steel structures collapsed at freefall speed into their own footprints. Air Defense stood down for 90 minutes. You can fucking SEE detonation squibs in the videos.
Case fucking closed.
_______Impeach them all or die trying.
And set out by the fucking curb.
Matt's articles rock. 9/11 Twoofers are too busy looking at bright, shiny objects. Go raise money for your local Democratic candidates.
Ha
All these comments from conspiracy nuts are at least as much fun as the article itself. Are there really this many crazy people just hanging out here, or is there some kind of Matt Taibbi watch that helps them follow your around the web?
Please Enlighten Us
You must know more than any of us about the entire 911 situation, please oh please tell us what you know!!
No Thanks
Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is like arguing with a cultist or a Bush Republican- they are so firmly convinced that their own pretzel-like version of reality is truth that they will simply tune out every word you say and scream their nonsense all the louder. I don't doubt that you firmly believe that your "scientific proof" trumps objective reality, common sense, and Occam's Razor; obsessives can't be driven out of their delusional ruts, and it's a waste of my time to even try.
So, I think I'll take the same tack with you as I take with the moon landing conspiracist nutjobs: laughing in your face, followed by laughing with my fellow sane people behind your back.
One more time?
You don't know me, so you don't know what I believe or don't believe about 911. But to tell you, do I believe in the conspiracy movement? No, absolutely not. For all of the reasons posted in the original article by Mr. Taibbi, it's just simply not possible to create such a vast conspiracy and get away with it. Do I believe that there are irregularities about the entire event? You bet your ass I do. I refer you to Senator Bob Graham's book, "Intellligence Matters". To Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Solution." To Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies". To Craig Unger's "House of Bush, House of Saud". To Robert Baer's "Sleeping With the Devil". To the multitude of other books exposing how and why this administration has led us into the hell hole we are currently in. Conspiracy? Nope. Doing nothing about what was going on in the summer of 2001? They absolutely were doing nothing. So I'll ask you again to enlighten us with all of what you know.
If you're not one of said conspiracy nuts...
Then why the hell are you snarking at me for mocking them?
We're not talking about the existence of "irregularities"- aka evidence that Bush & co. are a bunch of incompetent, conniving profiteers- but about an elaborate conspiracy theory that posits that Cheney and various others masterminded and executed the 9/11 attacks. And that's the idea that the majority of that comment-burst was shrieking in support of. I didn't think, when I posted in response to that theory and its nutty proponents, that I would have to explain what I was responding to. o_O
Mockery
Doesn't really serve a purpose other than giving you a feeling of superiority (my goodness, how quaint all their little ideas are! I must show them the error of their ways!) Jeffnar nailed things very good, IMO. (thx!) So, again, can you enlighted me?
Was it that obvious?
Doesn't really serve a purpose other than giving you a feeling of superiority
If feeling superior to people who believe that 9/11 was executed by Dick Cheney & Friends is wrong, than I don't want to be right.
I must show them the error of their ways!)
Actually, I'm refusing to show them the error of their ways, because I recognize that it's a fruitless exercise. That was kind of my point.
So, again, can you enlighted me?
If you were in fact trying to start a serious discussion about whether or not the author was using the lunatic fringe to characterize all calls for further investigation into 9/11 as cries of the deranged, why didn't you SAY that? When you respond to my amused, off-hand comment about the extremely vitriolic response to the article by sarcastically accusing me of ignorance, it makes you look as if you are in fact one of the crazed conspiracists I was remarking on. I don't think you can really fault my assumption there...and I don't think you can get on your high horse about the shallowness of my mockery when your initial response to it was...more mockery.
No, you're reiterating your sarcasm :)
But read my reply to Jeff below.
noone's asking you to argue, LK
noone's asking you to argue, but it doesn't sound like you could offer anything of substance to the dialogue in this country about 911 anyway. evidently your mind is made up on the matter (and that is what? that the official stilted 911 report satisfies ALL you need to know?), just as you skewer those cultists and bush supporters- "so firmly convinced that their own pretzel-like version of reality is truth that they will simply tune out every word you say and scream their nonsense all the louder". are you a blind 'coincidence theorist' or do you just enjoy your smug "(i'll be) laughing in your face, followed by laughing with my fellow sane people behind your back" self-righteousness? evidently you would rather laugh at people behind their backs, safely in a group, rather than enlighten them.
conveniently dismissing all sane and rational attempts/calls to re-open the 911 investigation by painting all inquiring minds with the lunatic fringe stereotype simply shows that you, unfortunately, are not sane or rational yourself. how does asking for new investigations and a fuller accounting of the matter, especially in light of the many loose ends brought up in books ("omissions/distortions of the 911 commission"-read it), articles and by many public/private figures make me a "conspiracy nut", as you so brashly labeled every post prior to yours?
your 'fellow sane people' are in your head. sad. but i'm not laughing at you, i'm asking you whether the official report satisfies all of your intellectual curiosity, covers the bases it needs to, appears to have been fairly conducted and unobstructed and a thorough investigation, etc.
that's not being a conspiracy nut. swallowing the sanitized drivel in the official report is, though, so welcome to the nuthouse.
but it doesn't sound like
but it doesn't sound like you could offer anything of substance to the dialogue in this country about 911 anyway.
That sounds like an insult when you put it that way, but it is frankly true; I am not an engineer, or an intelligence expert, and I really don't have the knowledge and qualifications to draw those types of conclusions (for example how and why the buildings fell). So, like most of us, I can only look at the conclusions being drawn in various quarters and decide based on the qualifications of the speakers and my own common sense which conclusion I believe.
To the extent that the 9/11 truth movement believes in open access to information about 9/11 and careful reinvestigation of that information, I would not criticize it.
The problem is that what is visible on the 9/11 Truth side seems more like a push to get people to recognize the truth they've already decided to believe: "that elements within the US government and covert policy apparatus must have orchestrated or participated in the execution of the attacks for these to have happened in the way that they did." (taken from 911truth.org's mission statement)
I read an article (can't find the link, darnit) where the author claimed that the 9/11 Truth movement (of which the author of that article is a part) is not so much the proof of a coherent alternate theory as a disproof of various facets of the predominating theory. Which is an argument that makes me mighty suspicious, to be frank; it's a hell of a lot easier to disprove somebody else's established theory than to prove your own...and even if you DO disprove elements of that opposing theory, that does not mean that your own theory is necessarily correct.
that the official stilted 911 report satisfies ALL you need to know?)
Not necessarily, but I agree with the essential conclusion that 9/11 was basically caused by monumental incompetence on every level of government.
evidently you would rather laugh at people behind their backs, safely in a group, rather than enlighten them.
Again, you have to understand that my post is meant to be taken in response to the people who believe that 9/11 was planned and executed by the Bush administration. I AM firmly convinced that those people are on the mental level of cultists, as I said, and therefore it is useless to attempt to enlighten them.
conveniently dismissing all sane and rational attempts/calls to re-open the 911 investigation by painting all inquiring minds with the lunatic fringe stereotype simply shows that you, unfortunately, are not sane or rational yourself.
Now, see, this is a discussion we could have. If there is a large aspect of the 9/11 truth movement that is devoted to reopening investigation (and not just taking pot-shots in an attempt to prove its OWN theory), and if the author is mischaracterizing the 9/11 truth movement as just being about the pot-shot-taking fringe...If that's the case, then I am wrong to agree with his position and marginalize and mock the 9/11 truth movement for its efforts to re-open investigation.
However, see my comments above on seeking truth versus seeking circular proof of the Cheney-did-it theory; that's why I'm not entirely sure that the 9/11 Truth movement is being unfairly attacked based on the lunatic fringe.
articles and by many public/private figures make me a "conspiracy nut", as you so brashly labeled every post prior to yours?
I wasn't attempting to paint every single comment as crazy (although my comment was so vague and nonspecific that I can't really fault you for making that assumption); merely expressing my surprise and amusement that such a large proportion of them WERE. Relentless comparison of everything negative to Nazis and implying that Hunter S Thompson was murdered to prevent his discovery of THE TRUTH are not aligned with sane questioning of authority in my book.
i'm asking you whether the official report satisfies all of your intellectual curiosity, covers the bases it needs to, appears to have been fairly conducted and unobstructed and a thorough investigation, etc.
Again: if that's what I thought was at issue here, I would have responded differently. But that wasn't the question posed by many of the posters here, who instead seemed more focused on shrilling their conspiracy theories and calling the author names. In light of what seems to be the 9/11 Truth movement's obsession with proving, not just that there were distortions and ommissions in the 9/11 investigation, but that political forces within the US conspired to cause 9/11, I don't think my disdain is unwarranted.
"So, I think I'll take the
"So, I think I'll take the same tack with you as I take with the moon landing conspiracist nutjobs: laughing in your face, followed by laughing with my fellow sane people behind your back."
My God, you are a boring self righteous fool - no winder the US is going down the pan if the majority is like you or worse
Conspiracy nuts
What makes a conspiracy nut? One who questions the "official" version? One who wonders why there has never been an open investigation? One who wonders why the administration fought any kind of investigation at all? It does make you wonder. The only investigation that was carried out under kleig lights on TV from beginning to end was Watergate. And guess what? We actually found out what happened. And people paid for what they did. "Conspiracy nuts"" I think not. All we want to know is what happened and who's responsible? Those responsible were not just the 19 hijackers or Timothy McVeigh or Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan or James Earl Ray.
maybe one more time
around we go .here in the mid west ,the people that cut steel apart with flame,know that those 3 buildings did not "pancake" from being hit by 2 airplanes.how do i get this across.how it happened i don't know would need real information.building 7 collapses so orderly that it must be caused by an ordely event. i give up this isn't even discussable.random produces random,those 3 very sanitary distructions could not be caused by a random hit by airplanes. oh okl.city is a good example,it did not collapse evenly.
i am done ,if you have never cut steel with a tourch u don't know shit.the part that no one addressses is that the regular people that do this work know and realy don't care what u with desk jobs think.hay my genious brother ,an account cant grasp that it is this obvious.
truth will out maybe
An open invitation.
The Bush administration conspiring to do nothing, to shirk the responsibility to defend the nation against attack, and thereby allowing the terrorists to bring their plans of an attack to fruition, so that attack can be used to advance the Neoconservative political agenda, seems to me to be the simplest of the conspiracy theories.
Fewer than a dozen top Bush administration officials would be required to advance this conspiracy.
That the Neocons had theorized that an attack would advance their agenda much more rapidly prior to Bush taking office is also relevant since from day one in office the Bush administration’s policy on terrorism was to ignore it.
I have found very few facts, either before 9/11 or after 9/11 that do not dovetail with this theory.
Feel free to take aim and blast it full of holes.
Million Dollar Prize...
There is still a One Million dollar prize available to anyone who can prove explosives were not used via mathematics; here are some details:
"The first person to prove explosives were NOT used in all of the above with a full, detailed mathematical analysis covering all of the points above will receive $1,000,000. The proof will be subject to verification by a scientific panel of PHD engineers, physicists, and lawyers."
Here is the website sposoring the challenge - it is for real:
http://www.reopen911.org/Contest.htm
ANYONE who is soooo absolutely sure of explosives not being used should be all over this. Either figure it out yourself, or assemble a small team that has agreed to divide up the money in the way they see fit. A team could consist of the person who found the challenge and then 2 specialists like a physics professor and an engineering professor. Divide that up and say the finder gets 10% and the other two guys each get 45%. That's a pretty sweet deal for everyone, even if it takes a year of full time work.
What would be even better would be to see Matt address the "science claims" by stepping up and taking the challenge above. If you are so sure Matt of what you are saying, then why not take hiatus/quit at RS, and show that math that proves your points - otherwise, STFU and admit that you don't know what happened just like every other civilian; the difference is you believe what you were told by "the news" unquestioningly and we don't. We don't know what happened, but we have a lot of evidence to say it is not the OS put out by "the news" - really good evidence has been presented right here in the posts above to say the OS is BS.
Ahhh - I return of the prove
Ahhh - I return of the prove a negative concept.
What fun.
Prove space aliens weren't involved then......
On edit.
Better and better from the challenge page
"23) [added 27 August, 2006] Explain the radioactive dust samples that indicate a micronuclear weapon was used "
fuck off
fuck off
_______Impeach them all or die trying.
Positive negatives.
I love how these people say you can’t prove a negative.
Seen to many incidences where people have thought up ways to prove a negative in science with successful and not so successful outcomes to believe it is imposable to prove a negative.
In this case it is very easy, all you have to do is prove one of many possible scenarios to bring down the WTC that does not use explosives. Start with the official version of the events and go from there, shouldn’t be too hard to prove or disprove these theories and then expand onto others that might prove or disprove them.
Mathematically the only theory that has been put forth is one that uses explosives, because that is a common method used in demolitions of thousands of buildings to achieve the same effects. All you have to do is prove one theory that doesn’t require explosives to bring around the collapse and you win, simple.
Far from a negative, even with the ability to prove negatives.
As for radioactive dust samples:
Uranium and other unstable atoms and isotopes are found everywhere. Radioactive dust being released just proves there was unstable isotopes within the building material used. Capital hill is well known for this, the content of radioactive isotopes within its construction material is so high the same material wouldn’t pass approval to be used in a nuclear facility.
Gives me a nice warm glow to think about all those politicians doing business in a structure with a much higher background radiation then most.
_______What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
-Thomas Jefferson.
So in fact
You are changing the challenge from what it says
"Prove explosives weren't used"
to
"Prove another scenario"
Which is - in fairness - a better question.
But (on edit) you aren't actually proving that explosives weren't used - you are just proving that they didn't HAVE to be used.
Picky, arn't you?
That is all they want, a mathematical equation that shows just why the towers fell the way they did, without the use of explosives to do so. What you are doing is arguing over the use of their words, which I will give where very poorly chosen, as if somehow that matters.
_______What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
-Thomas Jefferson.
On the other hand if you
On the other hand if you follow the explosives scenario can you produce a mathematical scenario showing where and how much all the explosives were?
I myself, no not off hand.
I could probably funnel a few hours into producing one thanks to the internet more easily then you could into producing the maths that disproves it. I am not going to, because I have one of these annoying little life things now that requires lots of work and sleep...
Why could I though?
Explosives are the common way to demolish steel based structures, hence all the mathematical numbers are already out there somewhere about how much force is needed and the required amount of explosive material and what not to generate that force.
_______What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
-Thomas Jefferson.
Which brings me back to the
Which brings me back to the point - you could only ever produce the math that syas it COULD be something other than expolosives. That wouldn't prove it wasn't however.
Hence my proving a negative comment upthread.
Here are the opinions of some fire officers
Hmmm. No mention of WTC7?
Oh well. Details, details.
_______"These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."
– George W. Bush, March 6, 2003
Welll unless you count this from a fireman at the scene
"Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o?clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o?clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that?s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn?t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
"
So the fire officers could see 3 hours in advance that WTC7 was coming down.....
How very inconvenient for the demolition buffs.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/
911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Hooray for first reponders
Always good to hear what they have to say. A shame you listen to some but not others...
"[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski
"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
"[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
(From that beachhead of the loony left, The New York Times)
So, you're suggesting based solely on the word "collapse" that Hayden said he knew WTC7 would crash at near free-fall speed into its own footprint?
From my reading, he simply suggests that he thought it was suspectible to falling.
Some people who question the 9/11 Commission Report are prone to logical leaps, but then so are those who insist on sticking to the ludicrous-on-its-face official story.
I don't know what really happened, but I think more questions need to be asked and answered. So do many of the so-called "9/11 widows." But then, I guess they're all nuts, too.
_______"These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."
– George W. Bush, March 6, 2003
From other parts of the same
From other parts of the same article I linked to
"Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn?t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn?t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn?t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o?clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that?s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that?s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event"
WTC 7
This isn't directed toward any specific comment, just a question; If there was a big fire burning inside WTC 7 where was the smoke? Go back and look at the video of WTC 7, Where's the smoke?
Also, I think there's more than ample evidence to agree that the events of 9/11 have been intentionally covered-up. The truth of the matter is that the truth of the matter will now never be absolutely known. Like the Kennedy assassination and dozens of other similar events through history, when those in power have a vested interest in seeing that the truth never becomes known the general public, it rarely does.
Every question on 7 you might have, answered
That's a paper written by a great poster over at the JREF forums on the mountain of evidence about the collapse of WTC 7. Pictures and video exist of smoke roiling out of 7. The building was "fully involved" in fires on several floors, and the damage from a huge chunk of the North Tower hitting it was reported by multiple people. Parts of this damage are visible in video and pictures, but never completely seen because of the incredible amounts of smoke pouring out of the building.
There is an astounding amount of testimony from firefighters about the condition of WTC 7 before it fell. Unless you think they were lying about how those buildings fell when so many of their fellow workers were killed that day, you owe it to yourself to read their stories.
Hey Everybody!
Regardless of how anyone feels about the building landfalls, it proves the principle of the higher the rise, etc. Those were not safe buildings.
What seals it for me is that the air control guards were down that day. And you have this classic foreign coalition of the willing that strangely fit with the...president's former business partners. Meanwhile, the last thing the latter wanted was a real investigation; if he didn't want to know, doesn't it stand to logic, to conclude that he was involved, somehow? And don't we want to know? I mean, what were the pakistani services having breakfast with Bush sr, that morning;
_______The 2006 election was thrown by the reps. They needed to let dems win in order to lower their guard in 2008.
A lot was left out of this article.
For one. What about John Doe 1? All of a sudden he just wasn't important anymore. I'm from Oklahoma City. My sister worked on the Oklahoma City Bombing report which was initiated by a former Oklahoma state rep. That report took 4-5 years to complete. People who pooh-pooh "conspiracy" theories are either just lazy or want to believe whatever they're told. I'm really surprised that an article like this came from Matt Tibibi. The tone and apparent already-decided-upon conclusions are Fox-worthy. Since there's never been a conclusive investigation of the OKC bombing or 9/11, how can anyone write an article like this? It brings to mind the JFK assassination investigation. The only person who really tried to investigate it, Jim Garrison, was ridiculed. All three disasters were treated the same. And those who didn't go along with the "official" version of what happened were written off as crazies. Well, I've lived through all three, knew a remarkable woman here in Dallas, and I'm telling you, we have never been told the truth about any of them.
Jumping Foward Into the Truth.
Let's forget for a moment about whether the towers collapsed by jet fuel or premeditated explosions, or if the plane really hit the Pentagon, or whether the airliner was shot down over Pennsylvania, or men in black suits gathering up evidence or the Mosad allegedly filming the scene of the WTC, ok? Let me give you some recently revealed evidence of (if not conspiracy)at least foreknowledge of the attacks. Woodward said in his latest book that Richard Clarke and George Tenent were worried that Condi Rice, Bush's new NS Director was not sufficiently concerned about terrorist attacks inside the US. So, they pulled a surprise briefing of the witch in early July, 2001, and ended up being brushed off. At first Madame Secretary denied that it (the briefing)happened referring to it as a "supposed" briefing, but when independent confirmation started coming out, Rice admitted she had been briefed but said that she hadn't brushed them off, but had been concerned enough to have them (Clarke and Tenent) give the same briefing to Rumsfeld and A.G. John Ashcroft. (For all those Water Lilies who believe that the 9/11 Commission's report was definitive, the Head Most dudes of the Commission have also revealed that they knew about that special briefing, but left it out of their report.) We know for a published fact, reported widely in 2001, that Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines and switched to private jets, the Dept. of Justice explained at the time that they had received a credible threat to the security of the Attorney General, but would not reveal any details. We now know that Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines almost immediately after the terrorist threat briefing from Clarke and Tenent. Now we don't know what the contents of that briefing was, but it obviously dealt with terrorists and commericial airliners--why else would Ashcroft stop using them? One of the most widely circulated claims of conspiracy "nuts" has been that all the top dogs in the Bush adminstration stopped flying commercial airlines in the summer of 2001. So, Taibbi and anybody else who wants to believe that the Bush gang didn't have foreknowledge of the attacks and did nothing to stop them--just explain away these simple facts.
Shorter Taibbi:
"You conspiracy nuts don't know what happened. I know what happened.
How do I know what happened? I was told what happened by our political leaders and news commentators. Geez, don't you people even watch the TV? They explained the whole thing.
Also, there are some weird people and even some rude people who question the official government version. Some of them say things that are illogical.
Therefore, anyone who questions the official government version is weird and rude, and believes things that are illogical."
And if those
Bush-loving scientists at NIST say that the planes were sufficient to bring down the towers, then you can take it to the bank that Bush did the demo hisself, from a copy of My Pet Goat wired to demolish WTC2 the moment he turned to page 17. Really, what other explanation makes sense?
bobo
Re: Before the 9/11 Conspiracies, There Was the Oklahoma Bombing
Hey, wait a minute, I was BORN in Oklahoma!
But seriously, folks ... Though I'm not an anti-conspiracy-theorist (throwing around the term "conspiracy theorist" is the cheapest and easiest way to overlook and dismiss conspiracies, of which there are and have been plenty through history), I do think that a 9/11 conspiracy in particular would have required a) such co-ordination as to stagger belief outside a Tom Cruise movie; b) led inevitably, already, to some serious unraveling of the bag at the government level; and c) demonstrated a sort of intelligence and competence that the current administration has never yet revealed in any of its undertakings. So lighten up on Matt, please, one of our best writers.
I have no doubt whatever that the *actual* conspiracy involved in 9/11 can be found in the Bushmen's response to it, which has so far allowed them to dismantle half the republic ... pk
Also for the demolition buffs
Carrying on from my comment upthread where firemen believed that WTC7 was going to collapse several hours before it actually did so - where does this story fit in?
"NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)
June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.
"
.....
"According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said.
"
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/
news?id=10000087&sid=aCuh.ATdfOXc&refer=
top_world_news
Bolo, my sympathies, but you're just pissing in the wind
You wrote
One more time for people who can't be botheredto read the NIST analysis of the collapses.
Collapse initiation was completely different in both towers because of the different strikes. However, once the collapses started, the same basic factors were in play in both towers - massive chunk of undamaged structure with a staggering amount of momentum bashing its way down through the structure beneath.
One, two three,..., eleventy-something. Innumeracy is widespread. It's not too hard too use the old Work=Force x Distance to easily see why those buildings came straight on down, without any help from explosives planted somewhere below.
_______Have you torqued a wingnut today?
Republicans want less government for the same reason criminals want less cops.
Thanks, KimIlBush
It's sad to see how determined some are to spread this nonsense around, considering how many valid questions are out there - the willful ignorance of the Bush Administration to things that the Gore Administration would have pursued vigorously being one. I get emotional about it because you would think these errors are of Humian proportions, to be discounted at face value because of their extraordinary claims. But I don't think that anyone can be persuaded away from their beliefs on this. My experience has been the contrary. Rare is the CTist who can be reasoned with rationally. The best that can be done is to be on record opposing them. As long as a reader of this thread understands that not everyone here believes that stuff, I'm satisfied.
9/11: The Massive Ignorance of Matt Taibbi
Hey Matt,
My industrial - goth spirit of rave's past, necessitates this Halloween preface, to these All Saint's Day salutations.
Bringing 'em to you 'LoTek' style ... Ice - T | 'Johnny Mnemonic'
Get a member of the GOP, the Democrats, and the Libertarian Parties (you need all three, but it could be another independent party) to take exit polls to verify that the tabulated totals are accurate and the elections are not stolen again! This is essential in districts using machines with no paper trail. Alternatively, conduct "parallel voting" by asking voters to replicate their ballots privately so they can be counted and compared with the tabulated vote. Consult with local community leaders and figure out a way to verify the totals!
Send the following links to at least two friends, asking them to send them to at least two friends as well. When all is said and done, everyone linked to anyone here will have them. Better yet, take 9/11 DVDs to your local community access television stations and ask them to play them. That should do the trick!
- video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
- 9/11 Mysteries (video)
- video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
- Loose Change, 2nd Edition (recut)
- video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5792753647750188322
- Terror Storm with Alex Jones (video)
- video.google.com/videoplay?docid=590053292130233240
- 9/11: A Conversation with Jim Fetzer (video)
Thanks for your support and concern. We can do it together!
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
9/11: The Massive Ignorance of Matt Taibbi
2006.09.30 | st911.org | James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
A lot of intellectual rubbish has been published about the 9/11 Truth movement, but none quite as reprehensible as Matt Taibbi, "The Low Post: I, Left Gatekeeper", ROLLING STONE (2006.09.26). He begins with a blunder and ends with a travesty. He asserts that "9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime." But 9/11 Truth is dedicated to exposing falsehoods as well as revealing truths. If the government's account of 9/11 were true, there would be no need for an "alternative theory". We are critics of the official theory, which, in case Taibbi hasn't noticed, is itself a conspiracy theory!
Taibbi appears to be massively ignorant about the objective and scientific evidence that demonstrates the official account is not only false but cannot possibly be true. If he had visited the web site for Scholars for 9/11 Truth at st911.org, for example, he would have been confronted with extensive evidence that establishes the untenability of the government's account. Consider, for example, some key findings that are presented in "Why doubt 9/11?", which reflects elementary knowledge for those familiar with the case, including:
- The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.
- The melting point of steel at 2,800ºF is about 1,000ºF higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet - fuel - based fires, which do not exceed 1,800ºF under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.
- UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000ºF for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly -- about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North at an average temperature around 500ºF -- to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.
- If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.
- Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which normally only occurs with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed simultaneously.
- The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 9 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.
- The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.
- Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.
- WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM / ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time at free fall speed.
This event was so embarrassing to the government's account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT. Similarly for this article in the ROLLING STONE. The actual evidence of controlled demolitions at the World Trade Center is so embarrassing to Matt Taibbi's position that he doesn't bother to acknowledge its existence. That is a form of intellectual dishonesty that ought to be beneath the standards of this once-great magazine. Alternatively, if he is so ignorant that he doesn't know it exists, he was incompetent to write this article. Either way, the editors ought to have known better than to publish it.
Most of his piece, of course, is intended to satirize an alternative account. Establishing what actually happened is far more difficult than proving what did not. If anything like what he describes is the actual sequence of events, then it does have aspects of the absurd about it. But it would be perfectly consistent with the incompetence and recklessness that this administration has demonstrated repeatedly in relation to its interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the mess it is making of America.
Bush himself has admitted that Saddam Hussein had "nothing to do" with the events of 9/11. A Senate Intelligence Committee investigation has established that Saddam was not collaborating with Osama bin Laden but actively opposing him. And the FBI has recently acknowledged that it has "no hard evidence" that connects Osama to 9/11. If it was not Saddam and it was not Osama, then who was responsible for the events of 9/11? We believe that the American people are entitled to know and we are doing our best to find out.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
scholarsfor911truth.org (st911.org)
scholarsfor911truth.org | 9/11: The Massive Ignorance of Matt Taibbi
_______I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - J. D. Salinger | Chapter 25 | Catcher in the Rye
Just for the record
Not everyone who wants a reinvestigation of 9/11 is a delusional cultist with an entrenched "belief" in some wacky theory. Do I believe that the Bush administration deliberately facilitated the attacks? No, how could I? Rational belief requires some sort of proof. Do I believe the administration ‘could’ have done so? Absolutely yes, I do consider that a possibility. Do I believe this possibility was adequately investigated? No I do not. Does this make me irrational or impervious to logical reasoned debate? No it doesn’t.
I don't agree with Matt and we have argued at length on this subject (http://unpleasant-possibilities.blogspot.com/ - apologies for lousy formatting) but I do at least respect his willingness to engage in the debate and seemingly, to actually investigate some of the 911 Truth movement’s claims.
I look forward to his further articles on the subject and would welcome him disproving any of the numerous conspiracy theories - in the interests of finding out what actually happened on the day.
However, to those simply laughing in the faces and behind the backs of 911 theorists, however silly they might seem, whilst ignoring the absence of a credible investigation of the actual crime - you are the epitome of intellectual cowardice.
BBC Reporter announced WTC7 collapse in advance of the event
And, indeed with the tower standing visible behind her. This major BBC cock up is getting plenty of exposure -
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096
The BBC responds -
http://shrinkalink.com/8930
NB ". We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another."
Related comment by a European Demolitions expert -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ExUTAbUCYL0
Chaos Butterfly is making quite a flap.
Don't 'pull' this thread, please.
The fox condemns the trap, not himself.
My GOD the BBC were in on it
My GOD the BBC were in on it too!
Is there no end to the perfidy?
Follow us
Become a fan
Subscribe
9/11 truth movement
The reason that Government/Corporo-fascists/Organized crime entities get away with these huge conspiracies is because of the middle men involved... the bag men, agent provocateurs, CIA fronts, all lead up to a chain of events seemingly unrelated, and untraceable to the source. Also, monumental conspiracy theories usually involve a wide sprectrum of causality and/or verification/documentation. If you present vast mountains of minutae evidence, you've already done the debunker's job for him, as many separate pieces of evidence will easily be proven non-verifiable at best, or, at worst, bogus. Conspiracies on this level can usually be boiled down to an exercise in moral theater.. There is a ton of documented evidence of warnings from Richard Clarke, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. Shrimpy McFlightsuit and Big Dick and their PNAC frat brothers lusted for a Pearl Harbor event. Shrimpy Sr. had ties to the Bin Laden family as well as to all levels of CIA and their sub contractors world wide. OK City could easily serve as blueprint for expected follow up by local law enforecement, etc, and a plan could be developed.
_______So I am not saying that SHrimpCo planned the specifics, or that military drones actually did the deed, or that charges were placed in the WTC, (although that last scenario is perfectly plausible, for "insurance" you see...). the fringe element leaches credibility from the rational element, and the Rovian Wurlitzer benefits in all sorts of ways. I'm not saying it's all bullshit, I'm saying whether it is or isn't, the fact is that the NeoNazis knew the plan that existed, knew the approximate date ("no commercial flights for us, please. We're Royals"), and proceeded to cynically exploit the hell out of it in order to dismantle our Republic. Now they say the Reichstagg Fire was not an inside job either. I say, whatever. 30 million dead or so later by 1945 are still dead, and the 3rd Reich is dead also. WHat we need to worry about and concentrate our efforts on is Shrimpy McFlightsuit's FOURTH REICH.
How many lives to the gallon does your HumVee get?