Reason Magazine

Site Search

You Can't Handle the 9/11 Truth!

Brian Doherty | February 1, 2008, 3:16pm

Hit and Run comment heroine Jennifer Abel (just plain Jennifer to us) does what few do: without pre-deciding one way or the other who has to be right and who has to be wrong, she dips into the world of moderate 9/11 Truthers for the Hartford Advocate.

She starts by noting why it might be valuable to take a dispassionate look at the topic:

According to a 2006 Scripps-Howard poll, over a third of Americans believe high-ranking officials either helped commit the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or at least allowed them to happen.

The whole thing is worth reading, but an interesting excerpt that sheds some light on why competent adult professionals get involved in thinking about this stuff:

Michael Neuman is the unfortunate bureaucrat whose name and number grace the contact information of that NIST report [a National Institute of Standards and Technology 2005 report on the metallurgical realities of steel as related to what happened to the buildings on 9/11].

We called and (somewhat apologetically) explained we were doing a story on 9/11 conspiracies.

“We don’t want to get into a debate,” Neuman said. “Certainly people are entitled to their opinion … [but] we’re staying away from debates with these groups.”

We assured him we didn’t belong to “these groups,” though we admitted some of the groups’ members made points we could not refute. We hoped Neuman could. The first thing we mentioned was [former Brigham Young University physicist Steven] Jones’s claims of finding explosive residue in the debris.

“We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of explosives,” Neuman said.

We know, we said (even more apologetically), but what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

“Right, because there was no evidence of that.”

But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

“If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time … and the taxpayers’ money.”

Neuman really didn’t want to talk to us. Depending on your preference, you could interpret that as further proof of a government cover-up, or as a legitimate time-management technique from a bureaucrat who can’t be expected to persuade every single doubter who finds his phone number on the NIST report.

My linking to this story, I will spell out for the evidence-based community, does not say anything about what I know, think, or think I know about controlled demolition or how steel melts or collapses when doused in airplane fuel. Neither have I ever tried to shoot a Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight seconds nor detonated 4800 pounds of ammonium nitrate.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Send this article to:

« New at Reason | Main | More Police Professionalism for Justice… »

Comments to "You Can't Handle the 9/11 Truth!":

some dude | February 1, 2008, 3:38pm | #

Neuman really didn’t want to talk to us. Depending on your preference, you could interpret that as further proof of a government cover-up, or as a legitimate time-management technique from a bureaucrat who can’t be expected to persuade every single doubter who finds his phone number on the NIST report.
Both!

Episiarch | February 1, 2008, 3:41pm | #

I can fire a Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight seconds. How do I know? Because I was the guy on the grassy knoll.

Oh Geez not this again | February 1, 2008, 3:43pm | #

Is this a conspiracy thread?

*gets popcorn

Jamie Kelly | February 1, 2008, 3:46pm | #

I can fire a Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight seconds.

Oh yeah, Episiarch? I scored 721 on "JFK: Reloaded." Got the fucker good, too. Too bad there isn't a rape command in the game, or else I'd have been up in Jacqueline's guts.

Sulla | February 1, 2008, 3:46pm | #

I'm waiting for Forrest Gump II, to see how he helped those nice men from the guvmint carry all those heavy box-ez to the top of the World Trade Center, while waiting to be honored for his role in negotiating the anti-trust settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ.

drawnasunder | February 1, 2008, 3:50pm | #

Conspiracies aside, can we all at least agree that LBJ did, in fact, stick his pecker in JFK's neck wound?

Episiarch | February 1, 2008, 3:50pm | #

Too bad there isn't a rape command in the game, or else I'd have been up in Jacqueline's guts.

The cheat for that is "Patrick Bouvier Kennedy".

notaserf | February 1, 2008, 3:53pm | #

Somehow I haven't seen an article yet confronting people about the visible explosions going off at the side of the buildings while it's collapsing. I would love to read about some official being asked about explosions which are visible on video. It's always this bull about temperature and residue.

de stijl | February 1, 2008, 3:54pm | #

This is already a batshit crazy thread and it's still just the regulars. Wait until this gets linked to at some truther sites.

Dave W. | February 1, 2008, 3:57pm | #

Flight 93 was shot down.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 3:58pm | #

JESUS!!! Why do you waste your time with a "Could the "truther" be right?" piece. They're not right...they're idiots. You want to delve into the science of why they're wrong? Here's a site for you:

http://www.debunking911.com/

This site debunks every major aspect of the "truthers" claims and it actually has peer-reviewed papers to back what they say, unlike the "truthers". Or go dig up that History Channel piece where they completely humiliated the truther "scholars" by illustrating their complete ignorance about explosive demolitions and their overall level of insanity.

"According to a 2006 Scripps-Howard poll, over a third of Americans believe high-ranking officials either helped commit the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or at least allowed them to happen."

No sh!t? Could it possibly be because a third of Americans are morons who like to respond to polls about topics that they have no substantiative knowledge or experience on? Could that possibly be it?

The fact that Reason humors crap like this should be embarassing to any sane libertarian because these 9/11 conspiracy "theories" are completely groundless.

Jamie Kelly | February 1, 2008, 3:59pm | #

I'm waiting for Forrest Gump II

"He's back, he's more fucking retarded than ever, but this time he's running not just for the hell of it, but for his life. In a world without hope, in a collision of civilizations, one low-IQ fuckwit dares to take a ping-pong paddle to the ass of the most potent enemy of our time ..."

TrickyVic | February 1, 2008, 4:00pm | #

I have very little doubt about the twin towers. Number 7 WTC is a different story. The CIA does have a need to conceal. So the concept of them bringing the building down is not as far fetched as bringing down the towers. Larry Sliverstein, the owner of the property, is on video saying they ordered #7 pulled. I'll find the link when I get home. Even if #7 was pulled, that still doesn't mean the towers were part of a conspiracy. If it's true I would think that it was a reaction, not part of a plot.

I know two right-wing liberal haters that recently converted to the conspiracy crowd. My reply was how crazy did you have to be to vote for Bush twice?

Paul | February 1, 2008, 4:03pm | #

Did you guys know that 55% of Americans believe that God created humans in their current form? Schfifty five percent. Schfifty five.

Paul | February 1, 2008, 4:04pm | #

Flight 93 was shot down.

Fifty five percent.

Sugar Jack | February 1, 2008, 4:07pm | #

"Larry Sliverstein, the owner of the property, is on video saying they ordered #7 pulled."

The explanation I read about that was that the firemen were to be pulled from the building because it was collapsing. Debriz from the Twin Towers had left a big gash in the side of the building.

Jamie Kelly | February 1, 2008, 4:07pm | #

Did you guys know that 55% of Americans believe that God created humans in their current form?

If only NASCAR and the UFC had their headquarters in the World Trade Center that fateful day.

Episiarch | February 1, 2008, 4:08pm | #

Paul, Dave only says that because Flight 93 was serving real sugar soda and we all know that Archer Daniels Midland asked the government to shoot it down in retaliation for not serving HFCS soda. Those weren't Al Quaeda highjackers, they were crazed Iowa corn farmers hopped up on pure HFCS.

Robin | February 1, 2008, 4:08pm | #

Perhaps we should be discussing why "Allah hates retards:

BAGHDAD - Remote-controlled explosives strapped to two mentally retarded women detonated in a coordinated attack on Baghdad pet bazaars Friday, Iraqi officials said, killing at least 73 people in the deadliest day since the U.S. sent 30,000 extra troops to the capital last spring.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_080119205348

Paul | February 1, 2008, 4:10pm | #

I thought he said he ordered a #7 from the deli before pulling out. So much lost in translation.

samharvey | February 1, 2008, 4:10pm | #

"is on video saying they ordered #7 pulled."

He ordered the fire-recuse teams "pulled". If he actually blow it up and somehow slipped up in this interview, why would you say you "pulled" a building down with explosives?

Andy | February 1, 2008, 4:10pm | #

"According to a 2006 Scripps-Howard poll, over a third of Americans believe high-ranking officials either helped commit the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or at least allowed them to happen."

So the lowest quartile thinks this? No big surprise.

Matt J | February 1, 2008, 4:11pm | #

Conspiracy you say? I've heard nothing of this.

What did the Jews do this time?

Matt L | February 1, 2008, 4:13pm | #

TrickyVic,

Structural engineers have looked at the collapse of WTC 7 and concluded that damage from falling debris from WTC 1 and 2 and uncontrolled fires were the likely cause of the collapse of WTC 7.

STRUCTURE Magazine - November 2007

Nephilium | February 1, 2008, 4:14pm | #

That's because 25% of people are retarded.

Nephilium

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 4:15pm | #

My linking to this story, I will spell out for the evidence-based community, does not say anything about what I know, think, or think I know about controlled demolition or how steel melts or collapses when doused in airplane fuel.

Funny.

No sh!t? Could it possibly be because a third of Americans are morons who like to respond to polls about topics that they have no substantiative knowledge or experience on? Could that possibly be it?

Given the number of people who seem enthused about Obama, I'd say it's a hell of a lot more than 1/3, speaking of no substantive knowledge or experience, and adding in a bit of no substantive statements about anything.

Mark | February 1, 2008, 4:15pm | #

"I know two right-wing liberal haters"

I hate right-wing leberals too, which is why I will never vote fo John McCain.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 4:16pm | #

"If only NASCAR and the UFC had their headquarters in the World Trade Center that fateful day."

If only the Twin Towers had been filled with "truthers" instead of real people...I can't imagine that the country would have been willing to go to war in Iraq over 3,000 abrasive jackasses who can't stay on their meds.

Where are Penn & Teller to rip on Reason for furthering this crap?

Gilbert Martin | February 1, 2008, 4:17pm | #

This is nowhere near as interesting as the "Why Russian women are hot" thread.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 4:20pm | #

Other Matt,

"Given the number of people who seem enthused about Obama, I'd say it's a hell of a lot more than 1/3, speaking of no substantive knowledge or experience, and adding in a bit of no substantive statements about anything."

I hear you there. I'm also thinking that more than a third of the country thought at the time that "Pretty Woman" was one of the best films ever made.

Honestly, it's like Jennifer Abel never heard of argumentum ad numerum.

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 4:21pm | #

Hat tip to Crawford, thanks for the link. This was particularly interesting, to someone with an engineering background.

jackanapestarian | February 1, 2008, 4:23pm | #

If you spell-check Truthers the suggested alternate is Struthers.
Coincidence?

adrian | February 1, 2008, 4:24pm | #

i don't think the government played an active role in anyway but man what a great false flag operation it would have been (or was).

adrian | February 1, 2008, 4:24pm | #

any way

Warty | February 1, 2008, 4:26pm | #

"If only NASCAR and the UFC had their headquarters in the World Trade Center that fateful day.

Surely you mean the WWE. UFC is totally sweet, bro.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 4:27pm | #

Other Matt,

By all mean, feel free to spread that link far and wide. Whenever I run into "truthers" I don't even bother discussing their stupidity with them anymore, I just throw that link at them until they go away. None of them has ever been able to bring up any real evidence to dispute it.

The guy who runs that page, by the way, is a liberal who probably hates Bush more than any of the "truthers" but at least his reasons are grounded in reality.

not a truther | February 1, 2008, 4:28pm | #

I do not subscribe to 911 conspiracy theories. I do however, completely blame the US government for their existence. every time there is any event whatsoever the administration and the DOD suddenly classify everything and become so damn secretive in an attempt to hide their own incompetence; it's no wonder these nuts believe these theories.

J sub D, off my meds | February 1, 2008, 4:29pm | #

You people have got your heads in the sand! The Shadow Governments and CONSPIRACIES control our daIly lives and Foreighn Affairs to an extent that you fools are too deluded to realize! Their aim has always been the same, ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!!! Fortunately there are a few of us who have removed the BLINDERS from our eyes, and recocognize the DANGER to Freedom and our NATIONAL SOVREIGNITY!

Wake up People! ARMAGERDON, THE APOCALYPSE, is at hand!!
You can join the valiant efforts to wrest back control of our lives, but first you must KNOW THE ENEMY!!!
Our enemies are -
International Jewry
Freemasons
The Trilateral Commission
The Council of Foreign Relations
The World Council of Churches

CFisher | February 1, 2008, 4:29pm | #

You will forgive me, I trust, if I say that I have a very hard time believing that the idiots in charge could pull off a 9.11 conspiracy.

If they could do that, there's no reason why they couldn't plant some WMDs or nuclear material in the middle of Iraq and surprise us all with Saddam's secret stockpiles.

TrickyVic | February 1, 2008, 4:29pm | #

"""The explanation I read about that was that the firemen were to be pulled from the building because it was collapsing. Debriz from the Twin Towers had left a big gash in the side of the building."""

I saw that at the link that UCrawford posted. Well they offered conflicting information. At first they say the building was pulled down, as in hooking up cables and bringing the rest of the building down for saftey reasons. A few inches down the page they change it to pulling the FDNY out of the building.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 4:30pm | #

notatruther,

"I do not subscribe to 911 conspiracy theories. I do however, completely blame the US government for their existence. every time there is any event whatsoever the administration and the DOD suddenly classify everything and become so damn secretive in an attempt to hide their own incompetence; it's no wonder these nuts believe these theories."

Agreed.

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 4:30pm | #

Honestly, it's like Jennifer Abel never heard of argumentum ad numerum.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I understand the latin, it's not that, I'm just not grasping what your point is (long day today).

I just throw that link at them until they go away. None of them has ever been able to bring up any real evidence to dispute it.

Probably it's the technical calculations. It's much easier to believe something simple and devious.

J Sub-Don't mess with the Freemasons, we still need to find their treasure.

J sub D, off my meds | February 1, 2008, 4:32pm | #

The conspiracy has even reached Hit and Run. The website tried (Please limit the number of links in your comment to five or fewer. Hah! I'm on to you, Nick Gillespie!!!) to prevent me from posting this link, but I have fooled them.

A SUMMARY of the threats we all face is HERE!!

BlueBook | February 1, 2008, 4:32pm | #

The towers are still there. The whole planes operation was just a (literal) smokescreen to cover the activation of the cloaking devices. And all that work at the site now? That's the visible part of the construction of the rocket ships inside the towers that will be used to evacuate the wealthy elite to the moon colonies when Armageddon hits in 2012. It's all quite obvious, really.

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 4:33pm | #

"I do not subscribe to 911 conspiracy theories....

The problem is that the govt really is out to get us, they just don't operate in that way. The govt responds to big things by taking away individual liberty ("Patriot" act). They'll react to one, but not create it. In the absence of one, they'll rely on smaller things, and take away personal liberties (the "fatty" thread, any Democratically controlled state's gun laws, etc). So, people probably feel that, and it allows them to believe silliness more readily.

Brian Courts | February 1, 2008, 4:35pm | #

Ugh, I hesitate to even wade into this stuff... First, as others comments have noted, the truthers silly claims have been thoroughly debunked. But aside from that, there's another angle that ought to be mentioned. Simple logic is all anyone needs (and what apparently far too many lack) to realize that there is no way this was some government orchestrated inside job. Ask yourself why the same government that could pull of the amazingly complex, technically demanding and logistically intricate conspiracy right under the noses of literally millions of witnesses while leaving nothing but a few vague "clues" for these truthers to stumble upon, could also fail to do the one really simple conspiracy that would have forever justified the war in peoples' minds: find WMD and documented plans of a plot for Saddam to help al-Qaeda use those WMD in the US.

That conspiracy, done on the other side of the world, in a country under our military control, with no witnesses to get in the way, with literally complete control of the press, and with no chance anyone would ever see them, would have been many many orders of magnitude easier to pull off. Had they done so the President would probably be considered a hero for saving millions of lives, the Democrats would never have won control of Congress and Bush would have likely been able to hand select a successor republican president. With all that at stake, how the hell did they fail to do the one very simple conspiracy after wasting all the time, effort, expense, and certainly not least, thousands of innocent lives, to pull off the first insanely complex one? Of the total complexity needed for ultimate success, the truthers would have you believe after accomplishing 99.9% they somehow failed to take the last easy step to neatly wrap it all up. To accept that you'd have to believe these people are, at the same time, evil geniuses and utter imbeciles. You simply can't have it both ways.

Shannon Love | February 1, 2008, 4:36pm | #

“We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of explosives,”

I think this comment is being misunderstood.

Explosives create shockwaves of a much higher intensity than even accidental explosions (such as exploding fuel) can create. These shockwaves in turn leave distinct physical effects on the materials they impact. Investigators can tell by visual inspection whether an explosive generated shockwave occurred in a structure.

Since no one ever saw evidence of an explosive generated shockwave and did not see any evidence of any explosives in the video (which looks different than a fuel explosion). They never bothered to chemically assay megatons of debris for something they had no expectation would be present.

hale | February 1, 2008, 4:37pm | #

Shit, when J sub D's off his meds, he becomes Middle Class Worker.

J sub D, off my meds | February 1, 2008, 4:37pm | #

This is already a batshit crazy thread and it's still just the regulars. Wait until this gets linked to at some truther sites.

I expect you're right. I have my popcorn.

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 4:38pm | #

I expect you're right. I have my popcorn.

Who's running the pool on how many comments? I'm looking for, 413?

not a truther | February 1, 2008, 4:39pm | #

"To accept that you'd have to believe these people are, at the same time, evil geniuses and utter imbeciles"

Like Dr. Evil! Maybe they've just seen Austin Powers too many times.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 4:39pm | #

TrickyVic,

"I saw that at the link that UCrawford posted. Well they offered conflicting information."

No, they didn't. Go back and read it again.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Building 6 was pulled down with cables. In building 7 they "pulled" out the firefighters and waited for the building to collapse on its own because of fire and the damage it incurred. Occasionally the same word has more than one meaning. The "truthers" also did a little selective editing with their clips because they figured that people who listened to them would be too stupid to recognize they were being blatantly played.

Sulla | February 1, 2008, 4:40pm | #

Wake up People! ARMAGERDON, THE APOCALYPSE, is at hand!!
You can join the valiant efforts to wrest back control of our lives, but first you must KNOW THE ENEMY!!!
Our enemies are -
International Jewry
Freemasons
The Trilateral Commission
The Council of Foreign Relations
The World Council of Churches

You forgot:
The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face.


(I watch too many movies)

Windypundit | February 1, 2008, 4:41pm | #

I took Michael Neuman's apparently contradictory position to mean that they didn't bother to look for high-explosive residue because they didn't see any signs of high-explosive damage. A trained engineer should be able to see the difference between a steel beam severed by an airplane hitting it at 500 miles per hour and a steel beam cut with a high-explosive shockwave at 15,000 miles per hour.

TrickyVic | February 1, 2008, 4:42pm | #

Other Matt, I think that's more of the issue that should be exploited. If the buildings were dropped for the purpose of enslaving us, they can attempt to prevent said enslaving by focusing on the actions of the government after the fact.

As for myself, I think the government has taken advantage of opprotunity. Just because they are using 9/11 to alienate us from unalienable rights, it's not evidence that they caused the event for that purpose.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 4:42pm | #

Other Matt,

"I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I understand the latin, it's not that, I'm just not grasping what your point is."

No worries. Argumentum ad numerum is the logical fallacy of an appeal to numbers. It's used to give false credibility to a proposition based on the claim that a lot of people believe it, which doesn't actually have any effect on whether a proposition is right or wrong because all of those people could be mistaken. The only thing that matters is the evidence supporting the proposition and the "truthers" don't have any evidence...at least none that isn't doctored or made up.

Russ 2000 | February 1, 2008, 4:43pm | #

I've never been to New York, so as far as I'm concerned, the city's entire existence is questionable.

BakedPenguin | February 1, 2008, 4:44pm | #

I'm waiting for Forrest Gump II
It's already been done.

J sub D, how could you forget the Lonewacko theories?

Windypundit | February 1, 2008, 4:46pm | #

Oops, looks like Shannon Love beat me to it (If that IS your real name???)

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 4:46pm | #

Other Matt,

Basically I was just saying that Jennifer Abel's column was based on a fallacy and it was stupid and irresponsible of her to humor the "truthers'" delusions simply because there's a substantial number of them...especially when she works with a publication that's supposed to be about finding out the real story.

Kolohe | February 1, 2008, 4:48pm | #

i'd just like to say that that was pretty well done by joe allen

joshua corning | February 1, 2008, 4:51pm | #

I can fire a Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight seconds. How do I know? Because I was the guy on the grassy knoll.

I have seen my dad fire a Weatherby 4 times in so many seconds...He has no military training...and it is a bolt action rifle. I can't say he was a dead on bullseye but he hit the target all 4 times at 100 yards. Of course he was 60 years old at the time and was fairly (still is) out of practice. Is the Mannlicher any more difficult to ready then other bolt action rifles?

Sugar Jack | February 1, 2008, 4:53pm | #

My wife believes in all this truther nonsense. She showed me a u-tube site which showed light flashes in the windows which the narrator said was explosions. Does anybody have an explanation for that?

Episiarch | February 1, 2008, 4:55pm | #

Is the Mannlicher any more difficult to ready then other bolt action rifles?

Any bolt action rifle can easily be fired 3 times in 8 seconds. You can fire it 3 times in 3 seconds. The main issue is how is your aim if you are shooting that fast.

I would hazard a guess that people who freak out about shooting the Mannlicher 3 times in 8 seconds don't know shit about guns. Or how Marines are trained.

BakedPenguin | February 1, 2008, 4:56pm | #

That conspiracy, done on the other side of the world, in a country under our military control, with no witnesses to get in the way, with literally complete control of the press, and with no chance anyone would ever see them, would have been many many orders of magnitude easier to pull off.
Very good point, Brian. As little as I care for our illustrious leaders, I will also grant them this: they would be much more willing to commit a conspiracy that did not result in the immediate deaths of thousands of American citizens, and billions of dollars in economic damage.

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 4:57pm | #

Basically I was just saying that Jennifer Abel's column was based on a fallacy and it was stupid and irresponsible of her to humor the "truthers'" delusions simply because there's a substantial number of them...especially when she works with a publication that's supposed to be about finding out the real story.

This was more on point with what I was asking, previous answer not so much.

Just a point of note, she's taking a large amount of crap from the "truthers" (using that as a label for all the different flavors combined) who hold the opposite view. In other words, they think that she was most assuredly NOT trying to humor them, but villify them. You take it as her humoring them means that she perhaps reported from a neutral place. Personally I can't say if she was or wasn't.

I believe the purpose of the paper is a local focus, so I don't believe she was so much trying to analyze their claims as to document a local happening.

Conspiracy Coordination Sector Bravo Leader | February 1, 2008, 4:58pm | #

This is a secret directive to all Conspiracy members: please maintain your silence until further notice. This directive applies to the following persons:

a. those who transported and installed in the towers the massive amounts of explosives in the months prior to 9/11 without anyone noticing;

b. those who waited on standby with truckloads of plane parts near the Pentagon and placed them about the scene after our Missile struck;

c. those who removed all evidence of our Missile from that site;

d. those who murdered the passengers of Flight 77 in a Nebraska cornfield;

e. those who lied and said that the DNA of the human remains found at the Pentagon matched the flight list of Flight 77;

f. those who rigged the missiles to the bottom of the planes that hit the towers, and those airline passengers who saw this occurring at Logan;

g. those who recorded the fake conversations onto the black box of Flight 93;

h. those who faked the handwritten notes of the highest-ranking officials of the Administration to make it appear like they were surprised by the attacks;

i. the person who placed a terrorist's wallet among the debris from the planes' crashing into the twin towers; and

j. all persons who studied the sites of the attacks.

End of Transmission

Just Curious | February 1, 2008, 4:58pm | #

Basically I was just saying that Jennifer Abel's column was based on a fallacy and it was stupid and irresponsible of her to humor the "truthers'" delusions simply because there's a substantial number of them...especially when she works with a publication that's supposed to be about finding out the real story.

Did her story conclude that the truthers are right?

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 4:59pm | #

Sugar Jack,

I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically because I don't know what clip you're wife saw so I don't know what building she's talking about, but it's very likely addressed at this site:

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 4:59pm | #

I would hazard a guess that people who freak out about shooting the Mannlicher 3 times in 8 seconds don't know shit about guns. Or how Marines are trained.

Wholeheartedly concur with that statement. The same crowd came up with the nonsensical term "assault weapon", as if anything used for assault wasn't a weapon.

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 5:00pm | #


End of Transmission

Forgot the guys that recorded all the fake cell phone calls and placed the calls playing the recordings.

Just trying to help.

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 5:02pm | #

Did her story conclude that the truthers are right?

She doesn't conclusively say "They are wrong", or "They are right", but my reading is that she doesn't agree with them, personally.

J sub D, back on my meds | February 1, 2008, 5:03pm | #

I hear you there. I'm also thinking that more than a third of the country thought at the time that "Pretty Woman" was one of the best films ever made.

In 1973 I listened to a radio countdown of the listener selected 100 best R&R songs of all time. #1 was Joy to the World by Three Dog Night. Prove to me my fellow citizens aren't stupid. I dare you.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 5:07pm | #

Other Matt,

This was more on point with what I was asking, previous answer not so much.

Yeah, I realized that after I posted the first reply. Sorry, long day here too :)

she's taking a large amount of crap from the "truthers" (using that as a label for all the different flavors combined) who hold the opposite view. In other words, they think that she was most assuredly NOT trying to humor them, but villify them.

I don't doubt it. She should have known better anyways considering how they've been making asses of themselves for the past six years. There's no discussion with "truthers", partly because they're zealots but mainly because the sole requirement for membership in their group is that you be either a liar or a fool. There's no such thing as a "moderate truther".

I believe the purpose of the paper is a local focus, so I don't believe she was so much trying to analyze their claims as to document a local happening.

I always agree with questioning the government, but unless she had actual proof to back what she was saying she should have kept her mouth shut about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Putting that article out there was irresponsible of her and she deserves to get blasted all around for it. And I'm disappointed in Reason for regurgitating it here.

J sub D | February 1, 2008, 5:07pm | #

You forgot:
The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face.

Yeah. I realized after posting that I omitted the obligatory reference to black UN helicopters as well.

That was a difficult post to type with all the tags and links. Took me 1/2 an hour to get it right.

J sub D | February 1, 2008, 5:08pm | #

J sub D, how could you forget the Lonewacko theories?

Hey, I gave the CFR shoutout.

El Esdee | February 1, 2008, 5:12pm | #

"In 1973 I listened to a radio countdown of the listener selected 100 best R&R songs of all time. #1 was Joy to the World by Three Dog Night. Prove to me my fellow citizens aren't stupid. I dare you."

It was the 70's, man. Everyone was stupid.

TrickyVic | February 1, 2008, 5:15pm | #

Ah thanks, I wonder why they put #6 stuff on the WTC 7 page unless they were trying to related it to what happened at #7.

Also Silverstein was quoted as saying pulled it. As in one thing, not pull them or pull 'em like you would hear when someone is talking about a group of people. That could be a mis-use of word by Silverstein.

R C Dean | February 1, 2008, 5:15pm | #

“If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time … and the taxpayers’ money.”

Am I the only one who laughed out loud at this last?

Rick Barton | February 1, 2008, 5:15pm | #

A reason for suspicion is the selection of Dick Cheney for VP. He offered no electrol advantage (Wyoming) in a race that was forcast to be as tight as it turned out to be. I remember when he was picked, pundits were saying, what, but why!?

R C Dean | February 1, 2008, 5:18pm | #

She showed me a u-tube site which showed light flashes in the windows which the narrator said was explosions. Does anybody have an explanation for that?

Fluorescent lights blowing out as the building collapsed? Drywall popping out of the framing?

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 5:19pm | #

Actually, I went back and gave it a more thorough read and Abel's column really did rip on the conspiracy theorists, so I take back my harsher comments towards her, although I think Reason still did a pretty terrible job of presenting her article. She wasn't illustrating the "truthers" as particularly competent or sane at all, but often as panicky, paranoid, often anti-Semitic fools who jumped to conclusions without bothering to even look for solid evidence. I'm all on board with her conclusions there.

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 5:23pm | #

I always agree with questioning the government, but unless she had actual proof to back what she was saying she should have kept her mouth shut about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Putting that article out there was irresponsible of her and she deserves to get blasted all around for it. And I'm disappointed in Reason for regurgitating it here.

I think this is where I respectfully disagree. I don't think she was putting anything out as such. I think she was reporting on a local group, discussed how she felt herself spun around a bit, then discussed why someone would have a view like that. I didn't read her as saying it was A or B, myself. Perhaps I need to reread it.

The objections from the seminar participants is that it makes them look crazy, which I don't think you'd take issue with. I understand your objections to be that she put the material out there and didn't say "but this is incredibly wrong" or something akin. Sorry if I'm misreading you. I would agree that she didn't do that, but the focus of the story was not whether they were right or wrong so much as why they would have a conspiracy theory viewpoint.

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 5:23pm | #

I'm all on board with her conclusions there.

Ok, we doubled, but I think you see what I was saying.

Geotpf | February 1, 2008, 5:27pm | #

Insert Idiocracy reference here.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 5:27pm | #

TrickyVic,

Also Silverstein was quoted as saying pulled it. As in one thing, not pull them or pull 'em like you would hear when someone is talking about a group of people. That could be a mis-use of word by Silverstein.

That's about the sum total of the "truthers" quest for evidence...they look for somebody to misspeak or they edit the clips to put things in the worst possible light then they claim they've proved their conspiracy true. The problem is that when you take a step back and look at how impossible it would be to carry out the logistics of such a plan and not have a single person out of the hundreds, if not thousands, needed to bring it to pass come out and spill the beans in six years the 9/11 conspiracy theories are some of the most ridiculous b.s. imaginable.

That's why I keep tossing out that link...it just demonstrates, using peer-reviewed science, how everything the government said happened actually happened without needing to resort to wild speculation. If you were to ask the "truthers" where their hard data comes from, they can't give you anything. They just point to their own speculation or speculation by other "truthers" and claim that qualifies as concrete evidence.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 5:31pm | #

Other Matt,

Ok, we doubled, but I think you see what I was saying.

I do...you'd think I've have realized by this point in my life not to go off half-cocked over a story I speed-read through when I was pissed, but every once in awhile I have my relapses. :) The 9/11 conspiracy "theories" just have a way of really setting me off so sometimes that can be a bit of a weak spot with me.

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 5:33pm | #

....life not to go off half-cocked over a story I speed-read through when I was pissed, but every once in awhile I have my relapses.

Sometimes I wish that kind of reaction was located, within the human body, in the functioning hair follicles. That way I'd be done with it. Unfortunately, I can relate.

...how everything the government said happened actually happened without needing to resort to wild speculation.

By the way, you'll see me saying much the same thing as "A Moose" over at the Advocate's site. I just didn't have your link as it isn't really something I have spent a lot of time with.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 5:40pm | #

Other Matt,

By the way, you'll see me saying much the same thing as "A Moose" over at the Advocate's site. I just didn't have your link as it isn't really something I have spent a lot of time with.

I just happened to dig it up about a year ago when I got into a heated argument with a couple of particularly dim bulbs and was looking for something to shut them down (without having to dig up the technical arguments myself). It's the most comprehensive site I've found so far and I actually wrote the guy who runs it just to thank him for putting it up. Nice guy, he appreciated the traffic. Plus it helps thin out the "truther" herd when they start clogging up real discussions. It's the quick equivalent of going "Look, idiot, science, real evidence, now go the f*** away!!!" Saves a lot of time and frustration so that we can move on to cheerier topics. :)

Other Matt | February 1, 2008, 5:45pm | #

Ok, fun's over, I have to run out for dinner now. However, one thing before I go, if you read Jennifer's writings you'd probably pick up on the "apologetically" when she's talking to govt officials. That is kind of code that she's embarrassed to even bring the subject to them. When she's in top form, you get stuff like this where you can imagine the face of the govt official in the third and second paragraphs from the bottom, respectively.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 5:49pm | #

Other Matt,

I'll check it out. Too bad nobody just slipped her that link first, then she could have just grabbed a couple of qualified engineers to validate the work for her and she wouldn't have had to piss off anyone but the "truthers". :)

brotherben | February 1, 2008, 5:58pm | #

Like the folks that "proved" the conspiracy wrong aren't on the govt payroll to "say" the right things. Sheesh!

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 6:09pm | #

brotherben,

"Like the folks that "proved" the conspiracy wrong aren't on the govt payroll to "say" the right things. Sheesh!"

Can't tell if you're joking, but the day the "truthers" show me any hard, peer-reviewed scientific evidence or non-fabricated testimony from one of the actual "conspirators" to back up their claims is the day I won't automatically laugh at them and call them idiots. Otherwise they're just a bunch of fools and liars calling everyone else fools and liars.

Nick | February 1, 2008, 6:13pm | #

“We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of explosives,” Neuman said.

We know, we said (even more apologetically), but what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

“Right, because there was no evidence of that.”

But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

Just read that over again and you can tell that question is stupid. They searched the aforementioned number of steel pieces and found no evidence. So they did look. This isn't evidence-based learning, its a frightening willingness to suspend intelligence and embrace an impossible undertaking. The mere posting of this thread does imply something about your beliefs. You can be anti-government, but still support your country, and you can be critical of authority while still realizing there is no way 9/11 is a conspiracy.

Even giving an de facto acknowledgment of right-minded thought process to utter stupidity is in fact an abandonment of reason. You lost a libertarian looking for a smart voice....

Nick | February 1, 2008, 6:20pm | #

I would like to congratulate the Conspiracy Coordination Sector Bravo Leader, nicely put. If anything, this best illustrates the reason to not acknowledge the stupidity as a serious possibility.

brotherben | February 1, 2008, 6:21pm | #

UCrawford,
yes I was joking, but using the most common rebuttal to good science on the subject.
Just like us christians, these folks vote. I wonder how the christian conspiracy theorists rectify the "Bush chosen of God, Bush brought down the towers" dilemma?

R C Dean | February 1, 2008, 6:33pm | #

As for the poor bastard and "looking for evidence of explosives."

I expect there's a lot of different ways to do that. You probably don't send it out for some kind of molecular-level analysis if you don't see any gross evidence that explosives were used.

Kind of like how you don't biopsy every 40 year old woman's breast without finding a lump first.

I'm just trying to give the guy a break, here.

TrickyVic | February 1, 2008, 6:35pm | #

"""That's about the sum total of the "truthers" quest for evidence...they look for somebody to misspeak or they edit the clips to put things in the worst possible light then they claim they've proved their conspiracy true. The problem is that when you take a step back and look at how impossible it would be to carry out the logistics of such a plan and not have a single person out of the hundreds, if not thousands, needed to bring it to pass come out and spill the beans in six years the 9/11 conspiracy theories are some of the most ridiculous b.s. imaginable"""

I'm not a 9/11 truther by any standard. I agree that as a whole the operation of loading and placing explosives would be tooooo big of a task, and close to impossible to do without being seen. And that's a small task compared to hiding everyone on the planes, like Ted Olsen's wife.

My conspiracy friends keep sending me links. I try to give them a fair shake.

J sub D | February 1, 2008, 6:40pm | #

You can be anti-government, but still support your country, and you can be critical of authority while still realizing there is no way 9/11 is a conspiracy.

But that way lies ... sanity.

The Wine Commonsewer | February 1, 2008, 6:43pm | #

Neither have I ever tried to shoot a Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight seconds

I have one of those bolt action babies and I'm not sure that you could get three accurate shots off in the space of eight seconds.

Conspiracy theories are valuable in that you can have loads of fun with them, write books, and make movies, but most fall apart like a cheap suit.

The Wine Commonsewer | February 1, 2008, 6:50pm | #

Joy to the World by Three Dog Night. Prove to me my fellow citizens aren't stupid

WTF? I resemble that remark. Joy to the World is a great song, one of Hoyt Axton's best!

How many times have you ever gotten to drink wine with a bullfrog? And he drinks RED WINE! Come one, man. We're talking red wine here, not Tyrolia or Boones.

Actually, I liked Mama Told Me Not To Come better.

Besides rock in '72 had begun it's downward spiral into the madness of disco.......

Never mind.

I'll go you one better. My HS graduation class voted Sugar Sugar as the best song of '69. Now those kind of dopes are just the kind what would vote for St Hillary.

TrickyVic | February 1, 2008, 6:51pm | #

I saw a show about Air Force One on PBS, I think. There was a Secret Service agent talking about the sadest mission Air Force One ever flew, the return of JFK's body. He said JFK's motorcade's route was changed at the last moment. I'm not sure what he meant by moment but I wondered if it was true, how did Oswald know 2 weeks in advance of a route yet to be designated?

grumpy | February 1, 2008, 7:02pm | #

Sure you could fire a Mannlicher-Carcano 3x in 8 sec or less...you're cocked and safety is off as your target approaches, so, you'll just need to cycle the bolt 2x.

Gun control is hitting your target.

J sub D | February 1, 2008, 7:14pm | #

I'll go you one better. My HS graduation class voted Sugar Sugar as the best song of '69. Now those kind of dopes are just the kind what would vote for St Hillary.

I really admire the courage it took to come out and admit that you wer associated with a class that tasteless. It must have took a lot of soul searching. Sugar Sugar, the horror.

tarran | February 1, 2008, 7:15pm | #

You can be anti-government, but still support your country, and you can be critical of authority while still realizing there is no way 9/11 is a conspiracy.
But that way lies ... sanity.
What?!? Sanity lies in believing that the 19 hijackers spontaneously decided to engage in an ad-hoc hijacking?

Of course there was a conspiracy! It involved the 19 hijackers and other members of Al Queda, It may not have involved the U.S. government, but a conspiracy did exist.

The Wine Commonsewer | February 1, 2008, 7:15pm | #

Grump, good point, but even so, the bolt action is manual so you're cycling it by hand, the mechanism is crappy, the clip isn't a magazine and it's a bit sticky, and then you gotta get the thing back up into your shoulder, and then sight your target again.

If you have a telescopic sight it would go faster and if the gun was newer and well oiled, that would help as well. And I'm probably not as quick as a guy like say, Lee Harvey, or you, for that matter.

Not saying it can't be done but I'm saying it would be difficult for me to do it.

Mine is deadly accurate though, so you'd not likely miss. Don't know if they are all that way or if it's just that my grandfather tweaked mine right.

LevStrauss | February 1, 2008, 7:16pm | #

I think people are missing the point of this story. I think the author is telling us in a nice way that we are dealing with a vulgar "know it all" and a "bullshitter" when we discuss 9/11 truth and the Federal Government. If you look into the commission and some of the evidence, along with recent history you can tell there is a coverup, but that doesn't mean that the government was complicit, that the explosives were in the building, or laser beams brought those buildings down. I am not an engineer and don't pretend to be one either.

The Wine Commonsewer | February 1, 2008, 7:20pm | #

I really admire the courage it took to come out and admit that you wer associated with a class that tasteless. It must have took a lot of soul searching. Sugar Sugar, the horror.

Oh the 49% of us that voted for something else were quite out front about our outrage. There was a near riot over it. We figured the vote was fixed. That and a couple of other "voted best by the Class of '69". Which, incidentally is way cool. How many times in a century is there a class of 69?

Wait. I think I just dated myself. But, I was the youngest kid in the class.

eli | February 1, 2008, 7:32pm | #

Molten metal.

There was molten metal in the basements of the buildings.

Molten for days.

Jet fuel and office supplies do not turn steel to liquid.

The Wine Commonsewer | February 1, 2008, 7:33pm | #

According to Billboard Sugar Sugar was # 4 best song of 1969. Number 1 was that insipid piece of crap called Aquarius/Let The Sunshine In.

So, apparently the bozos at Pacifica High School were not worse than the bozos buying 45 rpm records.

Couple decent songs in the top 10, including Everyday People by NotSoSly & The Stoned Family, Stones, Beatles, Temps, and Crimson & Clover.

The Wine Commonsewer | February 1, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Eli, it is easier for me to believe that Giancana had JFK killed for boinking Phyllis McGuire than to swallow the story that our government secretly planned the destruction of the twin towers.

Is it possible? Yes, we pulled off Normandy on the sly. Is it plausible? Not in my eyes. Even in the twisted little minds in DC there is no way to see the sense in a plot so complex.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Eli,

Molten metal. There was molten metal in the basements of the buildings. Molten for days. Jet fuel and office supplies do not turn steel to liquid.

Explained here:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

The Ron Paul Political Report | February 1, 2008, 8:03pm | #

Now I don't know if the WTC was brought down by Al Qaeda or part of some Mossad black ops but we need to keep an eye on the Lobby. I do know that Larry Silverstein was generously compensated for his "loss".

It seems ever since 9/11 that those "bankers" have been printing money like crazy. Also don't forget that Phillip Zelikow was the head of the 9/11 Commission because Kissinger had business ties to Bin Laden.

Paul | February 1, 2008, 8:15pm | #

UCrawford:

Nanothermite can! And so can a light saber! Take that, denier!

TWC:

Is it possible? Yes, we pulled off Normandy on the sly.

We pulled off Normandy before we required public commentary for six months and environmental impact plans to take a whiz outdoors. The government couldn't remove a small metal shed and keep it a secret for five minutes.

thoreau | February 1, 2008, 8:21pm | #

Like somebody said on Unqualified Offerings, if the Bush crew were behind 9/11 the Towers would still be there and the operation would be several years behind schedule and several billion dollars over budget.

Kolohe | February 1, 2008, 8:38pm | #

Yes, we pulled off Normandy on the sly.

But, by June 7, the French and the Germans were pretty aware of what was going on and who was doing it.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 9:21pm | #

RPPR,

Now I don't know if the WTC was brought down by Al Qaeda or part of some Mossad black ops but we need to keep an eye on the Lobby. I do know that Larry Silverstein was generously compensated for his "loss".

It seems ever since 9/11 that those "bankers" have been printing money like crazy. Also don't forget that Phillip Zelikow was the head of the 9/11 Commission because Kissinger had business ties to Bin Laden.

I have no idea if you're just screwing around but honestly it's whackjobs who spout crap like that who helped convince me that Ron Paul belongs nowhere near the White House. Personally, I like bankers...they helped me buy my house, which I enjoy a great deal.

UCrawford | February 1, 2008, 9:24pm | #

Paul,

Nanothermite can! And so can a light saber! Take that, denier!

Only if it's a lightsaber +12 wielded by an Angel of Death wearing enchanted armor with +15 strength capability. Nerd.

:)

Brandybuck | February 1, 2008, 10:36pm | #

Why look for explosives? That's the real question to ask. The burden of proof rests with those making the extraordinary claim. The claim that the WTC towers came down because of controlled explosive demolition is absurd to anyone who knows the first thing about demolitions. Yet these so-called libertarians [drink] want to spend millions of the taxpayers dollars looking for evidence that every rational person knows is not there.

Truthers are victims of confirmation bias. And not just any confirmation bias, but a virulent strain of it. Once they get a conspiracy into their head, everything they see confirms it. If there actually were a re-investigation, and it found no explosive residue, they would somehow use that as evidence FOR their conspiracy! Their stupid "fire can't melt steel" argument has been refuted so many times it's no longer funny, but they keep making it.

They're the biggest enemy Ron Paul has. Everytime a 9/11 Truther opens his mouth, Romney or McCain get another supporter.

Dave W. | February 1, 2008, 10:37pm | #

My linking to this story, I will spell out for the evidence-based community, does not say anything about what I know, think, or think I know . . .

what do you know, think, or think you know about secret 9/11 info, Brian Doherty. I cannot tell from your post. Do you even care? Does it matter?

Brandybuck | February 1, 2008, 10:45pm | #

Some debunking links for you:


http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.911myths.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/

penxv | February 1, 2008, 10:47pm | #

Whether explosives were planted beforehand or not... it's actually a trivial detail (though I think that the collapse of the buildings was an important visual and explosives probably were planted in order to ensure its effect).

False flag operations commonly serve as a pretext to wars. So much so that it would be out of the ordinary if 9/11 was a genuine act of war. Plus they were Saudis... why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia?

Are we still supposed to believe that the American empire can't find 1 (very famous) guy? I'm sure the reward is high enough that he would have been turned in by now.

Aaron Russo was warned of an event beforehand... it was a ruse.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609

grumpy realist | February 1, 2008, 11:00pm | #

Anyone who thinks that "burning of jet fuel and office supplies can't cause molten metal" is invited to a) read up on the physics of combustion, b) read up on "flash point", and c) go and talk to some fire departments.

Dimwit.

The Wine Commonsewer | February 1, 2008, 11:13pm | #

But, by June 7, the French and the Germans were pretty aware of what was going on and who was doing it.

The coolest part was setting up an entirely fake invasion force across from Calais.

Old guy I knew years ago rehabbed & sold used heavy equipment. He got hold of some of that stuff. Some still in the crate. He set up a rubber half track in his sales yard and I'm telling you, you would have trouble telling it from a real one from five feet away. It was pretty amazing. Course I wanted one but being I was broke and lived in an apartment I was down on two strikes.

The Wine Commonsewer | February 1, 2008, 11:25pm | #

Hell, if you're ever in West Texas, come on down to the watering hole and I'll buy you a box of your favorite vino, amigo.

Cool. Thanks.

Might be sooner than you think. Looks like I got some in-laws headed for Dallas. Pretty sure you gotta pass through West Texas to get to Dallas. At least from my place anyway.

Happy Jack | February 1, 2008, 11:33pm | #

Just to throw some gas on the fire, apparently a new book is claiming the head of the 9/11 committee tried to bury some embarrassing info.
See here.

Bob Abooie | February 1, 2008, 11:36pm | #

First of all, Bush had nothing to do with it. All the evidence points to Pakistan. The real question is, why has our government let Pakistan off the hook? Why did they not do anything when one of the hijackers turned himself in to the FBI and confessed to the entire plot a year before the attacks?.

Happy Jack, Old News. The story ABC mentions was covered extensively in the documentary linked above. It was made in 2005.

Kolohe | February 1, 2008, 11:38pm | #

And in other conspiracy wackjob news, Wesley Snipes was found *not* guilty of all the felony tax evader charges against him.

I wonder if the 16th amendment deniers will use this despite the fact that he was still convicted of three misdemeanor charges and still has to pay all the money he owes?

Bob Abooie | February 1, 2008, 11:40pm | #

penxv, it sounds like you're talking about the declassified Operation Northwoods. The plan was to generate U.S. public support for a military invasion of Cuba.

The proposal supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff was destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". Here's the relevant text...

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

Bob Abooie | February 1, 2008, 11:52pm | #

You know why you need to test for explosives? Because no one has answered the question, "how can a eutectic reaction occur naturally in a burning building?". We know eutectic reactions can be explained by demolition but, until they can be accounted for in a fire based collapse, I can not accept that theory. Maybe Grumpy, UCrawford or Brandy can explain.

After the attacks, FEMA called Professor Jonathan Barnett (an expert in civil and structural engineering with a Ph.D. in fire protection engineering) to join the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). Even though the removal and destruction of steel samples, in Barnett's own words, "hindered FEMA's BPAT investigation", Barnett still identified findings that required further investigation and examination. Topping that list were the findings of R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. (professors of materials science and engineering) who conducted metallurgical studies on steel samples brought back from WTC Building 7. Their findings, which the NY Times called the "deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation" revealed that a eutectic reaction had occurred, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. Being the experts they are, they were "shocked" by this and, along with FEMA, called for further metallurgic investigations, NIST funding and access to more samples. Barnett said, "Before you spend millions of dollars [on further investigations], you need to know what to spend it on" and identified this as topping the list. Their calls went unanswered by NIST who, to this day, haven't explained the phenomenon.

To date, the only research I can find where someone has tried to find a potential source for these eutectic compounds is Dr Stephen Jones. The only person who has even attempted to touch the issue from NIST is Dr. Frank Greening who suggested that aluminum from some source (since a plane didn't hit building 7) could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." Dr. Jones tested this hypothesis and was able to eliminate it (as well as many others).

Bob Abooie | February 2, 2008, 12:03am | #

All of those debunking links provided are pathetic. They "debunk" a couple of nutjob ideas to avoid having to address legitimate questions by intelligent people, including over 300 Degreed and Licensed (Active & Retired) Architects and Engineers.

The NIST investigation on the collapses of WTC buildings 1 and 2 is utterly incomplete. It only focuses on the factors that led to the initiation of collapse and not the sequence of events that led to the complete collapse. An acceptable theory has to take into account the energy necessary to expel steel beams horizontally, pulverize all of the concrete (and other solid matter) into dust and break through each on the unweakened lower floors at the rate seismic and video evidence shows.

Dave W. | February 2, 2008, 12:12am | #

Bob,

I am sort of considered as the 9/11 resident conspiracy "nut" here at HnR. The reason that I believe that the plane impacts brought down the twin Towers is because the collapses seemed to start at the impact floors.

How do you respond to that?

Bob Abooie | February 2, 2008, 12:38am | #

Dave, I guess I'd respond... you're talking about WTC 1 and 2, not 7. 7's collapse clearly started at the bottom and was not hit by a plane. But, even as far as 1 and 2 go, I hope that isn't the only piece of evidence you're basing your belief on.

WTC7 was a very sound and structurally redundant building and collapsed so perfectly, it appears to be a controlled demolition. I mean, even if you don't believe it was, you certainly can't deny that's what it looks like. So much so that a demolition expert was sure it was a controlled demolition.

Paul | February 2, 2008, 12:50am | #

The reason that I believe that the plane impacts brought down the twin Towers is because the collapses seemed to start at the impact floors.

Uhm, because the impact floors had the most...impact, therefore the most structural damage and, because of the jetfuel those floors had the highest concentration of heat, which causes any metal to lose 50% of its strength at 50% of the melting point. Considering a cigarette butt burns at 400deg, I wonder what temperatures a fully fueled plane burns at?

Paul | February 2, 2008, 12:56am | #

including over 300 Degreed and Licensed (Active & Retired) Architects and Engineers.

Which, according to polls are very likely to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.

If we could please quit turning science into a popularity contest and use stuff like...evidence.

But, by June 7, the French and the Germans were pretty aware of what was going on and who was doing it.

But I bet you can still find Germans who believe the jews were invading Omaha beach.

CB_Brooklyn | February 2, 2008, 1:02am | #

Court Cases in the US District Court, Southern District of New York, with Attorney Jerry Leaphart:

** Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html
Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
Title: Wood v. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al
Judge: George B. Daniels

** Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case
Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GEL
Title: Dr. Morgan O. Reynolds v. Science Applications International Corp. et al
Judge: George B. Daniels


PRESS RELEASE: Scientists See WTC - Hutchison Effect Parallel - On a Washington DC local radio station, WPFW, Scientists discuss true nature of destruction of WTC Complex on 9/11 and conclude it was related to a known effect. http://www.prlog.org/10048184-scientists-see-wtc-hutchison-effect-parallel.html


The 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 cover up, and the 9/11 "truth movement" were orchestrated by people associated with directed energy weapons and the media:
9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline