Skip to main content


Bayoneting a Scarecrow

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward’s cult.

By George Monbiot

03/02/07 "Guardian" -- -- "You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the New World Order ... bought and paid for."(1) "Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and the Special Branch recruit agents?"(2) "Shill, traitor, sleeper", "leftwing gatekeeper", "accessory after the fact", "political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all."


So go the comments his last piece debunking 9/11 theories received.

Monbiot spends the next paragraph listing only enough of his lefty bona fides to convince those who have been in a hole for 20 years of the absurdity of it all before laying the best smack down I've read on this issue.

Not only does he clearly articulate why tossing in with this crowd makes us look like idiots, but he goes on to beautifully explain why PURGING those who insist on repeating 9/11 nonsense is vital to the advancement of progressive ideas and values.

Ok, for the fair use crew, I'll assume that the above is an extended title and start blocking now.

After listing some of his credentials and a few of the most common theories he starts with..

In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.

Sounds kinda like the purity wars of late, but I digress.

Now to the meat of his point..

Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements which some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues – climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality – are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress; that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy; that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.

The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward’s fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don’t have the stomach to engage in real political fights.

Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on Comment is Free, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious.. The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467(2). On the same day I published an article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain’s biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE. It drew 60 responses(3). The members of the 9/11 cult weren’t interested. If they were, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.

While more follows this last clip, I think this sums it up nicely without getting as nasty as I think Monbiot and others deservedly should get.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its hoard of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don’t exist, they can’t fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.

Originally posted to AnonymousArmy on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:47 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  i've tended to think... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...that the inside job theories are either counterinteligence creations or flat out denial.  The facts need to be denied by the insider job theorists because an attack like 9/11 'justifies' invasions and other evil governmet actions.

    •  From Mnbiot's first article, linked above.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The film’s greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change.

      Great minds...and all that. :)

      •  the problem with that explanation, though, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AnonymousArmy, TruthOfAngels

        is that it is the same charge that the True Believers hold against the likes of us. That is, our tireless debunking of their claims must prove that we are carrying water for the conspirators. I've been called out as an accomplice of the Shadow Government, here at dKos, on more than one occasion. It's an endless loop.

        I agree with his sentiment, though. I've tried to explain to these nutters that they are doing the administration a great service by keeping this nonsense going. Now, any suggestion that the events of that day be scrutinised—the incompetence, generally—is met with ridicule, on account of these absurd notions that have been put forth.

    •  An odd statement (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TripleChin, swoosher

      as obviously 9-11 was the justification for two invasions, both of which IMHO were illegal. Therefore exploring evidence that points to possible complicity or malfeaseance within domestic intelligence agencies supports the idea that those wars were indeed unjustified.

      I don't quite understand how people researching 9-11, such as David Ray Griffin, are in denial about anything. I thought questioning government and asking for accountability and transparency were the cornerstones of American democracy, but maybe 9-11 changed all that?

      •  yes, yes—accountability, and all that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But what Mr. Griffin is in denial about is basic physics, along with an his unrealistic suppositions (eg. somehow, all of this was prepared without anyone becoming the wiser) that would be best suited to comic books.

        Yes, there should have been a much tighter investigation into the attacks, the response, and their aftermath. But it's asshats like David Ray Griffin who have forever tarnished the notion that they be held. These misguided "theories" which have taken hold with a credulous public serve only to keep any serious discussion of the failings of that day from happening.

      •  Pushing an inane conspiracy theory (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AnonymousArmy neither "questioning" nor "asking for accountability" nor "researching."  It is just pushing an inane conspiracy theory.

  •  If you're into debunking, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, AnonymousArmy

    check out CSICOP. You'll like it.

  •  conspiracy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duha, TripleChin, Alex Terrieur

    But what if it isn't "gibberish?"

    Have you read any David Ray Griffin? Here's a link to some of his stuff.

    Thanks for turning me on to this topic.

    Here's another article (Seattle PI) regarding the conspiracy theory.

    •  Allow me to say it again... (6+ / 0-)

      ...the inside job theory serves two purposes:

      1)It muddles up legitimate opposition to civil rights abuses, imperial Foreign policy and unproven lies about Bush and his power. It invalidates everything we have work hard to do at Kos if it becomes part of the discourse or is confused with resisting Bush's abuse of the tragic event. The inside job theory  sounds like DIA, CIA, NIA disinformation sewing confusion among the opponents of the war in Iraq.

      1. It allows people to deny the limited historical reality of terrorism and crawl into a shell. It also makes it impossible to do anything to stop Bush's war--he's too powerful to be stopped. It creates apathy.

      Have no truck with it. it is fantasy. Bush ain't that clever. Granted Carl Rove and Cheney were high fiving when they realized how much mileage they could get out of this attack but they did not dream it up themselves.  They do not have enough imagination.

      •  Alex jones (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NCrefugee, TruthOfAngels

        He is just making a buck as are half of the conspiracy issue groups. If not more than half.

        Jones used to sell his brand of pseudo libertarian mumbo jumbo to fundies. When the fundies got their man in the White House he slowly shifted to the 'truth movement' and started targeting desperate lefties.

        Not to sow apathy imo, rather to make a rather easy living.

        The apathy is a by product that he cares about as much as a drug dealer cares about HIV.

        •  I find it ironic that people accuse (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TripleChin, Saint Saddam, swoosher

          anyone questioning 9-11 as just "being in it for the money," whereas record war profiteering, control of oil supplies and imposition of the dollar as a reserve currency are never questioned as motivations for a false flag operation.

          •  Yes, they took advantage of the situation (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But they did not create it. How difficult is it to understand that?

            •  Also (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              If it was really orchestrated specifically for profiteering, why would they fake an attack from the wrong country?
              Think about this:  we say that 9/11 gave the administration a "convenient" pretext for invading Iraq, but since 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq the administration ended up sacrificing a huge amount of political capital.  Look how screwed they are right now:  this is almost entirely because of Iraq.
              In trying to connect Iraq to 9/11 they had to fix intelligence and break the law, leading to the Libby trial.  Without a direct connection to 9/11 they had to make a sales pitch with talk of WMDs and mushroom clouds, which the public now perceives as a big lie.  Bush is at 33%, everyone thinks the war was a big mistake.
              So..... why didn't the evil cabal just fake an attack from the country they actually wanted to invade?  

      •  only Bush, Rove, and Cheney had to plan it? (4+ / 0-)

        They do not have enough imagination.

        This is the kind of assertion that is based on nothing.  Who are they?  Are you saying that only if Karl Rove and Cheney had 'come up with 9/11' could it have any involvement by elements within the U.S. intelligence agency?

        Has the U.S had people with the ability to plan 'terrorist' attacks and use them for covert actions?


        How did we aid in establishing the Shah in Iran?

        Operation Gladio.

        Who freaking started Al Queda?

        We did.

        Arming and training militant groups and militias and helping them plan covert actions is something the U.S has been doing for decades, all around the world.  That is a fact.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it blows up in our face (Bay of Pigs), sometimes the president declines to go through with plans, like Operation Northwoods.

        The people that the government conteds actually came up with the plan are U.S. trained intelligence assets, like Ali Mohammed of the book Triple Cross.  (CIA asset, army special forces, etc.)

        "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by duha on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:50:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  regarding coups. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NCrefugee, Owllwoman

          There are mountains of receipts and documents witnesses and even Secret Agents bragging about how brilliant MI6 and the CIA were. It's liek the Diana Conspiracy. It goes nowhere.

          It would be nice if you could prove the Republican's planned 9/11 because they would be finished for good.  Be my guest waste an eternity looking for that proof...

          •  let me separate it out. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NCrefugee, subtropolis

            Bay of Pigs, Shah, Allende, Diem, all have masses of file about MI6 and DIA/CIA involvement. Dates, names, places, organizations, arms shipments, training camps in Alabama, corpses, motives, receipts,  means, motive, autobiographies, recriminations from participants, corporate records, inquiries that showed involvement.

            There's nothing much beyond the ISI and the Saudis. America was simply negligent. Here we go...

          •  But there are people who know. Who in their right (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alex Terrieur, Saint Saddam

            mind would come forward NOW and say they had evidence? By bringing up some small, what if's, You get people thinking of the possible. Everyone has an ability to immagine.  Put that to work and people will do the rest. Their minds will come up with the probable. I wonder why there are so many people not willing to al least think about the what if? That is what scares me. We give bush to much credit for good. he is not good.

            "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

            by Owllwoman on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 03:55:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  the US did not "start" al Qaeda (0+ / 0-)

          And repeating it ad nauseum will not make it so. The US, ISI, and the Saudi intelligence service funded the mujaheddin to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was born out of the Maktab al-Khadamat, an organisation created by bin Laden and Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, among others.

    •  David Ray Griffin (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TripleChin, swoosher

      is a true patriot and those unfamiliar with his work would be well served to spend time looking into it.

    •  The only conspiracy we have to worry about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is the one that involves signing statements, calling Bush the "Best President Ever", and eternal war to keep the Rethugs in power.

      Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

      by angrytoyrobot on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 06:27:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  actually, I would say its a an act of cowardice (6+ / 0-)

    to not look at the fact that the U.S., like any powerful government before it, can run false flag operations.

    Cowards would be people that say you can't do anything about a problem, so lets just give up.  But the truth movement is calling for investigating further the questions that were not addressed by the 9/11 commission which was executively directed by Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration insider and member of Condi Rice's transition team (and author of the Bush Doctrine of 2002 capitalizing on the 9/11 attacks, and co-author of a book with Condi Rice, and has a PhD in political myths).  I mean the conflict of interest is so obvious it is ridiculous.

    There are really only two theories regarding the events on 9/11.  That there was no complicity outside of al queda or there was complicity outside of al queda.  Members of the 9/11 truth community ascribe that there was complicity outside of al queda.  There was intelligence agency involvement.  How much of that involvement belonged to Pakistani ISI, the CIA, Saudi intelligence, British intelligence, Israeli intelligence, the FBI, we can go round and round about (and we do).  But the bottom line is that there was some intelligence agency involvement.  The second area of complicity is some U.S. government officials being involved in some fashion.  Whether that was in blocking other officials from stopping the attacks, helping to plan the attacks, aiding in setting up the conditions which allowed the attack to be successful (i.e. war games and drills) or other scenarios is something that can’t be concretely determined at this time without further investigation.

    I believe that most people intuitively understood there must have been some state intelligence agency involved, which is why the administration was so successful, (and still successful with over a quarter of the people in the U.S.) in tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks.  The American people understood that for an operation of this scope to be successful, it took some kind of intelligence agency involvement.  Although facts point to the likelihood of any of the agencies mentioned above over Iraqi intelligence officials, when all the administration offered was Iraqi intelligence (something Dick Cheney endlessly proclaimed) many Americans swallowed it hook line and sinker because they knew someone else was involved besides the ragtag group we attacked in the mountains of Afghanistan.

    If you ascribe to the theory there was no complicity in the 9/11 attacks outside of al queda that led to their success, you are left with a mountain of coincidences.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:25:48 AM PST

    •  Ah but.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AnonymousArmy, Owllwoman

      Who's to say that you aren't part of a conspiracy to make people believe that the government is more powerful than it actually is?

      Have you ever considered that the government encourages conspiracy theories? One of the first big UFO believers' organizations was stocked with ex-CIA people, and designed to make people believe that research into advanced fighter planes were actually aliens in UFOs.

      The truth is out there.

      I do not have my own blog.

      by Frank on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:33:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The UFOs were almost all Counterintel. (0+ / 0-)

        It's called disinformation.   per 9/11 many people are sincere.

        It's like the ultimate proof. If it could be proved that it was an inside job the entire system gets turned upside down. Trouble is the attack was carried out by Al Qaeda. But don't confuse opposing Bush's insane reaction with what Al Qeada did that day.

        •  Heh (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NCrefugee, AnonymousArmy

          Just for the record, I obviously don't believe in any "9/11 Truth" conspiracy theories. The point of my snarky remark was that once you assume that the government is is capable of arranging nefarious plots like this, there is basically no end to it, and everything becomes a potential conspiracy (even though in the UFO case there could actually be some truth to it).

          I do not have my own blog.

          by Frank on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:48:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah. (0+ / 0-)

            It's endless and it will likely lead nowhere. Agreed.

            •  Lazy thinking and sloughing off (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              How about instigating real investigation around the science of 9/11. Describe what a real investigation would look like and bring in experts to help us look at the issues in a scientific manner.

              Do we have the courage to answer the unanswered questions? Why can't all the questions be answered?    

              •  the've been debunked over and over again (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                But the True Believers will have none of it. How many times do we need to repeat that the steel girders did not melt (and didn't need to, for the floors to collapse), and that none of us have ever claimed such a thing? How many times do we need to explain why the manner in which the buildings collapsed was perfectly normal?

                •  catch a clue (0+ / 0-)
                  Not a single major fact has been debunked but keep telling yourself that.
                  •  fact? Please enlighten me (0+ / 0-)

                    Go ahead—lay some of these 'facts' on us.

                      •  Fact (0+ / 0-)

                        How does jet fuel burn hot enough to melt or severely weaken that steel? It doesn't of course

                        •  ouch (0+ / 0-)


                          Watch it and then come back and I'll help you focus on the real conspiracies.

                          •  Are you saying (0+ / 0-)

                            That video is going to prove that the laws of physics were suspended that day and that the fires could possibly burn hot enough to melt the steel over 2700 F?

                            Danny Jowenko also says that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. He got that part right. It couldn't have been wired that day and so it was wired before that day along with the towers. That's why there is a media blackout on WTC 7 along with all the lies about that building. When more people find out about that building then they will be forced to question what they think they know about that day so they can't afford to admit it was a demolition.

                            Plenty of video/audio available with first responders telling people to run away from the building because it's about to be brought down or it's going to blow up and people reporting explosions. You won't see that in the MSM.

                        •  not melt (0+ / 0-)

                          And remember that a goodly portion of the floors around thei impact site were severely damaged. And please don't tell me that a 757 impact is not "severe".

                          Have you ever seen the footage of the South Tower, just before it collapsed. I watched that live on tv. At the time, i noticed the top part of the building begin to lean over. It was obvious that the structure was beginning to fail. I immediately recognised that it was going to collapse.¹

                          How does that square with the notion that the towers were demolished with explosives?

                          ¹ And, no, it should not have collapsed sideways. The building's structure could not support all of those stories pivoting sideways. As part of the building gave way, and everything above shifted, the underlying structure suddenly failed massively.

                           / /
                          | |        __
                          | |        | |

                          Check out Bazant & Zhou for a good explanation of the physics involved.

                          •  Well.. (0+ / 0-)

                            First of all how do you explain the molten metal under all 3 collapsed buildings? Something sure melted that metal and it wasn't jet fuel not to mention that the 3rd building wasn't hit with a plane anyway. The towers were designed to be hit with planes anyway.

                            Yes I've seen all the collapse footage. Why didn't the tipping part continue to tip in that direction and fall over? Instead the rest of the building gets blown out under it. No resistance all the way down and both buildings collapse the same way with different impact points. You can also clearly see the blast squibs blowing huge amounts of concrete and dust out under the collapse wave and including hundreds of feet below the waves.

                          •  well, first of all … (0+ / 0-)

                            there were fires burning under all of that for weeks. That's precisely how smelting was done thousands of years ago. And the 3rd building—WTC7—did not, as far as i know, have any molten metal beneath it.

                            Here, let me ask you a question: if this molten metal is such a big thing, what is it that you are proposing? Because explosives would certainly not do that. There are all these theories being put forth about supposed anomalies with regard to how the towers fell, but they don't add up. Molten metal? It must have been explosives. But that makes no sense at all! How would explosives cause that?

                            Again, the stuff melted in the weeks-long fires under the rubble. There was also evidence of some molten metal pouring out of one of the towers. Are you suggesting that the towers were rigged with special molten-metal bombs? That seems pretty far-fetched. It's clear that some metals were melting in the fires at the impact ares.

                            Yes I've seen all the collapse footage. Why didn't the tipping part continue to tip in that direction and fall over?

                            Go back and re-read my comment above. Then go read the paper at the link i provided.

                            In the first place, take two small, roughly building-shaped objects, placing one above the other. Now, tip the top one over to one side. The edge of the lower one that is still in contact with the one above will be the only thing supporting everything above. It's not quite accurate, but it gives the general idea.

                            Now, even if the rest of the building below could have supported all of those storeys along, essentially, one edge, there remains the problem of the portion of the building above maintaining its integrity while tilted at, say, 30°. It couldn't—it would be quickly torn apart because the building was not designed to hold itself together at such an angle. It was designed, like most other buildings, to stand up straight. It just did not have enough lateral strength to withstand tilting all the way over.

                            So, what happened is that the building's floors began to fail, causing the upper structure to sag. As this continued it led to more failures along the area that was still supporting all of the floors above it. At a certain point, there was no way for the point of impact to support all of that weight (and at such a radical angle) any longer. Hence, the structure collapsed straight down—there's just no other direction for it to go.

                            No resistance all the way down …

                            That is incorrect. One can plainly see that the debris was flying out laterally, caused by the pancaking as each storey smashed into the next. Action/reaction. If the time it took for the buildings to collapse is an issue, you've swallowed a red herring. There is absolutely nothing anomalous about it. Would you have really expected to see 20+ storeys simply fall a few meters, then pause? The force that all of that mass applied to the floor below was enormous. There's just no way that it could have resisted. Thus, each successive floor failed immediately. There is just no reason to invoke explosive charges to see those lower floors fail. Gravity did all of the work.

                            …and both buildings collapse the same way with different impact points.

                            Huh? Both towers were constructed in the same manner. Each tower's structure had essentially the same design, all of the way up.

                            You can also clearly see the blast squibs blowing huge amounts of concrete and dust out under the collapse wave and including hundreds of feet below the waves.

                            Take a paper bag. Blow into it. Now slam it with your hand. Those towers were the paper bags. The shock wave moving down through the towers would have been tremendous. And, no, that really wasn't "huge amounts of concrete and dust". At least, not compared to the roiling debris caused as each successive floor was smashed and everything ground against everything else on the way down. I mention that because that seems to be yet another anomaly for some people: that most of the concrete was pulverised. As if this, too, is proof that explosives were used. It isn't. Just mentioning it in case you were going to bring that up, to.

                            I can continue.

                          •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

                            Thermite or something similar that burns well over the melting point of steel can account for what was observed. Satellite pictures also show that the same hot spots were under all three buildings. No matter how long metal is on fire it won't magically melt. The fires couldn't just become white hot especially if smothered. That molten metal was found right away anyway , not just weeks later.

                            No matter how you try to explain it buildings don't fall that way without demolitions. It takes expert timing and weeks of preparation to make a building fall straight down symmetrically at or near free fall speeds . Even then sometimes they don't get it right which happened recently although I forget what building it was. Those blast squibs are also hallmarks of demolitions and they were occurring FAR below the collapse wave. The support of the building was clearly being blown away under the wave to allow such a quick collapse. Add that to the many eyewitness/first responder reports along with audio/video of explosions taking place throughout the towers the entire time which goes along with the  demolition theory.

                            The pancake collapse was also admitted to not be possible by FEMA or NIST. I can't remember which one so you can't use that anymore. The building was quite strong and redundant. FEMA or NIST also admitted that fire causing WTC 7's collapse was also quite unlikely and NIST still hasn't come up with a good excuse for WTC 7 so their report is still not out 5+ years later.

                            "Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures ... Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. ... "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
                            (Albuquerque Journal, September 11, 2001)"

                            Of course he did a complete 360 a week later. Most likely after he realized what was at stake. Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories came out and said those fires couldn't do that. They underwrote the steel for the two towers. Then he was fired. Quite fishy there.

                            Obviously when you add this up with the mountains of other more hardcore evidence from days/weeks/years before and after 9/11 (so much that I can't even fully remember it all now) then you can see the official whitewash investigation in unacceptable and that a new real investigation is needed. You have nothing to lose by advocating a new investigation so I'm sure you'd at least agree with that much.

                            They've lied about everything since 9/11 so why not 9/11 itself? Operation Northwoods tells us that it's not beyond the realm of possibility for high ranking members of our government to be ready and willing to kill Americans for their own agendas. Northwoods was one man away from going operational. That's pretty scary.

                          •  "resembled" (0+ / 0-)

                            Lots of phenomena resemble others! And it does not surprise me in the least that demolition experts would say that the collapses resembled the sort of work they do. They certainly did look just like the sort of demolitions we're all familiar with. But to go from that to assertions that that is precisely what occurred is completely unscientific. And i'm sure Mr. Romero "did a complete 360" once he realised that the towers were not constructed in the fashion most other buildings are. That is, in a manner which would allow the pancaking that we witnessed.

                            And what's your point about thermite? I suspect you're thinking of cutting charges (which do not melt metals), and not thermite, which is generally used to weld metals, not cut them.

                            No matter how you try to explain it buildings don't fall that way without demolitions. It takes expert timing and weeks of preparation to make a building fall straight down symmetrically at or near free fall speeds .

                            That's another bold assertion on your part. You are simply unwilling to look at the physics involved. Did you bother following the link i posted? I suspect not.

                            And it takes "expert timing and weeks of preparation" to cause a building to fall with a minimal debris footprint, without damage to surrounding structures, and without casualties. Any casual examination of the collapse footage shows that the towers in no way "imploded" in the manner of building demolitions. The plume of debris that fell outward is a testament to the pancaking that occurred. If the buildings had imploded we wou8ld have seen the towers fall straight down, yes, but without that nasty debris billowing out for blocks outward.

                            And those "blast squibs" you keep going on about are a red herring. If there were charges being detonating so far below, why did the towers not crumple at those points, instead of waiting for the pancaking floors above to reach them?

                            And when i described the shock wave to explain the "squibs" i was not referring to the pancaking, but to the compression of the air inside the towers, which would have preceded the destruction of the successive storeys.

                            The pancake collapse was also admitted to not be possible by FEMA or NIST. I can't remember which one so you can't use that anymore.

                            Then why the hell do you bring it up, except as more hand-waving? "… although I forget what building it was … I can't remember which one … I can't even fully remember it all now"—do you see why i might be unwilling to carry on this discussion with you?

                            If you can pull yourself away from the "9/11 truth websites for a moment, perhaps you'll find some use for the following links:

                            World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects

                            Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

                            World Trade Center Building Performance Study

                            NIST and the World Trade Center

                            Here's that NIST document you assert does not exist:

                            Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. Final Report. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster.

                            But, of course, they're all lying, aren't they?

                          •  hmm (0+ / 0-)

                            I said FEMA or NIST admitted that the pancake collapse couldn't be possible. I'm sure if can be found on their site somewhere or with Google. Yes the demolitions weren't exactly in the usual way. They did have a strong outer skin to be dealt with and what happened to the extremely strong core? Why did that collapse also when the supposed pancaking was the floors failing? Buildings don't just pancake at close to free fall speeds. Yes thermite or thermate can cut through metal and what about the molten metal flowing out of one of the tower's corners on video?

                            I don't buy the air compression excuses for those squibs. It's not realistic to expect air from 40 stories up to travel through all that resistance all the way down and explode out at some random point. Why would the towers fall at the point of the squibs so far below? The resistance was just being destroyed. It only took 3 seconds or a bit more for the collapse wave to reach those points anyway.

                            Then you have all the evidence being carted away for melting down. No one can answer for building 7's obvious demolition anyway. It fell at just about the same speed as the towers as well. You add that up and it says something isn't right.

                          •  What? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            I don't buy the air compression excuses for those squibs. It's not realistic to expect air from 40 stories up to travel through all that resistance all the way down and explode out at some random point.

                            Dude, the air didn't travel 40 stories, the shock wave did.  

                            It pressurized the air that was already there on each floor.  Honestly I can't believe I have to point this out.

                          •  do you have ANY idea of the masses involved? (0+ / 0-)

                            Take a good look. How much mass do you suppose is about to collapse onto the storey below? Remember that these were really large buildings. This photo doesn't do that justice.

                            And how do you propose that your demolition theory squares with the top part of this building leaning over? I watched this live on television, and it was readily apparent that the impact point had begun to fail and the top portion was beginning to sag.¹ This went on for several minutes. At the time, we knew it was about to collapse. We could see for ourselves that the top part of the tower could no longer be supported.

                            Please enlighten us as to how demolition charges could have pulled that off.

                            ¹ Unfortunately, i cannot find any images of that. This photo was taken at the moment full collapse occurred.

                          •  oh, and WTC7 (0+ / 0-)

                            It fell at just about the same speed as the towers as well.

                            What speed would you frigging expect?! Go look up how gravity works.

                          •  also, re Operation Northwoods: (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes, i agree. But that does not change my opinion about what caused the towers to collapse.

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            No matter how you try to explain it buildings don't fall that way without demolitions.

                            Says who?  Do you have some sort of scientific argument to back this up, or is this a "because I said so" type proclamation?  
                            But let's debunk it anyway:  what do you mean by a building falling "that way" ?

                            Do you mean straight down?  No, buildings will fall straight down without expert assistance, because down is the direction that gravity pulls.

                            Do you mean at "near free-fall speeds"?  No, a sufficiently massive building will offer only token resistance to its own falling mass, so it will collapse a little slower than free-fall.  

                            Do you mean with puffs of stuff ejecting from floors further down the collapse front?  No, you get that from compression waves traveling down the building.

                            So what do you mean?  What is the "like that" that requires explosives?

                            Also:  if buildings don't collapse that way without explosives, wouldn't you expect the world's scientists and engineers to say something?  If it so clearly violates the laws of physics, wouldn't you hear about it from physicists?

                            This reminds me of the creationists who insist that evolution is full of holes and proven wrong.  If it really was, wouldn't I hear about it from actual biologists, not some dudes on the Internet?

                          •  This is the funny thing (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Here, let me ask you a question: if this molten metal is such a big thing, what is it that you are proposing? Because explosives would certainly not do that.

                            Regardless of what initiated the collapse, the "molten metal" would still have the same cause:  the huge energy output of the towers' collapse.
                            Truthies seem to be confused about the energy release at a basic level.  You have two 450000000 kg towers 400m tall.  That's about 4 trillion joules of potential energy.  
                            Now you have a fire and structural damage that initiates the collapse, and all that energy is dumped.  Sure it melts metal.  It pulverizes concrete.  It's enough energy to make the building itself crumple as the top part plows into the bottom part.  
                            Now energy-wise, the fuel fire was beans compared to the huge thing it initiated.  And then truthies look at the horrid aftermath of this collapse and think, "how could a mere fire cause this damage at the base?"
                            As I said before, this is like blowing off your hand with a firecracker and saying, "how could a match do all that?"  

                          •  well said (0+ / 0-)

                            I'll add that a significant portion of that ~4x10^12 Joules caused a lot of damage to WTC7, as well.

                          •  So... (0+ / 0-)

                            So all demolitions experts have to do is hit the corner of a building with some steel beams and light a few fires and a building will just naturally come straight down at near free fall speeds? I wonder why they waste time with all of those carefully planted explosives.

                            I wonder what those firemen and policemen caught on tape running from the building while telling everyone that it was about to blow up and they're about to bring it down would say about that.

                          •  Obviously (0+ / 0-)

                            The #1 goal of demolitions experts is to ensure that a building comes down safely and reliably without inflicting damage on people or neighboring structures.

                            But yes, if all they wanted to do was bring a skyscraper down, it would be far easier, and would not require nearly as much work.  

                          •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            I'm off by a factor of 2:  450 million kg, 400 m, 9.8 N/kg, mgh/2 = about 1 trillion joules per tower.

                            So 2e12 J grand total.  And yes, that energy went into a lot of processes, pulverizing concrete, crumpling the structure itself, creating huge clouds of debris.

                            At the base, I would not be surprised to find glowing hot or molten metal just from all the energy focused there.

                            The truthie bit about "explain this molten steel" makes a number of mistakes:  first, they only consider the things that triggered the huge collapse as possible sources of energy---of course, the big source of energy is the collapse itself.  
                            Secondly, they often confuse temperature and heat.  They hammer on how jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature etc, and they only consider high-temperature things as culprits for melting metal.  But it's not temperature that melts metal or sets things on fire, it's energy.  This is why you can drop a lit cigarette on a pie plate full of gasoline and not start a fire---the cig is certainly hot enough to ignite fuel, but doesn't transfer enough thermal energy to do so before being quenched.

                          •  well.. (0+ / 0-)

                            Was that same supposed energy there for the collapse of WTC7? What about the audio/video and first responder/eyewitness accounts of explosions at various times? Even some of those firemen have admitted that it was probably demolished.

                          •  Now you're changing the subject (0+ / 0-)

                            But yes, of course the same energy is there.  Every skyscraper that stands represents a huge battery of gravitational potential energy.  Why the fuck would it be any different for WTC 7?  Was it made of feathers?

                          •  Well, not to speculate (0+ / 0-)

                            ...but you must understand that the jet fuel (and the plane crash) were relatively tiny sources of energy compared to the trillions of joules of mechanical energy released just by the towers falling.
                            If you seriously can't think where the energy could come from to melt metal, if you can only think of jet fuel as the culprit, then you are ignoring the biggest and most obvious source of heat in the whole collapse.
                            Seriously, it's embarrassing for people to point at the wreckage caused by a huge collapsing skyscraper and say "jet fuel could never have done that."  This is like lighting an M-80 in your hand, losing a finger, and saying, "gosh, the fuse could never burn hot enough to do that much damage."

                          •  Hmm (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you really think there was enough gravitational energy to completely smash that building down and melt metal? That's absurd. Jet fuel couldn't have started the collapse to begin with so what does it matter. It doesn't burn hot enough to melt that metal or even close to weakening it enough for a perfectly symmetrical global collapse. FEMA couldn't even bother trying to explain what was observed after collapse initiation. They couldn't even come up with plausible sounding lie for that kind of collapse.

                          •  Are you joking? (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you really think there was enough gravitational energy to completely smash that building down and melt metal?

                            There was probably enough gravitational energy in the collapse to power all of Manhattan island for a half an hour.

                            I don't think you understand the energy involved at even a conceptual level:

                            The single biggest release of energy was the gravitational energy of collapse---this far outweighs the fuel fires, the plane crashes, everything.  All that other stuff is tiny by comparison, like a match that sets off a firecracker.
                            You don't blow off your hand with a firecracker and think, "damn, that was a powerful match."  But this is precisely the logic truthies are using.  The fuel fire/plane crash is the match, the collapse is the firecracker.  The energy that pulverized everything comes from the firecracker, not the match.

                          •  whatever (0+ / 0-)

                            You don't find molten metal when a building actually collapses. I understand there wasn't close to the amount of energy needed to give us what was observed. It doesn't matter anyway because the collapse could not have been initiated to begin with using just jet fuel fires. FEMA or NIST already admitted the planes could not have done it and said it was fire.

                          •  Hmmm (0+ / 0-)

                            You don't find molten metal when a building actually collapses.

                            Says who?  

                            A WTC tower released 1 trillion joules of energy when it collapsed; how much energy did it have to release to melt metal at the base?  How many trillion joules is enough to melt some metal?  3 trillion?  5 trillion?  0.5 trillion?  Can you answer that?  Do you have any idea, any number you can give us?  
                            Plus, this talk about what happens "when a building actually collapses" sounds like stupid.  We're not just talking about any building collapsing, we're talking about the tallest, most massive skyscraper collapse in history---taller than any controlled demolition ever attempted.  You have no prior experience with a collapse that big, so your intuition doesn't tell you dick about what the collapse will be like.

                            Seriously, it sounds like you have no scientfic justification for your arguments, but are just uttering some gut feeling.  But give me a scientific, quantitative reason why we wouldn't see molten metal at the base, after a trillion joules of energy are released in under a minute.

                          •  By the way (0+ / 0-)

                            You seem to have accidentally debunked yourself:

                            You don't find molten metal when a building actually collapses.

                            ...then obviously this collapse isn't like all those other collapses, right?  So much for the "just like a controlled demolition" nonsense.
                            Here you've been trying to argue that this collapse is "like" a controlled demolition, but now you're saying that the aftermath isn't something you normally find "when a building actually collapses."  
                            So is it like a controlled demolition or not?  The argument seems to be "look, it fell just like a controlled demolition" but "look at all this stuff you never see when a building is pulled."

      •  sure the government encourages (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alex Terrieur, Saint Saddam

        anything to blend the line of what is and is not possible by the government.  But what's your point?  What we know for a FACT that the government didn't want, fromt he beginning, is people investigating the 9/11 attacks fully.

        And that is what people in the truth movement are looking to do, so we know it wouldn't be something the government is promoting.

        Max Cleland:

        New York Times Article 10/26/03: "As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted."

        Boston Globe Article 11/13/03: "If this decision stands [to limit access to White House documents], I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the Commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."

        Resigned from the 9/11 Commission, 12/03, after having served on it for 12 months.

        Sen. Bob Graham:

        Salon Article 9/8/04: "As the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman during the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the run-up to the Iraq war, Sen. Bob Graham tried to expose what he came to believe were national security coverups and manipulations by the Bush administration. But he discovered that it was hard to reveal a coverup playing by the rules. Much of the evidence the Florida Democrat needed to buttress his arguments was being locked away, he found, under the veil of politically motivated classification. ...

        Question by Mary Jacoby: You write about the Bush administration's suppression of the joint House-Senate intelligence panel's findings on Saudi Arabian links to 9/11. What exactly was suppressed, and why?

        Bob Graham: In general terms it included the details of why we [on the committee] had raised suspicion that the Saudi government and various representatives of Saudi interests had supported some of the hijackers -- and might have supported all of them. My own personal conclusion was that the evidence of official Saudi support for at least two of the terrorists in San Diego was, as one CIA agent said, incontrovertible. ...

        The White House played a heavy role throughout not only our investigation but the investigation of the 9/11 commission."

        "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by duha on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:55:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Again the truth is out there. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TripleChin, Alex Terrieur

        Who is going to come forward now?  Maybe with a strong Dem. President who calls for investigations, but Anyone who knows something now is effectively silenced. Number one, who would believe them when they are standing alone. Number two, they would have the machine down on them in an instance.

        "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

        by Owllwoman on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 04:08:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  NICAP—yeah, the spooks took it over (0+ / 0-)

        And i'm sure that many UFO reports—then and now—stem from sightings of black project aircraft. However, it does appear that there's an awful lot more to it. Unfortunately, just as with the "9/11 Truth Movement", the absurd and the ridiculous serve to keep any notion of rational investigation from happening.

    •  Pakistani intel and Saudi intel were probably... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...involved but that isn't a controversial point.

      •  obviously it is a controversial point (5+ / 0-)

        which is why there was 28 pages redacted.  Which is why Sibel Edmonds is gagged.

        It is especially controversial considering that we have made Pakistan our central ally in the war on terror when their country is the country that has harbored al queda the most.

        Is is especially controversial when the head of Pakistani ISI ordered $100,000 to be sent to the lead hijacker, Atta, by the head of Pakistani’s intelligence service, ISI, in the weeks leading up to the attack.  (and this same individual was meeting with top ranking U.S. officials during the week of the attack).

        Saying that it isn't a controversial point when it changes the whole focus of the fight against international terrorism just shows that you are scared to face the truth.

        Seymour Hersh just came out with a new article talking about the ties between Saudi intelligence and anti-Shiite terrorists that the Bush administration is supporting, to help block the rise of the Shiite crescent.

        Why are we getting involved in this fashion?  When Saudi Arabians were utilized in the attacks on 9/11?

        All of these points are highly controversial.

        "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by duha on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:02:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You do know that... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Frank, NCrefugee, subtropolis

      ...FDR was accused of full foreknowledge of and complicity in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by Bircher types?

    •  sure, but it depends on what the claims are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That the towers had been rigged with explosives? That the passengers of flight 77 were paid off and told to start new, secret lives? That missiles were fired into the WTC just before the planes impacted? That there were nukes in the basement?

      Those are the sort of idiotic questions that have kept your questions from being properly addressed. And that is what Monblot is railing against.

  •  On the BBC (4+ / 0-)

    The other week, there was a good, dry, debunking of the whole "9/11 truth" crap on the BBC.

    The main "Loose Change" guy sure is a dork who is full of himself. I especially loved the part where he dismissed someone who explained how the last WTC building fell, because "he is not an expert, his expertise is tractors". Whereas Mr. Loose Change's expertise is... basement dwelling?

    The best comment came from a TV script writer (forgot his name) who made the comparison to religious myths, saying that the people talking about "9/11 truth" are believers, and that logic will not convince them.

    I think the basic issue here is human nature. It is in human nature to want to explain things in a way that fits their worldview, or that makes them most comfortable. There is already a good amount of distrust for governments, and having a government like the Bush administration just confirms the distrust, and makes it even more tempting to "explain" things by assuming it was a conspiracy.

    I do not have my own blog.

    by Frank on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:26:30 AM PST

  •  I don't subscribe to operational conspiracy (5+ / 0-)

    by US agents in /911.

    I do however believe that by the summer of 2001, the players at the top of the White House and Rummy's Pentagon had a playbook full of plans for how they could capitalize IF something happened.

    And that's how they could read "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." and see not a threat...but opportunity.

    Take your protein pills and put your helmet on

    by SFOrange on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:45:18 AM PST

  •  the central point of Monbiot's argument (5+ / 0-)

    is bullshit, whether you believe in alternative theories about 9/11 or not, and that is that people who ascribe to alternative theories aren't offering anything except saying that the bush administration is all powerful.

    They are advocating a reopening of an investigation.  That isn't cowardice.

    Senator Max Cleland: Boston Globe Article 11/13/03: "If this decision stands [to limit access to White House documents], I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the Commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."

    Salon Article 11/21/03: Regarding the 9/11 Commission "It is a national scandal."

    Resigned from the 9/11 Commission, 12/03, after having served on it for 12 months.

    Democracy Now! interview:
    "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."


    Thomas Kean, 9/11 Commission Chair:

    Washington Post Article 8/2/06 - "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate. ...

    "We, to this day, don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

    Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission Chair:

    CBC video interview transcript regarding Without Precedent a book about the 9/11 Commission authored by Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton 8/21/06:

    Lee Hamilton: I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history. ... People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they’re going to find out some things that we missed here.

    Evan Solomon: The first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' ... Why do you think you were set up to fail?

    Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: ... we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it. ...

    We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. ... So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. ...

    It is understandable why the Bush administration and governement officials from the Pentagon, CIA, etc. would not want further investigation into the events of 9/11.  They want to cover their ass, regardless.  

    But for other American citizens, and people like Monbiot, to be satisfied with something already admitted to be whitewash is cowardice.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:27:04 AM PST

    •  1.Do you think there was a controlled explosion? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      2.Do you think that Osama had no independent strategic plan of his own?
      3.Do you think that it was an inside job?

      •  answers (4+ / 0-)
        1. Maybe it was a coincidence that World Trade Center 7, a steel-framed skyscraper, fell due to only fire and damage from the debris of the towers, in the exact same manner of global collapse, near free fall time, and symmetry as it would have been destroyed in a controlled demolition.
        1. Osama bin Laden wasn't the mastermind of the attacks.  Even in the 'confession' video, the translation has him saying he was made aware of the attacks a few days before, and then they caused more damage than he thought they would.  I don't see any evidence of a big independent strategic plan from Osama bin laden in the events of 9/11.

        Osama bin laden is not a James Bond villian nor is he Cobra commander from the GI Joe cartoon.

        If you have ever seen the BBC documentary called Power of Nightmares. you would already know that Bin Laden never had a powered, reinforced, bunker lair that the US government told the world he did.  There was nothing but holes.  The British troops that went in expected to find something and were shocked when there was nothing.

        1. Like I said in my post, there are only 2 theories:

        That there was no complicity outside of al queda or there was complicity outside of al queda.   I believe there was intelligence agency involvement outside of Al queda.  The involvement of Pakistani ISI is easily apparant.  I also don't think al queda scheduled the drills and war games that occurred on 9/11/01.  Did they just get lucky?  Was it just a coincidence?  I don't know, but it should be investigated further what happened in the Pentagon and with NORAD.  The chairs of the 9/11 commission have already told us that they lied to an there is no explanation what happened.  Bottom line is, there should be no satisfaction in what we know about 9/11.  And for an event so important to US foreign and domestic policy, to rest on a compromised 9/11 commission report is ludicrous and shameful.  And has far reaching consequences.  There would not be a war in Iraq if there had been a commission set up earlier, and there weren't redacted pages talking about Pakistan's connection.  The American public wouldn't buy invading Iraq.  And as far as clamping down on state involvement that aided or abetted the attacks, if it was Saudi involvement, we could have gotten to the bottom of what allowed these attacks to occur without illegally invading a nation and getting stuck in the mess we are in now.  We would just have to lean on the Saudis, disregarding the 'special ties' that some people in the administration had with the Saudi ruling families.

        "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by duha on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:57:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so. (0+ / 0-)


          Would that be fair?

          or is it...


          Is that fairer?  

          In the end what you believe and what you suspect is up to you.

        •  And that says it all. bush is not the, All (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duha, TripleChin, Alex Terrieur

          Powerful,he is just a bad man with many followers. I watched a film on Freespeech TV about a group of engineers who said it was impossible to bring down building 7 without a controlled explosive.  They made models of building 7 to re-create the conditions. They just couldn't bring that building down under the conditions of 9-11. If we don't find the truth in all this, then bush power remains all supreme. Then one must consider the PNAC, who called for a new pearl Harbour.  These plans came out in the 90's. Plenty of time for America to forget. This group was secrect and yet every member of this group became our GOV. in 2000. They disbanded their group and NO ONE today wants to talk about its members or what they planned! I want to know why? Why is it not allright to ask someone if they belonged. I'm just sayin, If its smelling funny, its probably rotten.

          "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

          by Owllwoman on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 04:33:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  i wouldn't trust those engineers, then (0+ / 0-)

            How do you suppose they recreated those "conditions of 9-11"?

            BTW, PNAC did not "[call] for a new Pearl Harbor".

            "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

            Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000)

            See Chapter 5.

            •  So let's see (0+ / 0-)

              They say they can't have global hegemony unless another  Pearl Harbor happens and coincidentally ,just after they get into office, they get one. What's 2 plus 2?

              •  I can't believe i'm even defending PNAC (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                but facts are facts. Go read the damn document. It does not say what Owilwoman is suggesting.

                •  It says (0+ / 0-)

                  It says that in order to carry out their plans they need a new Pearl Harbor or other major catalyzing event. How should I interpret that?

                  •  No (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    They say the process will take a long time, without a 9/11.

                    Look, everyone here debunking the fraudulent theories believe the pnac crew jumped into action on 9/11, but what they don't believe is that in 1997 it was such a stretch to imagine a major terror event on us soil.

                    And, all of this is STILL available on the pnac website. Hardly hiding, they are PROUD of what they have accomplished as a think tank / policy institute.

                    SO.... When people go around accusing them of secret plans, secret deals, and hush hush policy they look like idiots two clicks away.

                    •  That's funny (0+ / 0-)

                      What does that sound like to you? Their world restructuring project worth billions and into the trillions will take too long to get started without a new Pearl Harbor. It sure sounds like 9/11 was amazingly helpful to them. What would they have done without 9/11? In 1997 it may have been a major stretch to imagine such a thing for the average person. What does that have to do with them? Those were the same types who were involved in the 93 and 95 bombings which were inside jobs. There's enough evidence to say that about those incidents as well.

                      Of course it's on their site. They know you'll just say why would they leave it there. They don't really care. That's how arrogant and out of control they are. Not to mention they came up with the idea or knew about it at best at PNAC. Their financiers on the other hand were most likely much more involved.

              •  Coincidentally.... (0+ / 0-)

                They get an attack from a country other than the one they want to invade...

                ...and then they sacrifice pretty much all their political capital (and break the law, leading to scandals and indictments) just to find some kind of tenuous connection between Iraq and 9/11.
                I guess 9/11 gave them enough temporary public support they needed to start a war in Iraq, but it sure wasn't as convenient as truthies seem to think.  Now, if they faked an attack by Iraq, that sure woulda saved them a lot of trouble, yes?

        •  "near free fall time" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Why is this such a point of contention. Was there something about that morning that caused the law of gravity to suddenly be radically altered? WTF?

          I say again: wtf?

          bin Laden's bunker

          Yes, the Bush government told a lot of doozies. And, yes, bin Laden was not the evil mastermind behind the attacks on NYC & DC. He's made a convenient scapegoat. How does that then prove that junior's admin were the perpetrators of the attacks?

          Your last point, i think, is a good one, however muddled. But the problem, you see, is that the conversation has been dominated with kooky, fact-starved "theories" about demolition charges and pilot-less aircraft.

          •  It's really interesting (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            That truthies use that phrase "near free-fall" as if an object falling at near-free-fall speed is anomalous.

            How do they think the towers would have fallen?  Slowly?  Sideways?  

            Look, guys, the reason a building falls "straight down at near-free-fall speeds" under a controlled demolition is that it is normal for something massive to fall straight down at near-free-fall speeds.

            It is astonishing that people think the collapses are anomalous because they adhere to the laws of physics too well.

            •  no (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Actually, no, there's a difference between falling through resistance and falling through space without resistance.

              "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

              by duha on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:12:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But what? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Actually, no, there's a difference between falling through resistance and falling through space without resistance.

                Right:  the difference is, without any resistance you fall at freefall speed, not near it.  
                But so what?  What does this imply?  
                Let's put this to rest once and for all:  in what way does it violate the laws of physics for the towers to fall at "near free-fall speeds?"  Why is that anomalous?  Which laws of physics are violated by that?
                None.  None at all.  Truthies are just hoping that if they describe something perfectly natural with an incredulous tone, it will sound anomalous to the unwary.  

                •  And (0+ / 0-)

                  combining two pieces of perfectly explainable phenomenon to prove a third outrageous theory.

                  Like the 'puffs' of smoke below the impact point as the towers fell at 'near free fall' speed is proof neil bush had the buildings wired with explosives two weeks before.

                  Instead the 'puffs' actually de-legitimize the entire 'free fall speed' argument.

                  The puffs of course are nothing more than exploding AIR being pressed from the floors above. It's these very explosion of AIR PRESSURE that weakened any resistance these truthies say would have slowed a 'naturally' collapsing building. 'Naturally' of course meaning when a jet plane slams straight into the 80th floor. sheesh.

      •  NO to all (0+ / 0-)

        Dana Curtis Kincaid Ad Astra per Aspera! The enemy is not man, the enemy is stupidity.

        by angrytoyrobot on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 06:22:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This article is just BS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Owllwoman, Alex Terrieur

    So 9/11 conspiracy theorist should be banned because they are hurting the progressive movement? LOL, that is a very regressive attitude.

    Think back a decade to multitude of conspiracy theorist on the right accusing Bill Clinton of everything from rape to murder. Did they hurt the neo-fascist cause? Absolutely not. And most of those people are still prominent neo-fascist.

    I think the idea that explosives brought down the WTC is laughable and made by people with no understanding of engineering and the physics of fire. I also think that at the very least the Bush administration knew the attack was coming and stood down to let it happen, and I would go further to not be surprised if they were in on the planning.

    Go ahead, ban me moron.

  •  The idea that anyone who raises questions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TripleChin, Owllwoman, Saint Saddam

    about 9-11 should be banned or is hurting the "liberal cause" is a statement of pure cowardice.

  •  I understand why KOS (0+ / 0-)

    does not want these types of diary's. This site would be flooded with them and its purpose to effect change would be a laughing stock. We have more important work ahead of us. I just wish the Dems. would hurry the investigations up. I am too impatient.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 04:44:50 AM PST

    •  Yes and no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I don't disagree with you, but at the same time, it's a legitimate subject. While it's not prudent to flood the site with wild theories about what did/didn't happen, it's a different story entirely when there is CREDIBLE and MAINSTREAM information to back up assertions (such as the Pakistani ISI connection, etc).

      Just imagine for an instant that the CT are right. What are the implications? It brings down the entire house of cards. Makes you wonder ...

  •  Monbiot Has a Point--Consider it seriously w/ vid (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alex Terrieur

    Regardless of your position on controlled demolitions and tacit/explicit government complicity, the 9/11 Truth Movement has more than its share of looneys that garner media attention they don't deserve--they're are Coulters yelling "faggot" for attention and stuffed up emotional reasons.

    That said, they are some serious people with serious questions about 9/11. One of the latest is Michael Moore, who recently weighed in on the government coverup of the Pentagon strike:

    Give me liberty, or give me a gun.

    by swoosher on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 05:04:20 AM PST

  •  There is a difference of degree. (4+ / 0-)

    While the concept that the Saudi and Pakistani government or elements within those governments, may have still hidden roles in 9/11 that the Bushies want to keep hidden, calling for investigation of that scenario is a far cry from the majority of conspiracy theorist who want the rest of us to ignore 9th grade physics and our own experience.

    I have worked as a hobbyist blacksmith and know full well that the temp required for steel to lose its weight carrying capacity is far below the melting point the crazies point to. That is why the asbestos was on the beams in the first place.

    I have worked on an air force flight line and cleaned up after several crash and burns of modern aircraft. The debris field and melted aluminium and consumed magnesium looked entirely normal to me.

    Investigation is good, and let's put a Dem super majority in the Congress in 08 to make sure one is done. But conflating the plausible with the insane does not help any of us except those who have books and films to peddle.

    But the larger premise that the CT's seem to push is indeed that the single most incompetent bunch to ever infest the White house, who have made the wrong decision at every possible point, somehow influenced thousands of eyewitnesses, hundreds of engineers, and the majority of the scientific community, to lie for them AND keep it a secret?

    I ain't buying it.

    Admittedly gullibility knows no party boundary, but it disturbs me to see otherwise intelligent people toss skepticism aside and embrace a large packet of lies shoveled atop a few kernels of truth.

    The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa

    by NCrefugee on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 06:03:13 AM PST

  •  "cackhandedness and incompetence" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Sweet. It never ceases to amaze me the level of competence these people ascribe to the asshats in the administration. I mean, come on!

    A friend of mine (who's intelligence i otherwise respect very much) recently brought this video, 9/11 Mysteries, to my attention. I found it laugh-out-loud bad in many places. I'm sure that a lot of the people involved really do mean well, but it's pathetic in places. They go on and on about the "pyroclastic flow"¹ of the debris as the towers fell, evidently misinterpreting the manner in which large amounts of dust behaves in our atmosphere. They seem to think that the images prove that extraordinary amounts of explosives were used. It's utter rubbish, though. The appearance of the debris shows no such thing.

    Another bit i found pretty funny was that they showed some shots, taken during the cleanup afterwards, of huge columns which had been cut diagonally with torches. The implication being that they had been rigged with cutting charges. What they fail to point out, though, is that these columns were situated at or below ground level, and that they had been cut using torches by the steel workers after the fact. They were removed in that way, while being held by a crane, because it's easier.

    There's tons more in that video to shake your head at. Those are just a couple that i remember. Go check it out for a good chuckle. It's too bad that Loose Change gets all the attention. This video is just as ignorantly stupid.

    ¹ The extremely hot mix of dust, rock, and gases that spew forth from an erupting volcano. See Pyroclastic Flows and Their Effects for more info.

    •  I am particularly fond of the depiction (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AnonymousArmy, subtropolis

      Be it ever so fictional, of George W. Bush as Lex Luthor, Greatest Criminal Mind of our Time.

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

      End of message.

      We've been raptured. Daily Kos is Heaven.

      by TruthOfAngels on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 08:29:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The offering of catty opinions (0+ / 0-)

        instead of a serious and open mind... Can we afford to be so casual in how we approach serious subject matter that deserves a dispassionate and rational disposition?

        •  Actually, I fibbed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It wasn't quite the end of the message.

          Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

          Okay, I'm done.

          We've been raptured. Daily Kos is Heaven.

          by TruthOfAngels on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:24:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Now that you're done (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            can you describe what an open, scientific inquiry would look like on Daily Kos. Lets look at the issues and be glad.

            •  Er, no, if it's all the same to you (0+ / 0-)

              Because I no doubt have an unserious mind and believe everything Chimpy says.

              You might like to have a look at this, though.  You probably won't agree with any of it but the purported exchange between Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on page 2 and 3 is an absolute hoot.

              The Hopeless Stupidity of 9-11 Conspiracies

              We've been raptured. Daily Kos is Heaven.

              by TruthOfAngels on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:45:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  How about the Daily Kos 9/11 inquiry (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                You know, an open inquiry based on reason and science. The best minds of Daily Kos and beyond engaged in a wide ranging analysis of the facts  and evidence of 9/11 with the only ground rules being civility and reason.

                What do we have to lose?        

                •  Because it'd be hijacked by idiots (0+ / 0-)

                  With mad theories that entirely lack evidence or even the remotest plausibility.

                  It wasn't always banned on dKos, you know.  Why do you think it is now?

                  We've been raptured. Daily Kos is Heaven.

                  by TruthOfAngels on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 10:03:33 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not if the focus is rational and scientific (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    The Daily Kos 9/11 Inquiry would as its first act establish that all evidence be subject to scientific scrutiny.

                    Expert professional insight on various 9/11 subject matter could be brought before the inquiry.

                    Daily Kos readership would skyrocket.

                    •  No, it wouldn't (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      If that worked on the internet there'd be a site like that already.  And if there was a site like that already, any sort of Daily Kos inquiry would be unnecessary.  Anyway, I really wouldn't count on it happening, if I were you.  Because it won't.

                      We've been raptured. Daily Kos is Heaven.

                      by TruthOfAngels on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 10:35:47 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Rational inquiry not possible on Daily Kos? (0+ / 0-)

                        I vigorously dispute your assertion that a reasoned and scientific inquiry into the facts of 9/11 cannot occur on the Daily Kos.

                        I sincerely believe Daily Kos is up to it.  

                        •  Rational inquiry is perfectly possible (0+ / 0-)

                          on dKos.  Just not with 9/11.  And that, in conclusion, is why 9/11 conspiracy theories are banned.  Because the internet isn't just a bunch of people in a room sifting through scientific data; anybody can join and hundreds if not thousands would do exactly that, just to shout 'Mossad!  Remote control planes!  Space aliens!'  Which would achieve precisely nothing.

                          So, no.  No internet site is up to it.  The format's wrong, the subject's too emotive, and it brings all the crazies out.  That's why it isn't allowed here.

                          Nice talking to you.

                          We've been raptured. Daily Kos is Heaven.

                          by TruthOfAngels on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:04:26 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  But (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AnonymousArmy, TruthOfAngels

                      the "rational and scientific" thing to do would be to accept scientific consensus at some point rather than considering the pseudoscientific theory again.
                      See, it sounds rational and open-minded to have an investigation, but it is irrational to reconsider something for the 500th time.
                      Especially if you have a denial movement--e.g., creationists, Holocaust deniers, global warming deniers or truthies--whose sole goal is to trick people into doubting the reality of something that has been established over and over.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site