Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

9-11 and American Empire Part 1: Deconstructing the Official Story

by Monsieur le Prof Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 07:33:01 AM EST

At the heart of the arguments for the establishment of "security first" priorities and police-state societies, including video-surveillance, domestic wiretapping, increased paramilitary and police forces, and so on, are the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The referencing of the horrible events of that day have become so ubiquitously mentioned as to be essentially a self-perpetuating justification among politicians and public officials, both in North America and Europe. The terrorist attacks that arguably "changed everything," and most certainly established the bellicose war-footing of the Bush administration, obliged European governments to express solidarity with the American "anti-terrorism" cause, while at the same time opening the door to participation in the dubious expansion of empire, which we can observe with secret CIA prisons in Europe, or military and financial contributions to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.


The goal of this diary series is to explore the narrative of the attacks of September 11, 2001. It is undisputed that these attacks created the conditions which allowed for the expansion of American military dominance in Asia, as well as the establishment of CIA prisons, suspension of habeus corpus within the United States, reduced rights for aliens deemed "enemy combatants," introduction of torture into interrogation methods, the USA Patriot Act, unconstitutional domestic and foreign surveillance by the NSA, and a host of other measures that superseded international treaties as well as the American Constitution. Therefore, the onus of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that these attacks were indeed the work of a group of Muslim fundamentalists, hell-bent on destroying American freedoms, under the direction of Osama Bin Laden, falls on the United States government. Unfortunately, this hypothesis is untenable by any honest measure of academic scrutiny.

The subject itself is often simply judged taboo; indeed, to doubt the official account of 9-11 would destroy the entire foundation of the American justifications for war, and require a shifting of paradigms and priorities that would not benefit the political or military establishments. Television and print media sources, increasingly controlled by large corporations such as Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, are reluctant or downright hostile in reporting news that would serve to bolster claims of a cover-up of 9-11 crimes. This does not, however, indicate the absence of such claims or evidence to support them. Moreover, there is such overwhelming evidence that the American government has actively hindered investigation into 9-11 crimes, has employed red herrings to take the spotlight off certain suspicious details, or has simply lied to cover up glaring contradictions in their account, that the school of thought concerning the attacks generally revolves around LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose) or MIHOP (Made it happen on purpose) for those who have doubts about the official story (which by any measure is at least fifty percent of the American population, and as high as eighty five percent).

For those interested in the topic, there is a host of information available on line. Of course it is not all credible in nature, and wild conspiracy theories are easily found; however, through investigation and analysis it is provable beyond a reasonable doubt that the official US government story about 9-11 cannot be true. Making up one's own mind about such important events is an act of responsible citizenship. The 9-11 Commission, which investigated (certain aspects of) the attacks and published its final report in summer 2004, has been found to have deliberately suppressed information. Commission members Philip Zelikow, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton have admitted that Pentagon officials actively obstructed their investigations, and charges of obstruction and perjury were considered but not brought forth. Commission member Max Cleland resigned in protest over what he called a White House cover-up. Therefore we can conclude with a large degree of certainty that the 9-11 Commission, which was limited in its investigative powers, has not provided a complete or accurate investigation of the attacks.

The extraordinary secrecy of the Bush administration leads to speculation about its involvement in such despicable deeds as false flag terrorism. This idea is supported by the reluctancy to investigate the attacks, and the manipulation of the investigative bodies once enquiries did begin. If indeed it can be proved in a court of law, either in the United States or in an international forum, that the Bush administration actively participated in or helped to bring about terrorism on American soil, it would not only completely undermine the justification for the ongoing wars in Asia but also require a war crimes tribunal not seen since Nuremburg. Therefore, thorough historical examination and analysis of the 9-11 attacks is necessary to ensure continuity of democratic principles in Western society, and should be a priority for anyone interested in current geo-political events.

I will include many links and references below to support the claims that 1) that the 9-11 Commission was largely incomplete in its investigation and 2) that the official narrative cannot be true. In future diaries, I intend to examine individual aspects of the attacks with the most up-to-date information available. The goal of these diaries is NOT to delve into conspiracy theories, to encourage ad hominem attacks, or to inflame tempers.

Moreover, I would expect that these details will be judged on their merits, and not dismissed simply by attacking the messenger over perceived biases, background, religious or sexual orientation, or any other unrelated characteristic. I will also publish a diary, in the eventuality that it interests Euro Tribune readers, about my background, interest and personal experience in the subject. Finally, I would remind those who are reluctant to question the "official" story that there is a large amount of information available, and that researching and analysing this information is simply a part of intellectual and academic responsibility. There is no preset "agenda," and no desired "outcome," other than the quest for the truth. We are fortunate to live in a time where ideas and information can be so freely exchanged; such a time is unprecedented in human history. Let us use it to better the world for our children, by using our collective intelligence to solve crimes that have benefited few and served to endanger the freedoms of all. The truth is simply now that we do not yet know the truth about 9-11, but that can and must be changed.

LINKS AND REFERENCES

    1) The official investigation lacks crediblity:

a) Commission members

b) "Is a fix in at the 9/11 Commission?"

c) Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet

"We discussed the theories," said Philip D. Zelikow, the commission's executive director. "When we wrote the report, we were also careful not to answer all the theories. It's like playing Whack-A-Mole. You're never going to whack them all. They satisfy a deep need in the people who create them. What we tried to do instead was to affirmatively tell what was true and tell it adding a lot of critical details that we knew would help dispel concerns."
This will be analyzed further in upcoming diaries.

d) National Security Experts Speak Out: 9/11 Commission Falls Short

e) 9/11 Commission Could Subpoena Oval Office Files

"Anything that has to do with 9/11, we have to see it -- anything. There are a lot of theories about
9/11, and as long as there is any document out there that bears on any of those theories, we're going to leave questions unanswered. And we cannot leave questions unanswered."

Unfortunately there were numerous omissions in the final report, and many questions left unanswered. The Oval Office documents were not made public, testimony was left out of the final report, and both Bush and Cheney only agreed to testify together, without being sworn, and with no record of the testimony kept.

    2) Why the official narrative cannot be true

a) Bin Laden NOT wanted for 9-11 attacks

The FBI has no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9-11.

b) Mistaken identity: Some of the 9-11 hijackers are still alive

This question has not been entirely resolved.

c) Norman Mineta testimony in front of the 9-11 Commission indicates a NORAD stand-down order confirmed by a whistleblower

d) BBC reports collapse of WTC 7 24 minutes too early

This will be an entire diary entry on its own. CNN also reported this too early.

e) CIA will not release full report on attacks

f) Official explanation of WTC collapse is not mathematically or physically tenable

Display:
Please not another conspiracy posting about 9/11.

It is not necessary to postulate a conspiracy when simple incompetence and ideological blindness serve so well. Was Katrina a conspiracy? Was the handling of Iraq and Afghanistan a conspiracy? How about the vaccines needed for the yearly flu prevention effort?

Just go away...

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 12:05:58 PM EST
It's unfortunate to have to respond to such an unintelligent comment, but I don't know what "conspiracy" you're refering to. I didn't postulate any particular one, and it might do you good to look up the word in the dictionary, since by definition 9-11 was a conspiracy (it involved more than one person).

Otherwise, comparing Katrina (a natural disaster) and Iraq (which was a consequence of the political climate after 9-11) isn't really relevant and doesn't refute anything that was said.

It's unfortunate to see that you think efforts at an accurate historical account are futile and you would just as soon see credible historians disappear instead of broadening your perspectives. If you have any valuable assertions or counterpoints they would be most welcomed.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 12:58:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We could have done without the "Just go away..." which is offensive and adds nothing to your points.

Monsieur le Prof has given you a 2, I think for that reason (he might have explained why).

However, marek has given you a totally inappropriate troll-rating.

Once again, down-rating is not to be used to express disagreement.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 03:55:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There was no justification for your troll-rating of rdf's comment.

The rating has been wiped. Please avoid this kind of ratings abuse in future.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 04:39:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe you were refering to Marek, because I didn't troll rate this. However, dismissing someone's research work as "conspiracy," then telling anyone who has an opposing viewpoint to "go away," would seem to me the very reason the troll rating exists.
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 04:52:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, it says "note to marek" right in the subject line.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:24:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You gave rdf a warning (2) which seems reasonable (and has not been wiped) given that he told you to go away. (Though, when giving a down-rating, it helps if you explain to the recipient why you are doing it).

Otherwise, rdf's comment is not trollish. He didn't call your (or anyone else's) research work "conspiracy". It seems hard to see how one can discuss this topic without reference to "conspiracy" or without using the word.

I don't know where you have used troll ratings or seen them used, but they are rarely handed out on ET. A discussion can easily degenerate into an exchange of retaliatory ratings, a situation it's better to avoid.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:36:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay thanks for the ratings clarification.
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I will include many links and references below to support the claims that 1) that the 9-11 Commission was largely incomplete in its investigation and 2) that the official narrative cannot be true.

Point 1) can fairly be said to be reasonably uncontroversial. The questions then become how and why, and that's a lot harder to know for sure. Regarding 2), I'd be interested to read how you actually describe the narrative, and then only to know if you have any alternative narrative...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 12:08:15 PM EST
Well I can't really sum all that up in one comment, but I do intend to post a series of follow-ups. I don't have a complete "narrative," and obviously no one yet does, but on its face the official story of 19 suicide hijackers on orders from Bin Laden is at best incomplete and at worst a fabrication, because it doesn't describe the other phenomena (stand down orders, building collapses, put options, molten metal, etc) that weren't addressed by the 9-11 Commission.
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 12:32:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome a Paris thinks it is "reasonably uncontroversial" that "the 9-11 Commission was largely incomplete in its investigation". He wants to know "how and why", and he thinks that this is "a lot harder to know for sure".

I do not at all think that it is very hard.

The 9/11 Commission was never meant to be doing the conduct a complete investigation in the first place by its controling masters.

In fact, the 9/11 Commission was never meant to come into  existence at all in the first place!

Just have short look at the history of the commission, and all the little scandals around it...

I mean, every bank robbery is better investigated. More evidence is secured (instead of destroyed in a haste).

The first investigation, by the "9/11 Commission", came about only because a small group of grieving families waged a tenacious battle for it. And they fought against a wall of people who sought to bury the truth about the event -- including, to their amazement, President Bush.

Sally Regenhard (a spokesperson of the "9/11 families" -- she personally lost her son due to the 9/11 crime) sums it up pretty nicely: "The largest structural collapse in World History, the largest loss of life on American soil since the Civil war, and not ONE Governmental or Elected Official wanted to know why and how this happened?"

Look, 40 million $US was spent to investigate Bill Clinton's sex life while Monica Lewinski was around the Oval Office. Only 600.000 $US was spent to investigate the "collapse" of the Twin Towers. The entire 9/11 Commission spent 15 million $US, while on the investigation of Clinton's lies concerning his sex 65 million $US were spent. And you don't think that is because of an "agenda" of the puppet masters? You really think it is because of the incompetence of the puppets?!?

The evidence that the government has covered up and whitewashed what really occurred on 9/11 is overwhelming.

Some more details:

The 9/11 Commission was a fake. It produced an "Omission Report". Shame to anyone who believes they did an honest job! It was first meant to be headed by infamous Henry Kissinger (a man who is well known to be able to "keep secrets") -- only the protest of the 9/11 families then forced Bush to change that role. It finally was headed as the chief investigator by a Professor, Philip D. Zelikow, whose self-confessed expertise is "creation + maintenance of public myths" (!), "shared in common within the relevant political community."

And a myth they tried to create. Successfully so far (as can be seen from the stance of people like robert.feinman), though it now starts to crumble....

Is it any wonder that the "9/11 widows" are not at all satisfied with the results of the first commission, and now call for a new and truly independent investigation into 9/11 ?

by long lasting memory on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 07:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As afew points out elsewhere, it's not an either/or choice between belief and non-belief.  People can not believe the official story and not believe the "demolition" theories either.  It's not a matter of accepting the administration's version of events, but rejecting a version that's also speculation.  

I think most here share your distrust of the official version of "what really happened," but the point is, you don't know "what really happened" either, and the discussion just leads to endless fighting and animosity.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 08:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
By that logic then no one should study history or advance any historical hypotheses, because it could hurt someone's feelings.

For a subject as important as this one, used as a justification to surpress our freedoms, it is of utmost importance to get it right.

Therefore the evidence must be followed wherever it takes us.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 03:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By that logic then no one should study history or advance any historical hypotheses, because it could hurt someone's feelings.

Study of history doesn't require binary thinking and appeals to belief.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 09:18:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Robert posted:

[It is not necessary to postulate a conspiracy when simple incompetence and ideological blindness serve so well. Was Katrina a conspiracy? Was the handling of Iraq and Afghanistan a conspiracy? How about the vaccines needed for the yearly flu prevention effort?

Just go away... ]

Unfortunately, Robert, the 'incompetence' limited hangout cannot explain the evidence of 9/11. That makes it untenable. Hence, discarded as an explanation. You are simply wrong on that point and the fact that you haven't done your research is showing. Further, I am not sure what 'idealogical blindness' is? Does that refer to the Straussian quasi neo -nazi beliefs of the neocons?

Oh, and by the way, You attempt to belittle but you clearly have some further reading to do. So, "Just go away...."  and
do your home work.

m.

There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -- Goethe

by medicis on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 12:55:13 PM EST
Unfortunately, Robert, the 'incompetence' limited hangout cannot explain the evidence of 9/11.

I read a fair amount of the 9/11 conspiracy claims, and I think nothing else can explain this mess.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 09:28:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You think the lask of a proper forensic investigation boils down to pure incompetence and not malice, or simply callous disregard?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 06:15:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are mixing 9/11 and investigation of 9/11. I think the lack of proper forensic investigation boils down to the malicious intent to cover up incompetence during 9/11.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 02:29:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... is the clincher for me. 47 stories tall falling at 6.6 seconds vs. 6 seconds free fall.

  • Fires that burned for 3 months (NYT).
  • Molten metal seen under the ruble.
  • Multiple reports of explosions from firefighters on the scene
= controlled demolition

NORAD stand down, for close to 2 hours.

It was a false flag operation along the lines of Gladio, only bigger and more obvious.

Incompetence? We will see. For now, they have gotten what they wanted.

Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts on this.

by Free Truth on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 12:57:31 PM EST
To do this would require the organisation of the necessary hundreds of people to do a false flag operation and then manage such complete news blackout that nobody has ever talked .

If they'd managed to do anything competently you might have a better case, but their serial mismanagement of every aspect of government suggests that such a conspiracy, even a false flag op, is entirely beyond them

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 01:08:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You make an oft-cited point but it lacks one basic premise: that assuming they are too incompetent to "pull it" off doesn't change the data and the observed phenomena. Obviously the building fell at a certain speed, in its footprint, and left behind molten metal. No one disputes that. Logically controlled demolition best explains the phenomenon, and NIST/FEMA could have dispelled any speculation on that by simply examining the question, which they did not. The final NIST report on WTC 7 is still due out and is several months late.

Therefore saying they were "too incompetent" and they "control all the media" doesn't hold water. There is obviously a certain amount of self-censorship going on, possibly threats and blackmail, and so forth. But the media has on numerous occasions talked about WTC 7.

As far as gravity is concerned, the building(s) fell without any resistance beneath, which is unexpected given conservation of momentum, and would require simulatenous destruction of all support columns to fall symetrically at the speed of gravity. Again, this will be a separate diary topic.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 01:15:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So are steel framed buildings. They offer resistance to gravity. Unless they are imploded. WTC 7 - 6.6 seconds vs. 6 seconds freefall in air with no building underneath.

5+ years later the government has not issued a "final" report on WTC7.

The major media is controlled, that is true. People have talked and are getting the truth out.

Here is a web site with the growing list:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

by Free Truth on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 01:22:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
steel framed buildings. They offer resistance to gravity. Unless they are imploded.

This one didn't.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 03:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"To do this would require the organisation of the necessary hundreds of people to do a false flag operation and then manage such complete news blackout that nobody has ever talked."

This is hardly as surprising as you suggest.  Regardless, the official explanation of a gravity-driven collapse is physically impossible.

"If they'd managed to do anything competently you might have a better case, but their serial mismanagement of every aspect of government suggests that such a conspiracy, even a false flag op, is entirely beyond them"

Who is "they"?

by Ningen on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 11:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Who do you think is "they"?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 06:18:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am going to post videos of three controlled demolitions.  You will note that they all have one thing in common that is missing from the moments before the collapse of any and all of the WTC buildings.

Landmark Tower, Ft. Worth, Texas:

Wachovia Building, Atlanta, Georgia

Last but not least, Vegas style: the Stardust Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada

The conspiracists have often fixated on the "signature look" of a controlled demolition (which the WTC collapses also lacked, but that's a separate issue).  As you can easily hear, controlled demolitions have a signiature sound.  The series of blasts before the collapse is exceptionally loud and cannot be disguised.  As someone who has heard no small number of explosions in my life, I can promise you that there is no such thing as a quiet one.  I have yet to see (or more importantly, hear) any video of the collapse of any of the WTC buildings that reflects anything like the number and size of the explosive charges that would be needed.

Perhaps you believe that some number of small, carefully placed explosions, perhaps disguised under sirens and I-don't-know-what-else, would be enough to bring down the towers.  It would require how many charges per floor?  Several?  For 110 floors?

If any number of small explosions would be enough to take down a 110-story building, it would seem logical that a large airplane crashing into them would likely do so too.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 04:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The collapse of the three WTC towers presented all the elements of a controlled demolition, including molten metal in the basements (of all 3) that was ignored by the NIST/FEMA reports. Those scientific bodies have yet to explain how the collapses produced the necessary energy and temperatures to create molten metal and the pyroclastic flows, aside from the demolition themselves. Therefore your secondary point about being able to hear the explosions on television seems rather irrelevant, all the more so given the fact that many firefighters and eyewitnesses did in fact report progressive secondary explosions on many levels of the buildings (see Naudet brothers' documentary for example), and their testimony was left out of the 9-11 Commission report.

This is intended to be a separate diary topic, and was not the focus of this diary.

(How does one embed video?)

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 04:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The collapses of none of the three WTC towers looks like a controlled demolition.  Saying doesn't make it so.  Key features are missing, including the absence of audible explosive charges.  You cannot knock down a building without them.  And you can't just decide that something is "irrelevant" because it happens to poke a hole in your theory.

I am quite sure that firefighters in the buildings heard explosions, multiple explosions.  There were burning airplanes in the buildings.  And lots of burning jet fuel.  If I had a can of hairspray in my desk drawer and the desk caught on fire, it's likely that the can of hairspray would explode.  If an electrical transformer or computer monitor caught fire, it might explode too.  There are all kinds of things in tall buildings that might explode if they get astonishingly hot and/or catch on fire.

But that is not what I'm talking about.  The type of explosive charges needed to bring down a building are a signature.  They are big.  They are repeated.  They are unmistakable.  They can be heard from a long distance away.

I have watched lots and lots of video of the collapse of all three buildings; I watched the collapse of the towers live on television as it happened; at no point have I heard anything that even began to approach the size and number of explosions necessary to bring down a building of that size in a controlled demolition.  This is not something that only a few people in the immediate vicinity would hear, it would be audible from far away.  There were TV cameras on the street very close to the buildings when they came down, and there is zero evidence of those type of explosions.

This is about evidence, right?

Instructions for embedding video are here.

I assume you will be dealing with this "molten metal" in a different diary.   (And I assume you will be posting photos of it and explaining exactly what its alleged presence in the wreckage is supposed to prove about what caused the collapse?)  For the record, NIST does address the metal issue here:

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)--who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards--found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
See the new user guide on how to embed various types of videos.

For youtube: [[youtube video-id]] replacing the square brackets with round ones.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To add to the stormy present, some points only on WTC7.

Contrary to claims of controlled demolition, the building has not fallen down symmetrically: the derbis went to the southeast and to the north. You can see derbis on a neighbouring building here:

Oh, photo of the supposedly invisible-from-outside fires:

An eyewitness report:

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, Division 1: ...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.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html

This also addresses the misinterpretation of Silverstein's "pull it" comments (which is the more wrong given that demolition experts use "pull" not for collapse, but for directing a building collapse away from a neighbouring building).

For reinforcement, check this video, and listen to what someone says 1:33 in (remember, only policemen and firemen were on the scene at this time):

Also watch this video, on damage to the building:



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 06:27:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If any number of small explosions would be enough to take down a 110-story building, it would seem logical that a large airplane crashing into them would likely do so too.

The point of demolitions is to place the explosives at carefully selected points for maximum structural damage.

And what about the "squibs"?



Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought you were a physicist.  Are you telling me you really don't know what those are?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 06:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What are they?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 06:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sigh.  If you are doing some Socratic-type thing, I'm really not in the mood.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 06:08:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You asked the rhetorical question.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 06:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they aren't pressure displacements from the collapsing floors above or plumes of smoke from stuff that's on fire inside.  Also, never mind that some of those squibs in the video appear to be the same squibs shown from different angles.  Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that those puffs of dust are actually explosions that are bringing the building down.  Let's assume that they're doing this even though its clear that no puffs or plumes or squibs started happening until the building had already started falling down, because hey, we don't really care about things that are inconvenient for our thesis.  Let's call all of that "irrelevant."

So, I count 10 puffs of dust, debris and/or smoke in the video.  With your PhD in physics, tell us how likely it is that 10 explosive charges would bring down a 110-story building, but a burning jet airplane crashing into the side would not.  A building, I might add, that is already in fact collapsing before any of those puffs are seen.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 06:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Please explain how the top 15 or 25 floors of a building crush down through the progressively more massive 80-95 floors below, without losing mass themselves until they hit the bottom.  That's the theory of Bazant, the only one who has tried to explain the "collapse."  NIST merely modeled conditions up to the point that "global collapse ensued."  There are many questions about whether collapse would have ensued at all under those  conditions, and whether NIST designed its models to reach the politically correct result, but these questions are rather trivial in comparison to the question of how the building was pulverized so rapdily.
by Ningen on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 06:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is absurd.  What you are saying is that it is "impossible" for the buildings to have collapsed the way they did.  If THAT were true, it wouldn't matter what means had been used to knock them down -- it could have been explosives or airplanes or alien space rays.  
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 04:31:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no idea what you are saying.  

The buildings did not "collapse."  They were pulverized, rapidly.  

Your reference to "alien space rays" is nonsense.  

by Ningen on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 05:49:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no idea what you are saying.

Yes, that seems quite obvious by now.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 01:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, I'll indulge you once more and ask you to make sense this time.  Explain why it doesn't matter how the buildings were brought down.  
by Ningen on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 04:29:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Please explain how the top 15 or 25 floors of a building crush down through the progressively more massive 80-95 floors below, without losing mass themselves until they hit the bottom.

Huh!? So you believe the official version is that the top crashes through the rest while the rest somehow remains level? The already crushed floors add to the mass moving down and hitting lower floors.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 05:45:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo, the only paper purporting to explain the progressive collapse is by Bazant and Zhou.  Yes, they say the upper part crushed down.  You might want to read the paper.

www.civil.northwestern.edu/ people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

Look at the top of page 19 "crush down phase" and "crush up phase."

Yes, they show the top crushing down through the bottom part, destroying it completely.  Perhaps I could have phrased that better.

How is it that the "already crushed floors add to the mass moving down and hitting lower floors"?  What is creating the "already crushed floors"?   Why isn't the kinetic energy going into the upper block to crush it, arresting the process?  How does this relatively weak upper block remain intact as it pulverizes the progressively stronger lower floors.  Don't tell me it's because the block fell - when it hits a floor, the impact energy is also transferred upward.

This is the "avalanche" theory I often hear. It is nonsense.  What is crushing the floors?

by Ningen on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 05:45:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your link is broken.

Why isn't the kinetic energy going into the upper block to crush it, arresting the process? ... Don't tell me it's because the block fell - when it hits a floor, the impact energy is also transferred upward.

By that logiv, we should expect <symmetric crushing of floors both upwards and downwards of the original structural failure, with the top uncrushed floors moving at a faster and the crushed floors at a slower speed downwards, both accelerating, and certainly no arresting of the process. What would then arrest the process would be a floor that could absorb all the energy and momentum of the floors upwards...

Since I can't access the link, I don't know what exactly the authors claim as sequence of floors crushing.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 02:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Ningen on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 04:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"the top uncrushed floors moving at a faster and the crushed floors at a slower speed downwards,"

The top uncrushed floors would lose mass and not momentum as they were crushed.  The videos show the upper block gone early in the process.

I'm finished here.  If you want to keep believing this lie, that's your prerogative.  Anyone watching that video without any preconceptions would see that explosives or some other device was used to pulverize the buildings.  

by Ningen on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 04:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where does the lost mass go? The upper floors keep their mass but transfer momentum to the lower floors in the crushing process.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 04:47:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Air pressure. Creating hurricane-force winds.

Matt Komorowski: "The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy."
Stone Phillips: "Like a gust of wind, behind you."
Matt Komorowski: "Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel."

http://www.acfd.com/miracle_of_ladder_company_6.htm


BILL BUTLER, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: We took two steps down from the fourth floor and the building started to shake.

SALVATORE D'AGOSTINO, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: You could hear the floors pancaking one on top of the other, huge explosions.

LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.

MIKE MELDRUM, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: I was flown down a flight of stairs, a little groggy for a while. I noticed somebody on a half landing just up from me, a few stairs and I thought it was one of our guys and it was David Lim.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/07/pitn.00.html  

If you look more closely at the videos, you'll also see that these squibs on WTC1+2 (1) are only in a few places, (2) last long, (3) get stronger as the top of the collapse is nearing. (Meanwhile, the WTC7 'squibs' claimed on some photos and wideo stills are actually damaged windows, as can clearly be seen if you look at images from other angles.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 05:56:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm agnostic on this one, but I believe the prevailing explanation for lack of bang-bang sound effects is multiple thermite fires simultaneously ignited...  I'm not really keeping up with the neverending wrangle over the 911 evidence;  we know the official story is a lie because all official stories are lies (by active fabrication, omission, coverup, etc) and every time the Bush regime's lips are moving it is lying.  what we don't know is what the actual story is that they are lying about, or how wildly their narrative diverges from the actual story -- in small details only, or in its entirety?

it all seems like a sideshow in face of CO2 buildup and oilfield decline and so on...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 06:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah yes, they'd have to come up with something to explain it.  So what better than a controlled demolition using a substance that has never been used to actually knock down a building before, and that would require technology that doesn't exist to force the thermite to burn sideways, against gravity, instead of straight down.  And that would require literally tons of thermite covertly smuggled into the building and attached to the beams using this magic technology that doesn't exist.

Time for a fun video:

It works really well going down.  Now perhaps someone can explain how one could make it burn sideways.

I think my head is going to explode like thermite if I spend another second in this diary.

You are right, in that there are far better things to spend my time on than rehashing this stuff.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 07:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the French bashing!

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 07:07:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hang on -- this thread is getting a heated without bashing accusations thown in.  To be fair, stormy's point was the thermite and she found video showing how it works.  

Also, it seems to me that this isn't French bashing so much as French car bashing.  I know it's a stereotype, but is it a really sensitive topic?  I'm honestly asking because it seems to me to be relatively harmless and, if I was watching a French show, I wouldn't be surprised to see them mock and blow up a plate of British cuisine or an American TV executive -- am I totally off base or missing something?

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 08:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The comparison doesn't work: in the case of British cuisine or American TV executive, it would be justified...;-)

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 08:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you must admit that using thermite is not the best way if you want to avoid a heated thread...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 08:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's get into a bit of American cars bashing, courtesy Bush's limo stopping dead in Rome's streets :


(you may want to jump to around 05:00 into the clip)

At least, that does get the Italians laughing.

by balbuz on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 08:45:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It wasn't 6.6 seconds. The 6.6 second claim comes from Steve Jones examining one single video with partially obscured view: we only see the fall of the top 14 floors on one side... The full collapse, including the internal collapse, the collapse of most of the building, and the collapse of the north wall, took 18 seconds according to seismographs. Download this video, which shows collapse visible outside lasting at least 13 seconds.

What's the point about fires that burned for 3 months, except for explaining the molten metal? What is strange about multiple explosions in a building on fire and full of kerosene?

The rest was addressed up- or downthread.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 06:40:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not WTC7, but there is a free-fall claim about the main towers, too...



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 06:49:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A point to be raised in connection with this photo:  If the building were really collapsing at "free-fall speed," all of that debris that you can see in this picture would not be falling so much faster than the building itself.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 09:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A point for those who can't spot the obvious :-) I note that that part that appears to have falled deepest appears to be the one impacting the side of WTC7 (which caused a multiple-dozen-stories collapse between two columns on the side facing the big towers, see second video I embedded upthread).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 09:21:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
appears to have falled deepest

fallen.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 09:22:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmmm, how can I say this without insulting anybody?    (Not you, btw.)

I think perhaps we might not want to rely on everyone being able to spot the obvious.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 09:48:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I read an interesting post on Kos a long long time ago that suggested that there were sufficient (admittedly tenuous) connections between Abramoff and Atta to suggest that this embarrasment was the reason for the lack of rigour in the 9-11 investigation.

The join the dots between the missing links being that some Saudis were helping to fund Bush's campaign, evading US electoral laws by sending cash to Abramoff using Atta as a convenient bagman.

The diarist offered little proof as I remember, but managed to put up enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that this mundane political inconvenience was why they hindered the inquiry. Naughty, but not exactly sinister.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 01:03:15 PM EST
If I am not mistaken, that 'connection' is that Atta & co visited one ship belonging to Abramoff's gambling empire. A perfect demonstration of how paranoid logic deals with evidence. First, the conspiracy theorist notes that the fundies visited an Abramoff gambling ship -- not normal! Then, they note how Atta & co also met in Vegas -- doubly suspicious! Except no Abramoff connection in Vegas, and just the Vegas trip makes the first trip less out of line.

Furthermore, had they checked out what is known of the hijackers' last weeks (and not all of it comes from the authorities -- I for example read a long article in German magazine Der Spiegel, whose reporters went around doing their own research, asking eyewitnesses, and from what I quote incidents from memory), they'd knew of two patterns:

  1. the hijackers tried to avoid a religious appearance in many ways, not always with success. One humorous incident was a meeting in a hotel, I think in Florida, where there have been paintings of lightly clad women on the walls. Once the cleaning lady came in, and saw that these have been draped in sheets. She asked if there is a religious problem in which case she can take them down, but Atta & co said no, Shehhi gently guided her outside, and the next morning, she saw the bedsheets gone in the men's room.

  2. Before the final action, all the participants apparently had to 'seek out immorality face-to-face', obviously to 'see America for what it is' before they attack. Another group, I think also involving Shehhi, visited a striptease bar maybe in Atlantic City, and IIRC had to be led out after insulting people.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 09:46:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My last (ever) comment on 9/11 conspiracies:

The key point about all those who seek a secret reason for things is that no matter how extensive the evidence the other way they refuse to accept it. Such beliefs become akin to a religion in the hold on the intellect.

There were numerous investigations by panels of civil engineers and other experts on the collapse of the buildings. These involved hundreds of people at different institutions, some working together and some independently. They have explained everything in detail and their findings are now used when designing new buildings to make them more disaster proof. To think that all these people could be "in on it" is absurd.

Such mindless discussion is why the dailykos won't even permit the topic to be raised anymore.

There are real conspiracies out there, and most aren't even hidden from view. Why not spend an equal amount of time tracing the influence of the Saudi royal family on US and UK policies and their personal relationships with leaders in both countries?

Why not explore the way the political process has been subverted by placing political hacks in key policy positions the way Josh Marshall has done at the Talking Points Memo blog site?

This kind of real research can lead to meaningful change. Chasing ghosts serves no purpose except keeping the paranoid busy.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 02:25:36 PM EST
no matter how extensive the evidence the other way they refuse to accept it.

I assume you are refering to the official version with that statement, since scientific analysis done independently (that is, without links to the Bush administration) has shown that the official theory is inadequate.

Do you have any links to back up your statements?

In this diary post I provided links, examples, analysis and evidence. You haven't provided any. Saying a topic is "off limits" for discussion doesn't mean it's an invalid topic, just that you perhaps feel uncomfortable considering it. If, as you claim, there are so many available professional sources, you should be apt to provide them, and explain how they refute my above points (as I was not discussing uniquely building construction above).

This kind of real research can lead to meaningful change. Chasing ghosts serves no purpose except keeping the paranoid busy.

Exactly. This is the entire false paradigm of the so-called "War on Terror."

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 04:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"There were numerous investigations by panels of civil engineers and other experts on the collapse of the buildings. These involved hundreds of people at different institutions, some working together and some independently. They have explained everything in detail and their findings are now used when designing new buildings to make them more disaster proof. To think that all these people could be 'in on it' is absurd."

This is not true.  There are NIST, FEMA, MIT and Northwestern's Bazant.  Only Bazant has posited a theory for the "progressive collapse" and it is a sick joke.  Bazant's "crush down, crush up" theory  basically says that the less massive top of the building acted as a hammer crushing down through the progressively much more massive floors below, without being damaged itself until it hit the pile of debris below which now magically becomes able to crush up the upper part that hammered down.  Not only is this absurd on its face, it is contradicted by the videos showing the upper part of the buildings disappearing early in the pulverization process of each.

The engineering community is resisting incorporation of NIST's findings into building codes, particularly the "progressive collapse."  The argument they make is that this is a one-time event, and a terrorist act should not be the reason for very expensive changes.  

Yes, the engineering community is "in on it," and I don't just mean the frauds like Bazant.  Silence is complicity.

by Ningen on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 05:59:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and I have in fact stopped arguing with retarded dolts who insist the "official" 911 story is true and complete.  I do not buy the weird theories but think that many of these were advanced to strain credibility of the entire movement.

One thing is for sure, the Nazification of America started on Sept 11, 2001, at the request of an organization called PNAC.

by Lasthorseman on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:19:35 PM EST
I doubt if a single person in this community (well, maybe one exception) who thinks the official story is true and complete. However, "retarded dolts" is unnecessary and inflammatory. Avoid, please?

God, what fun this all is.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well that's interesting because the other day I got a comment along the lines of "I've seen no evidence of a wider conspiracy" from someone of notoreity on this blog, and yet there is so much evidence that I felt I'd just do a series of diaries on it to make sure everyone was aware of the issues and ideas.
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:43:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Between that and believing the official story is true and complete there's surely a fair margin?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the main issue is the logical fallacy that takes a person from "wow, there are a few things here that don't make sense" to "it's obvious that the entire thing was an elaborate fabrication carried out by the government."  That's not just going straight from A to X, skipping letters B through W, it's going from straight from A to an entirely different alphabet in another language.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am cautiously welcoming your diary, because you kept a reasoned tone and are making points that I can follow so far.

But a cover up of incompetence is not quite the same thing as a wide conspiracy, as far as I'm concerned.

In any case, the real scandal, when the dust settles, will always be how this administration cynically embraced revenge and fearmongering and took advantage of this event to wage war on the rule of law and democracy worldwide.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 06:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I find the demolition theory completely implausible. It's not only damaging because it's clearly wrong, for the reasons TSP has given, among others, but it also distracts from more basic questions about the lack of fighter cover, and the fact that a planned anti-terrorist exercise happened that day - which by an interesting coincidence, also happened in London on 7/7.

But even that's circumstantial. What's harder to argue with is the fact that since 9/11 Bush has shown a reliable pattern of sacrificing life for personal profit and political expediency in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has used 9/11 over and over, to the point where it's pretty much the only thing he ever mentions in most of his speeches.

Since there's no evidence that the Bush administration is anything other than manipulative, violent and consistently dishonest in everything it does, the best argument for a conspiracy isn't a few puffs of smoke in a video, but a wider signature pattern of abusive and psychotic leadership.

Looking back at everything that has happened since - all of the lies, the smoke screens, the confusion, the media manipulation and the calculated inconsistency - the staging of 9/11 as a media event makes perfect sense. Just as the Iraq war was staged as a media event, and the (token) hunt for Bin Laden was staged. The only anomalous thing about 9/11 is that it happened on US soil, which makes it more shocking.

But that doesn't - of course - make it inherently more or less likely.

When I look at Bush I see a man who played guitar while New Orleans drowned and staged a 'mission accomplished' photo op at the start of a war that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions, and who is good friends with the family of the man who was supposed to be the chief instigator, and has business contacts with companies who have profited to the tune of billions as a result of what happened.

None of this is in any way reassuring - especially not the fact that it's been photo-ops and media spin all the way, and 9/11 easily counted as the biggest photo op of all for Bush.

Given that we know that the neocons are genuinely, shriekingly, hootingly James Bond bad-guy insane, and actually seem to enjoy waging wars and killing people, a couple of buildings and a few thousand casualties seem like a small price to pay for the political and military capital that 9/11 offered up to Bush.

The flip side of that is that if someone wants to use the incompetence defence, I'd like to know how a President who has been so consistently useless otherwise could turn 9/11 into political momentum quite so successfully.

I sympathise with the idea that a conspiracy is impossible, because the alternative is to admit that Bush may be psychotic.

But we already have Iraq and countless foreign policy fuck-ups to prove that. It's not even a serious question any more - the man either really is batshit insane, or at best, completely politically amoral. Most of his friends seem to be the same - so I don't see any outrageous stretching of the truth there. If he's not over the line he's pretty damn close to it, and it's not nearly as big a step to imagine him crossing it as it should be.

So at this late stage, puffs of smoke are irrelevant. If you're looking for evidence look at the bigger picture.

I find that bigger view much more persuasive - together with a few extra grace notes, like the anonymous anthrax attacks - than the specific details of what fell down when more than six years ago.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 07:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great comment, TBG.  I'd also argue that looking at the bigger picture also argues against the controlled demolition theory, at least in my view.  I was appalled the day it happened and Bush finally did his little warmongering speech -- it was so clearly... just wrong.  It was like seeing someone's greed laid bare -- he flat out showed they were going to use the tragedy.  However, if it were planned, I would've expected them to be much more orchestrated about the whole thing and have a more concerted spin plan.  Not that the administration is subtle, but they at least try to spin things.  On the day itself, the air of bumbling chaos was palpable, imo, and the reaction too raw and revealing.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 08:40:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
http://www.ae911truth.org/

A growing list of professionals who are brave enough to support the rather obvious conclusion that the three WTC buildings were brought down with the help of controlled demolition techniques.

Yes the lack of fighters is suspect. Yet another piece of evidence to add to the weight of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

BTW, I think George W. Bush was only told the full details after the event was over. His job was to sit in the chair and read the goat book until he was told to move. The secret service did not even move him from his know location.

by Free Truth on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 11:13:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with the indirect argument that staging of 9/11 as a media event makes perfect sense. However, I think another indirect argument closes out this, too.

9/11 forced a shift of focus on the admin.

I do remember clearly what the neocons' obsessions were prior to 9/11: Great Powers struggle with China and Russia, chiefly via missile defense, and using 'rogue states' as cover. This was all the talk back in summer 2001. Terrorism was off the agenda. They were forced to ditch their line by 9/11, and had to smuggle it back through the back door, they even felt the need to practise cooperation especially with Russia.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 05:41:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am cautiously welcoming your diary, because you kept a reasoned tone and are making points that I can follow so far.

When you follow the points that Monsieur le Prof makes, where do they lead you? LIHOP? MIHOP?

incompetence

They got 2 occupations, lots of war profits and with the help of some anthrax the PATRIOT act, etc.

In any case, the real scandal, when the dust settles

...will be getting caught in perpetrating a false flag operation and blaming it on the "Muslims". That is the mother issue. The radical truth.

by Free Truth on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 11:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome, I have a lot of respect for you based on your posts on energy and war at Daily Kos.  I can no longer respond to your posts there because I was banned for engaging in discussion about the pulverization of the Twin Towers in comments.  This, despite having never posted a diary on 9/11 "conspiracy theories" and only occasionally discussing the issue in comments.  Anyway, I'm glad to have the opportunity to converse with you again.

Below is what I wrote yesterday to a listserv for international law, in response to a discussion about the (heinous) views on torture of Phillip Zellikow, director of the 9/11 Commission.  I was prompted to write this when a German person, during a discussion of the law of torture, mentioned that for her 9/11 was a "surreal TV spectacle."

========

9/11 was a surreal TV spectacle for most people throughout the United States and the world.  

Thanks in part to Phillip Zelikow, the events of that day have not been adequately explained, yet are used by him to justify war, torture, and lawlessness.  I think that a group of international lawyers should take a more critical view of the factual premises of their debate on human rights and the "war on terror."

Professor D'Amato points out the problems with Khalid Shaik Mohammed's confession.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/03/true-confessions-tale-of-khalid-shaikh.php

Yet no one seems to question why such a Stalinist show trial might be necessary --- one reasonable conclusion is that it is to cover up what really happened.
Two men are in prison, one in Germany and one in the United States, based on the "testimony" of KSM.  Lawyers should not except such flawed evidence as a premise for discussion human rights and the "war on terror."  

Given the massive flaws in the United States government's explanation for 9/11, including the
failure to explain the rapid pulverization of the twin towers, there is no reason to accept the official explanation of 9/11 as a premise for legal and policy
discussions.

There are professors of law and other fields, including physics and mathematics, that question
the official explanation of 9/11.  This is not the fantasy of "conspiracy theorists," but the
considered opinion of sober, learned people based on a review of the facts.  

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

The law professors begin with "Horst Ehmke," about half way down the page. Also included are Richard Falk
and Burns Weston.

I hope that lawyers on this list will consider this problem.  

by Ningen on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 12:01:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is not the fantasy of "conspiracy theorists," but the
considered opinion of sober, learned people based on a review of the facts.  

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

The problem I found with this and other lists of supposed authority persons is that almost none of them are construction, fire, aircraft or security experts. Instead, theologicians, biologists, economists, lawyers (why do you think lawyers are qualified on matters other than testimony from torture?). And the few real experts seem to have a much more limited focus for criticisms than the general the-government-did-it conspiracy theorists. (And examples of actually uncovered cover-up I read are of this limited kind, for example the inconsistencies in the air controllers' timeline, that covered up a chaos when different air control centers isssued different warnings which led to doublings and many false reports of aircraft hijacks, thus the controllers hunted a lot of phantoms.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 10:50:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem I found with this and other lists of supposed authority persons is that almost none of them are construction, fire, aircraft or security experts.

Isn't that a rather condescending way to make your point? And moreover a point that isn't even relevant, because people from all fields are questioning the official version in its many details, including firefighters, engineers, pilots, military, and yes, even some theologians. I'll provide links to all that in a future diary if it please.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 12:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What exactly would you expect a theologian to know about how buildings collapse?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 12:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's the Samson thing. Oh and the tower of babel. That might be relevant.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 12:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well unless they were equipped with a strangely dressed marching band you wouldn't expect a lot.

seriously though, I get to encounter quite a few clerics through my work, and when I was in college was a student alongside a priest in training who was a former shipbuilder and central committee member of the communist party of Great Britain. another friend of mine  had one aim in Life, and that was to be an army chaplain, and was working his way up the army ranks to further this aim, so just because someone is a priest of one stripe or another, dosn't mean that they weren't an expert in the destruction of buildings in a former life.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 01:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course not, but being a theologian or a cleric is not what makes them an expert in that.

I mean sure, maybe I used to be an excellent cardiologist before I got sick of it and gave up medicine to become an exotic dancer, but that doesn't mean that you should ask any old stripper to do your open-heart surgery.

NB:  I'm not really a cardiologist.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 02:50:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
so what were you before you became a stripper then ? ;-)

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 05:38:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Astronaut.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 04:33:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
it was the bouncy shoes wasn't it

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 09:02:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"What exactly would you expect a theologian to know about how buildings collapse?"

The same thing I would expect anyone with a lick of common sense to know from watching those videos -- gravity was not the force that pulverized those buildings.  What you are saying is so ridiculous -- it's like you're saying the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth.  It's nonsense, and your only arguments are that the proper authorities have not spoken and far too much explosives would have been necessary, so it must have been gravity.      

by Ningen on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 06:20:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, no, gravity and airplanes did it.  You're not paying attention.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 04:50:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wrong.  NIST says that part of the reason the floors where the planes supposedly hit gave way because planes cut some external and core columns.  However, the main effect of the plane, according to NIST, is that they knocked off fireproofing and allowed the fires to have more effect on the steel, which resulting in initiation of collapse.

What I am talking about is after "global collapse ensued," the gravity part.

Even assuming a sudden and symmetrical drop over 1-3 floors, the kinetic energy of impact would have transferred up as well as down.  Bazant and Zhou's theory of crush up/cursh down is nonsense.

by Ningen on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 05:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Read this and this.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 01:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Blanchard's report is irrelevant -- he basically says it doesn't look like a standard controlled demolition. He also cites undisclosed evidence and asks us to take his word.  

Greening correctly assumes that energy is transmitted upward into the 15 story block.  How could Bazant not do that?  Greening concludes that a self-sustaining collapse is possible, like you say.  I can't refute that now but Gordon Ross claims he has. I will respond later to the extent I can. Greening doesn't say how long the collapse would take.  He begins with an unrealistic assumption that a 15-story block free-fell symmetrically over 3 meters.  

by Ningen on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 04:51:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way, when you say "planes," are you talking about the faked video planes?

My argument above assumes they hit, but they didn't.  

Aluminum planes don't melt into steel buildings with no apparent resistance.  

The videos are broadcast on 9/11 are obvious fakes.

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

by Ningen on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 06:03:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you post a link to a list of a large number of scholars, that's argument from authority, so my point is relevant. It is a valid argument to state the authority of a specific person making a specific claim. To claim that 9-11 conspiracy claims in general have validity by referring to lists of lots of people with grades is not right.

I note while I only glanced through your link, I once went through the entire list of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and found only half a dozen real experts of the relevant fields, and even they weren't fully relevant (say, a structural engineer actually working on testing tooth fillings and enamel).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 04:44:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are enough physicists and mathemeticians in the list.

You don't need to be a scientist to know that the "progressive collapse" due to airplane impacts, fire, and gravity is an outrageous fraud.  This is high school physics and common sense.  I talked about Bazant's "crush down, crush up" theory in a comment above.  

by Ningen on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 06:07:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You don't need to be a scientist to know that the "progressive collapse" due to airplane impacts, fire, and gravity is an outrageous fraud.

Because you say so? No, I think you have to be a construction engineer or demolition expert, and one specialising in high-rises, to speak with authority.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 04:35:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo, how sad that you can't consider what I'm saying on the merits, applying some common sense and high school physics.  I'm not asking you to let me build the building.
by Ningen on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 06:06:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo, you talk about expertise.  Do you apply the same skepticism to the "terrorism experts" on television?  Do you think that FEMA or MIT are objective scientific bodies?  

The list is of learned people.  Whatever their field, they know how to evaluate facts and make inferences.  They are willing to say that, for various reasons, the official story does not make sense.  

by Ningen on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 06:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't watch "terrorism experts" on TV and yes, I apply the same scepticism, and anyway, your question tells of binary thinking. And I am a learned person too, such argument from authority is truly weak.

This binary thinking really bugs me. There is no "the official version" and there is no single sceptical version. Claims from official sources have changed in the past, see example of air control timeline. Critics of the 9/11 Commission vary greatly in what they criticise and what they accept from others' criticisms (see for example the where are the wings controversy, where some 9/11 truthies think this all is Rumsfeld's spin to discredit truthseekers). In turn there are private debunkers who analyse conspiracy claims on their own, and 9/11 truthies in turn establish different counter-hypotheses.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 04:51:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The buildings were pulverized in less than 15 seconds.  Just think about that.  Good bye.
by Ningen on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 06:10:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
WTC-7 had a mass of about 250,000 tons and 174 m high. That's a potential energy of 21,750 gigajoule. That's the energy of a 5 kiloton nuclear bomb.

You would need incredible amounts of building collapse explosives to match that.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 01:58:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Correction: just 213 gigajoule, c. 50 tons TNT. (Unless I miscalculated again.) Still a big amount.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 15th, 2007 at 02:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So the building was massive and would take a huge amount of energy to destroy.  We agree on that.
by Ningen on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 04:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's the amount of energy released in the collapse, and it may or may not be enough to explain the observed pyroclastic flow. The [entirely different] question is how much energy is needed to weaken it structurally so it collapses.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 18th, 2007 at 05:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem I found with this and other lists of supposed authority persons is that almost none of them are construction, fire, aircraft or security experts

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
http://www.ae911truth.org/

The Sept. 11 Records
A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.h tml

Pilots for 9/11 Truth
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

100+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

by Free Truth on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 08:24:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This comment is to indicate that I'm still looking at your links. While the other three are only slightly relevant, and the comment about general vs. specific I made to le Prof applies. But the architects & engineers seems very much relevant, I am checking it (but their endorsement of Steven Jones's claims about WTC-7 don't foretell anything good).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 07:26:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The gap is really the void between the evidence and any willingness to accept the evidence.  After several years of involvement in 911 truth like Cindy Sheehan I too have given up.  This may explain my hasty and belligerent "retarded dolts" comment.

I have fully accepted the idea that the highest eschelons of various US government agencies were involved in the planning, execution and subsequent coverup of the events of 911.

by Lasthorseman on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 06:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Earlier, robert.feinman posted this comment:

"Please not another conspiracy posting about 9/11.

It is not necessary to postulate a conspiracy when simple incompetence and ideological blindness serve so well. Was Katrina a conspiracy? Was the handling of Iraq and Afghanistan a conspiracy? How about the vaccines needed for the yearly flu prevention effort?

Just go away..."

I think, Robert raises a very important point, when using "simple incompetence" and "ideological blindness" as the main force that drives the US Administration. I'll give you my own take on that in a minute.

1.

But first, let me respond to his plea "Please not another conspiracy posting about 9/11".

Look, if you accept "The Official Story (TM)", you're also accepting a conspiracy theory. Just a different one. Your theory then, in essence is this:

...once upon a time there were 19 muslims who were clever as hell and took part in a conspiracy lead by a man from far away in his hideout inside an Afghan cave...

...who were able to pick that single date in the year when NORAD and other state agencies were busy running a series of military and anti-terrorism drills (so that this would lead to a confusion for the real attack),

...who then armed themselves with boxcutters,

...who were then able to undercut airport security in different airports,

...who entered 4 different flights without leaving a trace on the official passenger lists,

...who wrestled down 4 different flight crews (which included some well-trained ex-GIs and ex-Marines),

...who outsmarted the most sophisticated aerial defense system of the world for 2 hours (which was unable to locate the hijacked aircraft and scramble fighters towards them),

...who fooled the FAA air traffic controllers for nearly 2 hours,

...and who finally successfully concluded 75% of their attacks by piloting 3 airliners fullspeed into their targets (where they even had to pull off some of the most stunning near-aerobatic flight maneuvers which were ever flown with civilian airliners).

And I'm not even talking about how Allah must have helped them to invalidate some of the most basic laws of physics for that day and place: bringing down a quarter of a mile high tower, one of the most solid high-rise steel structures ever erected, in a mere ~11 seconds [that is very close to free-fall speed, ya know?] without the help of explosives, just based on 58 minutes of fires in 5-15 different floors, plus a third one [WTC7, one eighth of a mile high] that was never hit by a plane! -- all that is really, really a miracle.

If it is clever and smart to believe that conspiracy theory, I cowardly prefer to be a retard and not believe it.

Hey, guys: I'm even proud of being one of these "retards" who doesn't believe that Bush version of a conspiracy story. But then, I was one of the retards that never believed the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD) theory either. Or that Mr. Bush and his crownies are all honest guys who don't steal elections.

But before you now start to worship my consistency of being a sceptic: I've to admit, that for 4 years I did believe the official conspiracy theory ("Bin Laden sitting in an Afghan cave sent out 19 hijackers and commandeered them to pull off 9/11 because they all hate American liberty"), and I never did look closely at any details of the story before someone showed my "Loose Change, 2nd Edition".

2.

Now for your unfortunate theory "it is impossible the Bush administration could REALLY pull off something like this!"...

So you are seriously pulling off the argument that Bush and his cronies are just a bunch of incompetent mediocre dumbasses?

And that is enough evidence that their 9/11 story is in essence true??

Bush & Co. incompetent -- but allegedly 19 Muslim fanatics and coke-heads, equipped with box-cutters, directed by a kidney patient from a cave in Afghanistan were competent enough to outsmart the most sophisticated air defense system in the world??.

Gimme a break.

I think this "incompetency" argument is fundamentally flawed. Whatever G.W.'s personal IQ and abilities -- he has a bunch of experts around him, who up to now succeeded in most of their evil plans and actions against all their (truly more incompetent) opposition. (Which is not saying they will succeed forever -- hopefully not, as can be seen by the rising 9/11 Truth Movement).

What did they plan? What did they do? What did they achieve?

  • They laid down their masterplan for "New American Century" (PNAC) (even in writing) where they put one thing on top of their wishlist: a big "catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor". Which in turn would pave their way to galvanize the American people (including the Democratic Party) into a near-unanimous support for a massive increase in armament spending, "rebuilding America's defenses" and going to war. They succeeded.

  • They wanted to win two presidential elections against all odds. They did. (Yes, by gerrymandering and essentially stealing them from the Democrats -- but that was pretty efficient for their goals).

  • They wanted to invade Afghanistan against all odds, against the UN and against most other countries' governments. They did.

  • They wanted to invade Iraq. They did.

  • They wanted their corporate friends to make billions from both wars. They did.

  • They want to get away with their crimes. They do. So far still.

  • They wanted to take over all the 3 branches of Government. They did.

  • They wanted to control the mass media. They do.

And you call that incompetence, Sir? Yes, I also see incompentence. Quite some if it... (Why did these idiots publish + personally sign the PNAC plan, to begin with? Doesn't that leave obvious traces?) Hey, but even more incompetence is in the camp of their (real or bogus) adversaries: who were unable (so far) to stop them. Who think the height of their resistance against them is making jokes about the incompentence of the Bushites, about the stumbling of Dubya across certain word articulations when it comes to "terr'rism", etc. Are you really proud of this, Robert?

3.

You say "Katrina", Robert? OK -- but do you realize that "looking for the well-being of their people" is just not their priority concern? Don't blame them for inefficiency with Katrina emergency management. They do not have things like that on the front page of their priority list, you see?

It seems to me they're very competent in following their  own  agenda. So far.

Stop throwing sand into your readers' eyes by saying Bush & Co. (and whoever pulls their strings, should they be not in charge themselves) are incompetent... It only can benefit the cause to distract from their agenda.

Thanks for reading.

-----------
4.

"Go away."

I'll not really comment on that one.

by long lasting memory on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 06:45:11 PM EST
...what's going on in Malta!

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 07:51:47 PM EST
The Project for the New Maltese Century....

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 08:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As stated in the diary there are a huge number of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. They very - from provably true to probably provably false.

So what is probably true? Well it appears that one of the presidential daily briefings before 9/11 led to a change in how air travel was done - from civilian to military planes. I can't find it on the net - in the midst of a sea of 9/11 links. Maybe my memory is in error.

The cover up indicates that there is far more than meets the eye. I don't discount a number of possibilities, especially in the camp of knew but did not act. The difference between incompetence and inaction can be very hard to differentiate. That does not mean that I necessarily view them as correct at this point either. I would note that the Katrina hurricane definitely leaves open the door for incompetence.

I like Occam's razor. Simple is better. Also, I can try to put myself in the picture. Ok if I were a terrorist like Bin Laden, what would I do? There are a few scenarios. Maximum damage would indicate a different set of targets. Maximum symbolic damage would be probably very similar to the targets actually hit.

Now if I were a government doing false flag operations what would I do? Well again it would depend. If I wanted extreme hysteria I'd go for a nuke site. Pick some nuke site outside nice blue Democrat city and watch it glow. If I wanted mid range hysteria, in preparation for military attacks on various countries I might go for something like what happened with the following difference. What happened was extreme over kill. The larger the operation the more loose ends and the more risk. One tower, one plane would have done the job just fine.

There are tools that can be created to try to sift through the conspiracies in order to try to understand just how likely they are. That would be a study of other conspiracies. In particular the Who Killed Kennedy list of conspiracies make excellent background reading.

A quick look at an overview of the conspiracy theories can be found at wikipedia

For more detailed views and how they work here is a link to Israel Shamir's Mossad and JFK assassination

I would think that the following might be the two largest conspiracy theories in the US today:

  1. The US government is responsible for 9/11
  2. Sadam Husain was responsible for 9/11

Quite fascinating really. Looks to me like the entire country lives in a fantasyland, agreeing that the media can't be trusted at all. As far as the last bit, trust in the media, at least that seems to me to be well founded.


aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 08:14:49 PM EST
Not the entire country.  It is actually tough to have developed the insight I have after several years of living as a completely convinced MIHOP.  I can't sit on a jury, both parties and their political boards will not talk to me and I even have to shut up when amoung "my fellow Americans".  I have however found it light years easier to bring the subject up with not born in America, Americans.  I have stopped promoting 911 truth for about the same reasons Cindy Sheehan gave up.

One this is for sure.  Spiritually, ethically, and morally living in the US is the equivalent of living in a cesspool.  When one is fed crap all day one has to eliminate all that waste.

by Lasthorseman on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 09:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They say that misery loves company. Maybe those that live in cesspools love company too. Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving council of Europe member states: second report

325. After the rather dark picture conveyed by the attitudes of several European governments, it is
comforting to mention a positive example, that of Canada, which holds observer status with the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

So Canada, after prolonging the torture of a man they were pretty sure was innocent, and after the failure to actually charge people who were indirectly complicit in that torture is now being looked up to as an "example". No, this does not make be proud to be a Canadian. Dark days ahead. Looks like the US is not the only cesspool these days.

aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 10:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes.

What's happening now is far more important than what happened on 9/11.

And what's happening now is that we're seeing a very clear pattern of the erosion of behaviour and morality that used to be considered ethical bedrock in the developed countries - or if you want to be realpolitik about it, was presented as ethical bedrock, even if bad things happened elsewhere.

Governments all over the developed world are trying to imprison their populations within a surveillance network, to steam roller long-standing traditions of justice and legality, and to make political action - including voting - irrelevant to policy.

The English-speaking world has taken a lead on this, but there's clear evidence of complicity from the rest of the EU as well.

Again it doesn't matter if 9/11 was a set-up, because clearly we're just not seeing the levels of terrorist activity that could justify what governments are doing. It's obvious that most so-called terrorism is media spin and outright lies.

Picking random people up off the street and torturing them says far more about the plans of the torturers than it does about the tortured.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 04:55:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One of those "relocation flight centers" was operating in a suburb of Boston, 2004, I think it was.
by Lasthorseman on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 08:42:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The 9-11 governmed did/allowed it conspiracy theory reminds me more of the conservative conspiracy theory that Roosevelt knowingly let Pearl Harbor happen than of JFK or RFK.

What is odd is that Pearl Harbor revisionism seems to be more respectable than 9-11 revisionism in the U.S. media. Could be because the events have passed for a much longer time, of course. But it could also have another reason.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 05:58:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now that you mention it. I first read of Pearl Harbor revisionism in an article in GEO, which gave many details, which sounded not only doubt-raising but definitive. I quoted it a number of times on the web. But the last time I read up seriously on it, I discovered the right-wing connection, and saw that what GEO presented as crystal-clear isn't. I'm currently agnostic on it, shall read the Wiki article and its links...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 09:50:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I think is that Roosevelt may have been steering towards war with the Japanese (I'm agnostic on whether that was on purpose or not), but that letting yourself be attacked by suprise can hardly be part of that plan.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 12:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is sort of getting OT but what I always found curious was 1) the fact that the Japanese code had been intercepted and cracked and 2) the American carriers had all been sent out of port and out of range of Japanese aircraft.

Incompetence theories generally rely on a long string of related coincidences.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 12:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Coincidences happen! Murphy's law, you know...

Wiki has some pretty good prose on it:

Before long, variants had passed into the popular imagination, changing as they went. Generally, the spirit of Murphy's law captures the common tendency to emphasize the negative things that occur in everyday life; in this sense, the law is typically formulated as some variant of "If anything can go wrong, it will," a variant often known as "Finagle's law" or "Sod's law" (chiefly British). Laws such as Murphy's are a direct expression of such seeming perversities in the order of the universe.

Seeming Perversities in the Order of the Universe!

In this case, though, the carriers were not sent out of port for no good reason. (First 'myth' on this page). On 'the' Japanese code, see this.

What is interesting is the ability of debunked theories to live on as uncritically received wisdom 'facts' among certain groups of people. Just as things they heard or read or in any case, were told. This goes down to the level of how people understand and acquire and deal with knowledge. Much of religion can be traced down to the same process.

What is also interesting is that the right wing noise machine in the US has a concerted strategy to keep such received truths alive. Many of them who know 100% for sure that a certain statement is false (like "Al Gore said he invented the internet") still allude to it as if it were true, or blandly assert it, because the metastories or the emotional overtones of the myth serve their political purposes. Some people on the left sometimes do the same, but on the right it is a well-oiled machine that keeps their reality of rhetoric alive, and spreads it in the media.

Of course none of this means that the official storyline has to be true. This knife has two edges. And as the saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you ;-)

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 03:14:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you read the Wiki article, it is obviously in a state of edits and re-edits by the warring sides, so sometimes two sentences of the same paragraph directly contradict each other. But the conclusion I came away with was that most claims have been definitely debunked (be it on the basis of information ignored by the claimant, or correcting an erroneous interpretation), while some have been rendered indefinite, where there are claims and counter-claims or different possible interpretations, where still classified or missing material would be decisive.

As nanne points out, the claim about the carriers belongs in the former category: one of the two carriers was actually on its way home, scheduled to return to base before the attacks, but was delayed by bad weather. On the codes, there is no direct evidence that the code has been broken by them, where conspiracy theorists were also misled by the circumstance that the code is actually a two-level code and the first level was broken earlier. Furthermore, only some of the indirect claims of earlier use of intel from broken code could be true, while there is also counter-evidence (timeline according to an interview with a codebreaker).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 05:09:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I need a little clarification on what the Mineta testimony is supposed to "prove," because it's not clear at all.

The NORAD "stand-down" theory has been debunked quite thoroughly by the tapes and transcripts story in Vanity Fair, which makes quite interesting reading.  The 30 hours of tapes show there was great chaos and confusion and miscommunication at NORAD, and the Vanity Fair piece makes a very credible case that Bush administration officials attempted to cover that up.  Still, this points to incompetence, not to intent.

Re: the "mistaken identity" issue, we can think several things.  First, as someone living in an Arab country, I can tell you that these are all very common names, and there are no doubt quite a few people running around with the same names.  Second, even if we accept for the sake of argument that some of the people who are alleged to have piloted the planes are in fact still alive, we then have essentially two choices:  (1) we can believe that the investigators screwed up the ID, and they don't really know who all the hijackers were, and they don't want to admit that, or (2) we can believe that there were no hijackers (?) and that the whole plane-crash thing was an elaborate hoax by the government, who went to a great deal of trouble make it look like a hijacking so they could kill nearly three thousand people, but then for some reason did not kill the people who were supposed to be flying the planes.

I don't even need Occam's Razor to put my money on #1.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 10:31:04 AM EST
That Vanity Fair article and other on-line material on the subject was discussed in an earlier 9/11 spat here on ET, I will look up a link.

On the mistaken identities, I note further:

  1. Atta & co  have already capitalised on the variing transscriptions of their names in Germany,
  2. we heard frequent stories of US border officials barring someone's entry because their name resembled that of a wanted person,
  3. the mistaken identities story was one I was fascinated by, and last time I did look up the available stories, I recall that what came across was the FBI database mixing up personal details: e.g., in some cases the persons reporting to be alive had the right birth date and name, but not the right photograph, or some other combination.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 10:57:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A friend of mine here has the same first and family names as a very well-known Islamist who is a top official in a certain banned organization.  When my friend has applied for visas to "Western" countries, he makes extra sure that he lists all three of his other names as well in the application, to make it perfectly clear that he is not the famous Islamist leader.

The problem arises frequently, even here.  When a (different) friend had to get credentials for a large conference recently, she had to have them re-issued because they'd put her father's first name instead of her family name on her badge.  Myself, I have trouble filling out official forms here that ask for my fourth name, since I have only three.

For those unaware, Arab names are typically given in this order:  Given name, father's name, (grandfather's name, great-grandfather's name), surname.  The grandfather and great-grandfather names are optional in day-to-day use but are probably listed on your identity card.  The father's name is not always included either; it's used less frequently here than it used to be, but in some countries the father's name is more important and is used instead of the family name.  (Iraq stopped using the family name because Saddam wanted to downplay the extensive number of jobs given to members of his tribe, the Al-Tikriti.)

I've also seen politicians make sure to include their father's and grandfather's names on their election posters, because they want to make sure that the would-be voters know they're the son (or daughter) of so-and-so, who was famous or respected or much better-known than the child.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 11:16:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The old thread is here.  Barely qualifies as a "spat" by today's standards... ;-)
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 11:44:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Logic seems to indicate the NORAD Tapes released through Vanity Fair are fake.

9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify The 9/11 Commission Report?

However, although this explanation has been widely accepted, is it really believable? If our military had been guilty only of confusion and incompetence on 9/11, it would have been strange for its officials, by saying that they had been notified by the FAA earlier than they really had, to open themselves not only to the charge of criminal fraud but also to the suspicion that they had deliberately not intercepted the hijacked airliners. We are being asked to believe, in other words, that Scott, Arnold, and the others, in telling the earlier story, acted in a completely irrational manner--that, while being guilty only of confusion and a little incompetence, they told a lie that could have exposed them with being charged with murder and treason.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2006091418303369

by Free Truth on Tue Jun 12th, 2007 at 09:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Logic seems to indicate the NORAD Tapes released through Vanity Fair are fake.

Could you demonstrate that superior logic?

Do you mean actors learned to imitate traffic controllers (or traffic controllers learned to act) and have recorded dozens of hours of talk in half a dozen air traffic centers to fake a consistent story of incompetence and chaos? The number of people (and people who aren't leaking, unlike in the rather big and rather real Iraq War conspiracy) part of the 9-11 conspiracy grows with every additional claim.

it would have been strange for its officials, by saying that they had been notified by the FAA earlier than they really had, to open themselves not only to the charge of criminal fraud but also to the suspicion that they had deliberately not intercepted the hijacked airliners.

What spectacular 'logic'. For those not bothering to check the link, the claim concerns the scrambling of the second two, Langley planes. The planes that somehow failed to intercept the plane hitting the Pentagon. As we learnt from the tapes, because they have been sent after the phantom of the first plane to hit the WTC (a phantom arising outside NORAD, when due to lack of confirmation of plane loss from American Airlines, a civilian controller believed it still flies and told NORAD so), and because no one told the pilots what's up, the idiots flew out to sea to their usual training ground. Now, 911Truth can't believe that NORAD would want to cover up chasing phantoms by lying about which plane FAA sent them after.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 05:30:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As an American and perhaps a Cindy Sheehan of 911 truth, all American media has zero credibility with me.  Also after having taken business and marketing classes I am now able to see the subliminal advertizing prevalent in daily TV newscasts, advertizing or whatever.  All of these support the concept of fascism in ways which "normal" people would not be aware.

The first most mainstream website illustrating this is.
www.projectcensored.org.

The others are
www.globalresearch.ca
www.augustreview.com

My problem is I'm 51 which makes emmigration damn near impossible, legally that is.  There is that plus older people have a harder time learning a new language.

by Lasthorseman on Wed Jun 13th, 2007 at 07:25:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]