Mr. Taibbi,
Your glib conclusion that, “It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of. People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality” pretty much sounds like the self involved pretension of alot of pseudo-alternative music intellectuals circa early 90’s at many urban colleges and mudhoney/Sonic Youth shows. Save your pithy, clever entirely empty, pop-pyschological generalizations for you and your friends when you try and recreate that early 90’s
“political awareness”. You’re a fool. An accurate appraisal of the conspiracy crowd should at least go beyond the tactical theories of planes, demolition, etc. Check out a guy by the name of Dave Emory or the website Rigorous Intuition in order to develop a larger context in order to understand the current political takeover. The learning curve in this sort of research is steep; don’t give up yet Taibbi, oh yea you can’t give up you obviously haven’t even started. And, while your at it, with your talent for communicating stunning “insights” could you right a column on Michael Chertoff’s role in defending terrorist connected- by the governments own admission- charities after 911? But, I guess that would mean you’d have to educate yourself beyond your drivel of demolitions, holograms, etc. Why don’t you write a real column on the conspiracy by investigating the claims of someone like Daniel Hopsicker. Oh yea, that would mean once again you’d have to go to madcowprod.com and actually investigate beyond your pretension. You’re fucking pathetic.

Taibbi, Can you say PTech? The company was located outside of Boston…

Please, Mr. Taibbi, don’t let the forces of insanity drag you down. As always, those that are the most vociferous are also the most fringe. There’s clearly enough stupidity, evil and incompetence in our government without having to invent it.

Yeah….maybe Taibbi should “right” a column on Chertoff.

Fucking O’Reily clone.

Would it be too much, in all of that pretentious, hateful mumbo-jumbo you’ve posted “Rigorous Intuition” to spell things correctly? Way to be an intellectual and make a counterpoint.

Mr. Taibbi,

We all would like to think that 19 cave-dwelling arabs or a red neck with bags of shit in his truck could never get the upper hand. That’s why Americans still think the Kennedy assassination was the FBI or Cuba or the Mafia, because there is no way some ex-marine sharpshooter could ever get off three shots in 20 seconds.

We believe these things because we don’t want to face the fact that you don’t need to be a genius to do a shitload of damage to us. Unfortunately, people don’t think about what they read. They just accept what they hear thru friends that read something written by some guy who took a break from world of warcraft.

As long as bad things happen, there will always be a conspiracy theory. The earliest one I can think of is from 33AD. Apparently the reason why Jews don’t accept Jesus as the savior is because the Romans told everyone that Jesus’ body was stolen from his grave, not risen.

See, it’s so simple.

Matt,

I’m with you. My attitude towards conspiracy theories is much like my attitude towards God: I doubt very much that He exists, but, since I can’t assemble the proof I need to show irrefutably that He doesn’t, I’m forced to admit that I merely suspect that God does not exists.

Similarly, I strongly suspect the 9/11 Truth movement is nothing more than a bunch of bored paranoids, each trying to outdo the other in constructing the most outlandish theory they can imagine.

However, the one thing conspiracy theories have going for them is that our Government does lie to us, and we’ll never know exactly how much they lie to us, or why. I suspect that lots of little lies have been told to the public regarding 9/11, but that they were on the order of “Um, no, that’s not my department.” You know the kind of lies I mean–garden-variety, cover-your-ass type untruths that people tell in order to save their jobs or their marriages. I’m sure tons of those stupid little surround 9/11. AS to whether or not all those stupid little lies add up to the CIA masterminding the attacks–well, I can’t prove that the CIA had nothing to do with them, but I strongly suspect they didn’t.

Hilarious! I cannot stop laughing.

These morons have just too much time on their hands.

There should be a DSM V diagnosis for these unfortunate patients.

who farted?

Matt:
I am still LMAO! With all of the “real smoking guns” out there, you would think that Americans wouldnt need the vast suspension of belief necessary to realize “what really happened”. If the amount of energy expended on 9-11 truth shit were applied toward this unitary executive he would be well on his way out the door, or better–off to jail by now.
I realize I am risking my life by questioning the 911 crowd but it is an acceptable risk. So many really wicked things that this adminsitration is doing, and all we got was this damn conspiracy.
Right On, Taibbi!

Conspiracy theorists of the sort questioning the 9/11 attacks are inherently afraid of the truth and what that means for their world outlook. By fingering the US government for essentially all of the great tragedies of the past 100 years, these people are placing the blame on an entity that, in fact, they feel they may have some control over. Conspiracy theorists believe that if they can get the “truth” out to the American public then they can possibly spark a democratic change in the government and somehow “fix” all of the world’s problems. These theories are nothing more than an attempt to paint the problems of the world in a light that allows them some control over them. The truth is that the world is not that simple. We can argue forever about whether or not George Bush has increased threats against the US by terrorists or rogue states like North Korea, but the bottom line is that when he is out of office those threats will still exist and short of picking up a rifle and joining the military or at least trying to educate themselves about the real causes of these tragedies, there is nothing that conspiracy theorists can do about them. This fact terrifies these people, and thus, they make up stories about the big bad government to try and make people as scared as they are with the actual affect of making the threats far worse than if they just kept their mouths shut.

Matt, stick with it. I had no idea these people were this serious until I read your first article. Keep it up.

matt is a wannabe…and that’s too bad given his opportunity to do something with the ink the stone has given him.
it’s crap for the guy to immitate hunter and cover one side of an easy story. more than one of us have provided him with leads.
he neither serves himself or rolling stone well, and his sources are limited….if not fabricated.

betcha happy to see ya’ name, yes?lol!!

Mike is a paid hack. The official story nis impossible. The government is a fraaud controlled by powerful men with a distinct, insane agenda. It’s always been that way. 9/11 was ,and will remain an inside job, proof that THEY have us little guys by the nuts. And no jumbo jets were cr

MIKE IS A PAID SHILL.

Mr. Taibbi

Once again, a fantastic article. It’s unfortunate that you have to put up with the flood of e-mails and letters that you receive from these Scooby-Doo “detectives” whose research is limited to google searches and anecdotes. You’ll never be able to convince the hard-core nutters that they are wrong – they have an out for every peice of evidence you can provide (you have already been called a shill).

Hopefully, a few fence-sitters or folks who haven’t yet been hit over the head with film-school reject internet videos will read articles like yours and be able to see just how ridiculous these 9/11 conspiracies are.

Keep up the great work. I look forward to the next article.

Seriously people… you think you can just say “check out this company” or “go to this obscure website” and then claim some kind of intellectual superiority over Taibbi? He’s an actual reporter who actually has to verify facts–he can’t just make shit up like the rest of you.

site is blocked from comments

test

To all the people out there that criticize Matt over his editorial, why not come up with some hardcore facts as opposed to calling him a sham or a paid hack. At least he is showing that he actually did the research. Sure the government MAY have hidden some grizly details but how is it being proved here? Comments like “matt is a wannabe…and that’s too bad given his opportunity to do something with the ink the stone has given him,” do nothing to further the research. Provide him with some valid arguments backed up by research and maybe he’ll have a different story to tell.

The reason Taibbi wrote this column is that it gives the chance for the expression of alternative 9/11 viewpoints without Rolling Stone’s mandate.

Excellent job dog.

Still waiting for a 9?11 Truth explanation of how Ed Asner was thrown off the truth train.

Any takers?

Matt Taibbi writes for Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone is a magazine. It is printed in the United States (coincidence?). GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. (How convenient!)

According to this comment I read Matt Taibbi gets a check from a Beorge G. Wush every month in the mail. The scary thing is that if you scramble the letters in tat name you get Gweorge Bush, which is very close to the name of not only one, BUT TWO US Presidents (coincidence?).

Taibi’s second 9/11 hit piece takes his usual adolescent glibness to a new low: straw men opponents, no sign of any serious study of the matter, and rhetorical tricks worthy of a Republican p.r. firm. You’d never guess that eminent philosophers, constitutional scholars, military men, economists, and physicists have weighed in convincingly against Taibi’s views. Maybe it’s true that Gen X really doesn’t read books anymore.

Bill said, “Taibi’s second 9/11 hit piece takes his usual adolescent glibness to a new low: straw men opponents, no sign of any serious study of the matter, and rhetorical tricks worthy of a Republican p.r. firm.”

Republican smear tactics win elections, and Democrats, however intact their moral superiority might remain by taking the high road, are consistently fucked by them. Haven’t you been secretly hungering for a vicious democrat to get out there and break some skulls?

Man, I sure have, Bill.

Somebody get Matt Taibbi a pulitzer, stat!

Your comments, and those of others who have obviously done zero research into the events of 9/11, do nothing to answer any of the reasonable questions being asked. I am shocked by the people who are responding here who, in blanket statements say, people who question 9/11 are kooks. What you are really doing is avoiding serious scientific issues and questions by making glib responses to the events of 9/11. Mr. Taibbi has no answers and neither does the truth movement. There in lies the problem.

FACTS MR. TAIBBI CAREFULLY IGNORES: Bob Woodward’s book states that there was another meeting with C. Rice, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld on July 10th that showed they had ‘hair on fire’ warnings about 9/11. J. Ashcroft subsequently stopped flying on commercial airlines. There were also warnings from 11 countries security services and the Aug 6 PDB. We all know this. This is fact not conspiracy. There were also a high level of put options on airlines in the week before 9/11 which the CIA monitors actively for just that sort of unusual event. No one will say who put those trades on even though they must know. Osama Bin Laden was allowed to leave Tora Bora in the night with a convoy of militia 1,000 cars long. The people of Afghanistan were reported to be curious as to why the America’s didn’t take out the convoy. And these are just a few of the FACTS that are consistently ignored by our media. They are not doing their job by ridiculing the questions of 9/11 and they know it.

I like what Mr. James had to say. There are fair questions that need to be asked here. I won’t pretend to understand the science of it. But, I do know that there are way too many coincidences and not enough questions being asked? Like what about the missing gold and the pockets of melted steel? Why were the Bin Ladens ushered out of the country? Why did they leave Bush sitting in the classroom with children for more than fifteen minutes? I think these are fair questions that need to be answered.

You are a terrible writer, first and foremost. Secondly, you sound more paranoid and frightened than anyone looking into the abundant inconsistencies surrounding that day, and what led up to it. The fact that you would call someone a “lunatic” who is merely asking questions, places you in the same shivering, anti-intellectual camp as the Neo-Conservatives. You have a right to say what you want, of course. But expect to be laughed at.

I was at the meeting in the diner.

Up until today I couldn’t figure out why Taibbi supposedly wanted to talk with us. If it had been me, and I had the feelings and thoughts about us he had expressed in his first article, I would’ve just blown us off – walked by and chuckled to myself. Well, he was a writer and just wanted more material to slam us with further – so he pretended he wanted to “talk about it” with us. Typical “journalist.” Anything for a cheap laugh.

And he wanted so much for us to know that he was a real journalist – had worked overseas on controversial sotires and wasn’t just a flak or mouthpiece. But why should he care what we think? If he’s really doing his job and after slamming us like he did?

I guess this new article is because he felt he needed follow-up; his first one was in-your-face dross. This one is supposed to be more subtantial. But it’s only a more subtle attempt and untimately just as transparent.

At first I felt sorry for him. Others, not just Nico, were giving him a hard time. But after I slept on it that night I realized that he actually deserved it because of the false analysis he had spread about 9/11, with his snide and arrogant attitude – and hypocrisy (which he accuses us of), as he doesn’t show comtempt in person but only on paper..

I thought Haupt was right to provoke him. Taibbi was the one who wanted to hit Nico in the face. He didn’t like what Nico was saying. And couldn’t really answer him. Not because he didn’t have the time, he was given time to talk. But because he had done very little research actually on the 9/11 events, and so really couldn’t answer. The first article was just blown out of his mouth.

Taibbi went outside first, challenging Haupt. Nico tried to go outside (after thinking a bit, since he is quite slight!), but the owner stopped it. And I remember Taibbi’s face looking through the glass at us, like he was trying to intimate Nico was a coward. Glaring through the glass and saying with his look, “Come out here.”

Nico had really gotten to him. It’s sad because the only way Taibbi can get back now is to write more fake debunking pieces – that don’t actually debunk anything, and try to smear us further – a quixotic task.

He also misrepresented me and my point of view about the Media. But what can you expect? He’s just dishonest.

Now why is he dishonest? Are there subconscious factors at work which cause him to really believe he is righteous in his tarring and feathering of our group, or is he actually in bad faith?

I think both.

He has a political ax to grind – he admitted he was angry with our movement since we distracted from real politics – the stuff that really matters – ike hating Bush and defeating him. And I think he’ll be dishonest, either with himself or with his audience, to further that agenda. The irony is that our movement has the greatest chance to defeat Bush and all he stands for.

The main reason he *must* prove us wrong is because he believes our stroy is impossible. He believes it’s impossible, because he trusts mainstream news sources. (I believe his father works for a major network.) He tries to make us look silly, since that is the reflex. His mind is made up before he even examines the evidence – since he thinks he knows we must be wrong. He tries to find flaws in our arguments, and when that proves more difficult than imagined and our numbers are greater than he could predict, he ramps up the disdain and anger.

He tried to inform us that if we didn’t have all the details of how our story worked out, if we couldn’t supply him with the complete provable narrative, then we couldn’t be taken seriously. He really looked surprised when that contention was not accepted. He takes that as axiomatic: The government can just state facts and those will be taken on faith. But anyone who questions those facts and statements must know every little detail of the operation or else be dismissed. This is a double standard and an hypocrisy which is so ingrained in the man that he was astounded anyone could question it.

I suppose he learned this or picked this up from other information authorities, or just made it up. But he really became discomfited when told that, as a matter of fact, we are *not* in a position to have all the details of exactly how 9/11 was carried out. In fact we can’t. But we *can* nevertheless, show that the Government’s tale should not be accepted. And we are also allowed to connect the dots and demonstrate who are the prime suspects.

I just wonder *why* Mr. Taibbi is so vehemently insistent that absolutely everything we say is such crap…

The whole point of the 9/11 truth movement is to get to the *truth*, but we were denied that by Junior’s Junta. They’ve destroyed most of the evidence.

Taibbi must be in the 16% that believe ‘completely’ and blindly in the official story. And I guess he wants everyone to believe that False Flag operations have never occurred or been considered in the US….ever. Except for the Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty, etc….

Matt Taibbi – Abusing the Truth

It is a singularly disturbing attribute of any journalist, whether a creature of the right wing media – or left, to inject themselves so thoroughly into a story that they themselves BECOME the story. This is the stuff of narcissism and yellow journalism.

Matt Taibbi is not alone. We have all seen the Geraldo Rivera video clips involving prurient subjects, designed to incite his guests, resulting in flying chairs and bloody noses. This does not pass for journalism. It is the job of journalists to report on accidents – not incite them.

At its best it is purely the stuff of entertainment – and Jerry Springer. At its worst it is intentional disinformation put out by major news networks like FoxNews who regularly incite their guests with an agenda of insults and spin, designed to make their ideological opponents look bad.

All of this may be entertaining to watch, but it is surely not the stuff of legitimate objective journalism.

And while it may be impossible for any reporter to truly remain a fly on the wall, truly objective and emotionally uninvolved in their story, (since journalism is in fact a product of the human experience) we do expect that journalists will at the very least attempt to limit their involvement in any given story to the bare necessities of reporting the facts to the public, with at least a basic foundation of personal integrity and fairness, even when editorializing.

It is a neat trick. A shortcut towards good ratings. Engineer and provoke your guests and audience, and enjoy the attention of controversy you have created.

This is the stuff of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly.

Unfortunately, this appears to be the case with Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone Magazine as well.

In Taibbi’s recent story “Before the 9/11 Conspiracies, There Was the Oklahoma Bombing” he appears to cater to the most prurient interests of his audience by presenting and inciting the most fringe elements and theories of the 9/11 Truth movement.

There are some lines which journalists should not cross. For example, exploiting the mentally ill is one such line.

In presenting to his audience the most fringe elements of the 9/11 Truth movement, in an interview that, according to Taibbi nearly came to physical blows, he is neither presenting a fair and balance representation of the underlying issues concerning the 9/11 Truth movement, but has instead opted to tar us all with the same brush, based on the exploitation and incitement of his subjects – whom he himself refers to as “the movement’s house lunatic, a wild-eyed German blogger.”

Here are some facts that Matt Taibbi should acquaint himself with before choosing to tackle the issue of 9/11 Truth again:

§ A poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS news found that just 16% of Americans believe the Bush Administration is telling the truth about what they knew prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. 53% of respondents indicated they believe the Bush Administration was hiding something, and another 28% reported that they think the administration is mostly lying “when it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States.”

As a journalist Mr. Taibbi should be aware that these numbers are representative of a constituency that he himself is charged with serving. Journalism is a sacred obligation, and the issue of 9/11 and ACCOUNTABILITY is an issue that clearly and demonstrably reflects the concerns of millions of Americans.

Mr. Taibbi would do well to remember the victim’s families who are part of this 9/11 Truth movement as well:

§ On August 4th, 2006, 9/11 family members Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg, and Monica Gabrielle released a statement that questioned the “entire veracity” of the 9/11 Commission’s report.

§ On September 5th, 2006, a documentary endorsed by the families that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission was released entitled, “9/11: Press For Truth.”

§ On September 11th, 2006, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., family members Donna Marsh O’Connor, Michelle Little, and Christina Kminek asked for, “a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end.”

§ On October 14th, 2006, Monica Gabrielle, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza released a petition that calls for, “the immediate declassification and release of all transcripts and documents relating to the July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice” as well as “the declassification and release of both the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI) and the CIA Inspector General’s report, “CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks.” In the span of three days, they managed to get 2041 signatures.

This is the real heart of the story Mr. Taibbi, and while you choose to engage in prurient confrontations with people who are widely regarded as the most fringe elements of this movement, reporting on a food fight and near-violent confrontation, the real story appears to have slipped through your fingers. You should know better than this Mr. Taibbi, and you owe the victim’s families an apology.

Mr. Taibbi reminds me of that poor dumb bastard who comes home from the doctor’s with a prescription for a medicine that’s advertised on TV as “nothing has been medically proven more effective.” He’ll take that medicine until he dies and it will never occur to him that the reason nothing has been medically proven more effective is because nothing else has ever been investigated or tested.

Hi everyone. There’s too many comments to read, but I’m going to go with one specific one. Its by John Albanese up above.

He points out that, among similar points,

“§ On October 14th, 2006, Monica Gabrielle, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza released a petition that calls for, “the immediate declassification and release of all transcripts and documents relating to the July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice” as well as “the declassification and release of both the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI) and the CIA Inspector General’s report, “CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks.” In the span of three days, they managed to get 2041 signatures.”

What they want the truth about is not some bullshit theory about Sept. 11. There was a massive US intelligence failure that allowed one of the worst terrorist attacks in history to occur. Members of their families were killed because Bush messed up. Isn’t this obvious? I challenge the conspirators to come up with ONE 9/11 victim family who agrees with this dumbass theory. I am a liberal and I have nothing to gain by defending this organization.

And whats the point of a theory anyway? Do the majority of people even approve of the government right now? You people (the theorists) honestly think too highly of this government. No one who has “common sense” should believe any part of this theory.

IT’S STUPID!

Stay focused on who the real problem is, GW Bush, not Taibbi. Infighting among people who want to see Bush and his people out of office only helps Bush.

With that said, most critiques of the 9/11 Truth movement can be boiled down to a few simple ideas:
1) the Bush White House is too incompetent to pull off a complex operation like 9/11
2) too many people would have to be involved for a gov’t conspiracy of this nature to remain hidden for very long
3) these people believe Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757, so they are deranged
4) people who use the internet rather than the MSM to inform themselves are by nature mentally unstable

The first two are assumptions based on induction and don’t deal with any of the arguments that the 9/11 Truth movement has put forward. They act as sort of a prophylactic so critics don’t have to tangle with the facts, but can just dismiss the Movement with a wave of the hand.

The third is always one detail critics are willing to deal with because it is so easy to dismiss. Of course the Pentagon was hit by a 757, dozens of eye witnesses saw it approach and hit the building. Arguments about the damage to the building and the debris field not being consistent with a 757 crash are weak. The gov’t could end the arguments about the Pentagon strike by releasing conclusive footage of the crash, but they have chosen not to.

The fourth argument is just dishonest.

there should be a special term for people who engage in unreasonable attacks on conspiricy theorists.
Ironically, the best argument for a cover up is the 9/11 commission report itself, which presents a host of physically impossible explanations for what happened on 9/11. I hope Mr. Tabbai’s crusade to prove the doubters wrong hasn’t caused him to give up on the laws of physics.

Christ, you 9/11 truth morons sound worse than $cientologists, spouting your fleeting grasps on reality.

Oh, and I hope you didn’t buy that “Crossing the RubixCube” book, Matt. It’s sad that half of these retards post in here to sell a fucking book.

MATT TAIBBI HAS DECLARED HIMSLEF A WHORE FOR THE BUSH FAMILY NEW WOLRD ORDER – LISTEN NO FURTHER TO HIS FILTH.

Why yes, Rougy – Taibbi obviously pursued a career in journalism to gain YOUR respect, as opposed to digging for the truth and entertaining us. Don’t you feel special now?

Molten metal under WTC – Could this be caused by Jet Fuel Fires?

Pulverized (not broken) concrete from WTC towers – Caused by collapse only?

WTC7 Falls down with no airplane strike or raging fires? Even NIST could not explain this one.

Plane flying into pentagon and NOT getting shot down by a missle battery?

9/11 was an inside job.

Face the Truth.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

if i could see you in person i would have said “face this.” and grabbed my crotch.

you’re all so cute with with your little clubs of the enlightened…so many revolutionary ideas… my oh my how do you make it through the day with all this knowledge? better start running though, THEY have probably been keeping tabs on you…

Ok. Let’s say we play along with this little game for a minute.

Perhaps it turns out the truth movement is bang on. what then? if you didn’t want the mastermind and his flunkies back in the oval, why didn’t you do something productive to get the word out? you already had the chance to keep george “the lion” from getting back in and fucking with you even more. it seems like you are all talk and no mosh. oh and more thing, perhaps you could have put some effort into not painting the picture that most of you probably huffed gas as children.

To all you “face the truth” spouting dicks:

Shut the fuck up. Seriously. The only thing you do is read some conspiracy shit online,and then think you have the answers to everything.

Only people with a very low inteligence would believe such a thing. The goverment plotting an elaborte scheme to destroy the WTC and the Pentagon?

I could go on and on… but I wont cause it gives me a headache.

Face the truth… you’re just wrong.

Way to go Matt.

Of course you failed to point out thatthese are the same people that believe that FDR planned and executed Pearl Harbor, that Sitting Bull was really a renagade army officer when he defeated Custer, etc, etc, etc. . .

How many of the 911 truthers also believe in Chemtrails, The Queen of England is a reptile, or that cell phone towers are really mind controll devices?

“Bob” wrote:
”Molten metal under WTC – Could this be caused by Jet Fuel Fires?”

Just what are you offering as proof of “molten metal?” one anecdotal account, a grainy picture that could anything (Please explain how the hydraulic fluid in the grappler did not catch fire from the heat of the “molten metal”).

Most 911 truthers seem to be stuck on the erroneous belief that the maximum temperature release by burning jet fuel is only about 800 degrees or so. This is hardly the case, but then again, science is not their strong point.

“Bob” wrote:
”Pulverized (not broken) concrete from WTC towers – Caused by collapse only?”

The concrete floors were only 4 inches thick. Wow much sheet rock was also present on each floor in the form of firewalls, partitions, etc? How much ceiling tile, fiberglass soundproofing, etc. How do you know that the dust cloud isn’t composed of these materials also? If not, what happened to them?

“Bob” wrote:
”WTC7 Falls down with no airplane strike or raging fires? Even NIST could not explain this one.”

Check again, they will be coming out with a report next spring.

The building burned for 7 hours.

“Bob” wrote:
”Plane flying into pentagon and NOT getting shot down by a missle battery?”

What missile battery?

Should they shoot down every plane that comes in for a landing at the airport?

911 reality is still a bit too much for the ’shocked and awed’ crowd. Denial seems to work best, for that means that there is not evil in their own backyards so why even consider it? Even though the deniers will tell you that the bush regime has lied about everything, they will somehow delude themselves into telling you that the neocon cabal would not commit a crime like 911. No daddy wouldn’t do a thing like that! Sure hes caused the death of countless lives but he would never hurt us. People cross the bridge. The statistical odds of 911 happening the way your government told it is impossible. Anyone who is willing to open their skulls and have a look see will stop reading the rantings of the media and focus on the people who are saying”Hey this doesn’t look right, are we seeing the same thing?’When catastrophic events happen, people either give of themselves or exploit the situation. It is obvious who is exploiting the situation, it is obvious who gained the most if you are willing to look at the bigger picture.

I could be wrong, but isn’t there a common thread running between the Murrah event and the 9/11 event?

In both cases, it seems that there is an absence of structural engineers supporting theories about bombs in the towers, and second bombs @ Oklahoma City.

On the contrary, there appears to be virtual unanimity in the professional engineering community in that the conventional wisdom, which was arrived at through extensive investigations in both cases, is indeed correct.

Rigorous, surely you’re aware that Kevin Ryan is nothing more than an ideologically motivated fool who completely misrepresented the whole situation regarding the steel, the tests UL did recently for NIST, and whatever role UL played in the construction of the towers. UL does not certify “steel”, as Ryan implied. They certify that certain assemblies, complete with the fireproofing that was stripped away by the jet impacts, will stand up for a certain amount of time to certain temperatures.

He was not in any way involved in the work in the fire testing dept., and made many false and irresponsible statements in his unauthorized and entirely inappropriate “letter”.

He is simply a manager, perhaps a chemist, but apparently not an engineer in any field. He wouldn’t have the slightest clue how to properly evaluate and explain the collapse of the towers.

Virtually all the world’s professional civil, structural and fire engineers, architects, experts in building collapse forensics, materials experts, etc, etc, basically agree with the final conclusions of the investigations of both Murrah and 9/11.

Unfortunately, Kevin Ryan belongs to none of these groups. Nor does anyone else in the so called “truth” movement.

Rigorousintuition wrote:
”Sanity: Would you care to address your comment that
. . . . “

Why? It stands on its own.

Rigorousintuitio n wrote:
” Sanity, you portray 911 truthers as “rapid” and unbalanced, but somehow you are allowed to make this kind of ad homynym mischaracterization of truthers as exemplified in the above quote– and that’s okay? “

Yes, it is a characterization, but one that is based on observation. This very page of comments and attacks on Matt Tailbbi is ample evidence of that.

Rigorousintuition wrote:
” At this point your comments insinuate 911 Truther=Muslim Terrorist & Retard“

Some people find the term “retard” to be offensive. Do you often use that term? That is rather insensitive of you.

Rigorousintuition wrote:
”
For all those interested, there are structual engineers who dispute the science put forth by Sanity and Gary. Some Engineering acadamics have also spoken out, Jerry Russell (master’s degree in Engineering from Stanford University)“

A civil engineer who specializes in off shore oil rig platforms may understand how those structures respond to oil fires, but that does not qualify him as a structural engineer who understands tall building dynamics.

Does he also believe in the No Planes Theory, or is he a nano-nuke in the basement type of guy?

Rigorousintuition wrote:
” Judy Wood, (a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University) has published The Case for Controlled Demolition “

Judy Wood. AN assistant professor who has been consistently denied tenure at Clemson. That is hard do to, unless you are particularly bad at what you do. (Which apparently, by all accounts, she is). Her paper is so full of holes, that a first year engineering student could demolish it.

Oh, and BTW, do you also subscribe to the theory put forth by Judy Woods and Morgan Reynolds that no planes hit the two towers? That there was a giant “blue screen” holographic projection that made people in NYC think there was a plane? Is this what you are advocating? Judy Woods is.

Rigorousintuition wrote:
”I really have or any further comment for this out of the way forum is: Sanity and Gary how much do you get paid to post here?“

Typical. Rigorous is unable to grasp the simple fact that ordinary people find him laughable and can get simple enjoyment at poking holes in his silly theories. Fortunately for him he can fall back on that old standby for the paranoid: everyone who disagrees with him is a paid shill. Tell me, do you believe that I am specifically out to get you? Do you think that there is a case file somewhere with your name on it? Do you really think anyone actually gives a rat’s ass about what you think?

“Sanity and Gary how much do you get paid to post here?”

I don’t know about Sanity, but I get 10 cents/word, up to a maximum of $100/post. That’s pretty standard.

You’re not getting paid to post, rigorous? Man, I thought everybody was. Dude, you’re missin out on some gooood money!!

Log onto:

“getpaidtodebunkst uffon theinternetnomatterwhatitis.co m” and create an account.

Then, watch your Paypal account swell!!
(I just made $43!)

Jerry Russell appears reluctant to state what field of engineering his degree is in. Somehow, if it was in civil or structural, I think that would have been proudly stated. He also has a degree in psychology.

His paper contains absolutely no science, no engineering and no calculations. Just psycho-babble. One of his ‘links” at the end of his paper is to Eric Hufschmid’s holocaust denial/revisionist site. Give me a break.

Judy Wood seems to be another one of those occasional oddball professors that on the surface seems like a credible advocate. However, upon closer examination, it is obvious that her field is mainly the study of the mechanics of human teeth and related dental subjects. She’s not only a truthie, but also a toothie. I’m quite confident that she also harbors the same political biases that each and every one of these people eventually can’t help but display.

Steven Jones appeared credible at first blush, but he expressed political bias in his lectures on his 9/11 theories, and his “paper” has been found to contain numerous intentional photographic distortions and misrepresentations and distortions, and several quotes taken completely out of context. He was obviously not really searching for the truth, he was systematically ignoring everything that would work against his theories. And there is plenty.

No, there is not a single solitary truthie that has the ability to debunk, much less even understand, the advanced structural physics on display from the likes of Zdenek P. Bazant and the numerous qualified scientists and engineers both public and private that participated in the NIST investigation.

The formulas and analysis contained in the following paper would make their head spin:

(search: “mechanics of progressive collapse” Bazant)

Gary & Sanity,
Putting aside all the barbs and jabs, I have to say I’m not one to stand in the way of the data, and after researching the info you two provided, I can truly say the truther perspective is standing on shaky ground. You two are right, the shock of the whole tragedy seems to drive one to the extremes of explanation. Thanks for providing some stimulating, mind changing info. Rigorous

Gary and R.I.:

Take a bow. A tear-jerker, but I don’t feel your motivation. More homework on your roles would be helpful. R.I., compared with the real Rigorous Intuition, you write as though you cannot think your way out of a wet paper bag.

“4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.”

Did I fall for a hoax? Could be, I guess. You may be correct on this, Michael, but the rest of your analysis is rather paranoid and ridiculous.

Will the real Rigorous please stand up?

I agree with Tom that “as long as bad things happen, there will always be a conspiracy theory.” There’s a part of the human psyche that refuses to accept the randomness of fate. It is natural to feel afraid and powerless when murderous fanatics get the upper hand. It is tempting to believe that some shadowy cabal is in control of everything, because it provides a sense of false comfort. In my view, people who believe in conspiracies are unsuccessfully trying to repress their fears. They need to admit that bad things happen to good people for no reason.

how can you dismiss wtc-7 via showing how incompetent those neo-cons generally are? That was the most secure building in all of NY and it fell from…what?!? the 9/11 commission DIDN’T CARE to find out – and that makes us wonder why…Why is the news-media pressuring the people to come up with a smoking-gun instead of holding the administrations feet to the fire to actually prove that they didn’t do this? THEY’VE NEVER OFFERED ANY COUNTER-PROOF, the majority of New Yorkers think they were in on it, and amateurs like yourself merely knock on the hard-work and research of others.

So explain WTC-7, and if you can’t do that, don’t knock anyone for trying. We know that they’re scumbags, so start acting like it.

Since all these truthseekers like to investigate so much, why don’t they make it a project to interview some of the fire and rescue personnel who were actually involved in operations involving wtc7?

Probably the reason they don’t is because they know they’d learn that everyone was fully expecting that the building would fail for several hours before it did. They know that if they actually talked to someone who was there, and reported their testimony in context, that it would be clear that nobody had any reason to suspect that it was a deliberate demolition. There would be no reports of the traditional pops or cracks that demolition charges report.

There wouldn’t be reports of a perfect “in its own footprint” collapse that took only six seconds, but there would be reports of a rather diagonal and hap-hazard one lasting more in the neighborhood of 15-18 seconds.

” 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.”

9/11myths dot com …… WTC7

Matt,
First, there is just too much posted here to read thoroughly and I’m afraid I honestly don’t care what all these people – or you – have to say on the subject. Or more to the point OFF the subject!I’ve read most if not all of what you have written and find that you have (and probably had) your mind made up rather than approaching this subject as an objective journalist.
I must admit that I visit some ‘9-11 truth’ websites and find myself a bit embarrassed by assocoiation whith a lot of seemingly extreme theories – mostly about other subjects like chemtrails or The Illuminatti, etc. Bear in mind however, that I don’t have a closed mind about all their info I just have a life beyond my interest in what happened on 9-11 and at first blush find some of these notions a bit extreme.. and there are only so many hours in my day.
On the subject of 9-11 however, I see little real evidence of your having ‘debunked’ anything!
You seem first, to have missed the point that what all these disparate people from all over the world have in common, is simply that they see far too many unanswered questions about the huge numbers of accidents, security failures, coincidences and obvious little cover-ups of many, specific areas of inquiry.
I clearly see you as making yourself a part of your story and have to ask whether you are driven by your journalistic ego or maybe the simple, human need to be ‘right’ at all costs.
I see that you mis-characterized Stephen Jones’ attitude as being driven by ‘conspiracy theory’ for instance, when in fact I know him to be driven only by the science. He is a very humble man, soft spoken and ‘conservative’ – a BYU professor for hell sakesa! Maybe I should say a ‘former BYU professor’ who resigned his enviable position driven by integrity and sincerity and not much else that I can divine!
I hear the other side of your confrontation with Nico Haupt and hear what you concluded so casually about Bldg #7 and can’t help but realize that you are the ‘conspiracy theorist’ in this debate.
I humbly suggest that you get over yourself and approach this issue with a fresh eye.
For a historic look at ‘false flag terror’ read some Tarpley. It’s very interesting historicalk view and a good read.
Realize, if you can possibly face the fact, that the common goal of these ‘wing-nuts’ – their only common goal – is an honest and thorough investigation, truly objective, separated from political consideration and controversy (as much as possible).
I too, lack faith in our government institutions and was seduced for a few days by the notion that ‘ if one can’t believe that our government made all those mistakes on that critical day, one simply doesn’t understand the weakness of beurocrocy’, as someone said about the issue. But then I watched the manipulation of opinion, the lies and deception and the finally the motiviation of our government & finally realized that there were just too many things wrong, too many coincidences to believe, There were too many deceptions fitting right into the pattern in the events that followed, 9-11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Ghrev, and on and on…
I won’t argue that the Murrah bombing was conspiracy, or the Kenendy assassination, or even necessarily that it wasn’t a plane that hit the Pentagon. Further, I won’t be lumped by you among people who are like-kids-in-a-candy-shop regarding conspiracy theories.
I must offer here however, that the terrorist or whomever we’re talking about, didn’t attempt to ‘destroy’ the Pentagon as you state, but rather appeared to have done some mighty complex flying – likely beyond the capabilities of the Arabs we ‘know’ about – just to hit it where the lowest number of our people were killed, when they could have – should have – had the knowledge to hit it right where Runsfeld’s office is. Instead they hit an area that was under construction and where a minimal number of lives were lost including no or few, military personnel. Again, too many coincidences, and if you show me pics of men in suits moving those two big, jet engines – or explain where they went – I’ll concede the point, willingly.
Further, convince me that the only security cam in the area was the 7-11’s across the street – or that there is a plane showing in the footage they finally released – or that there were (is, now) no defense weapons of any kind at the Pentagon, that just becasue planes fly over commonly, they’ve made no provision for defense against an attack like this one.
Aside from studying the real history of false flag terror, make yourself an objective list of the questions that must be asked about those events, the questions one might assemble from a variety of websites, books and research. Consider these things in the light of world events since 9-11 and the pattern of deception that seemingly began with 9-11. Then, if you don’t find your intellectual curiosity truly stoked by the puzzle pieces you have assembled before you, I will understand if you go back to attacking the ‘nut-case-9-11-conspiracy-theo rists’ – I will understand that you couldn’t stir up material for anything as interesting as this subject you’d ‘already solved’, which glorified you as a yellow journalist.
I only hope you don’t gain satisfaction from hiding behind a successful-US government-stonewall, for all our sakes.
Good luck with that!

Matt,
I’m going to suggeat a path for you which if your contention that they are bunk and can be discreited or exposed, should be capable of putrting to rest, mmmm ninety something percent of all 9/11 ‘conspiracy theories’.
How about assembling a complete list, starting with the list from a book, video or website – as a beginning? Post the list here and let the posters here refine it and add to it.
Then explain for all of our benefit,how it happened that all of these testamonies, requests then demands to appear before the 9-11 commission, taped conversations, including from the air control towers and other testimony whose dating can be vrified, came out. What motivated these people to ask hard questions or tell their stories – in a time frame before ‘9-11 Conspiracy Theory’ was even a concept. Before they knew there would be no counter testimony forthcoming. Long before there was interaction or cross pollination there were people experiencing events which they considedred notable, novel, threatening, suspicious and worthy of inclusion in official hearings and documants. Many of them told others in ways and conditions that can be time stamped.
Without playing amatuer psychiatrist please, give us a coherent theory of how the ‘9/11 Conspiracy Theory’ was conceived and what motivated these people during the earliest stages of the idea. OH! and explain the events or incidents in each case which instigated coming forth, please.

Fred asks:

“…please, give us a coherent theory of how the ‘9/11 Conspiracy Theory’ was conceived and what motivated these people during the earliest stages of the idea. OH! and explain the events or incidents in each case which instigated coming forth, please.”

However, previously he conceeded thus;

“I won’t argue that the Murrah bombing was conspiracy, or the Kenendy assassination, or even necessarily that it wasn’t a plane that hit the Pentagon. Further, I won’t be lumped by you among people who are like-kids-in-a-candy-shop regarding conspiracy theories.”

Might it be that the answer is the same for the WTC buildings as it is for Murrah, JFK and the Pentagon? That they’re all fallacious? Wouldn’t that make the most sense?

Could it be that they’re all a result of a certain segment of society seeing what they want to see, rather than the whole picture?

I used to buy into all the Murrah theories about second bombs, but upon reading some of the old arguments for them from that time period, some striking similarities are evident. In both cases, the alternate theories are absent support from the body of society that is most qualified to pass judgment — structural engineers. It seems that in both cases people are willing to take the word of unqualified agenda-driven people over that of those who actually have expertise in the field. Logical theories about why things happened that are based on solid evidence are simply ignored.

For instance, put the words Murrah and Partin (the explosives expert) in a web search. You get some 17,000 results. Then, add the phrase “transfer truss” to the words Murrah and Partin. Now you will get only five. Adding the phrase “upward pressure” to Murrah and Partin gets you fourteen.

See what I mean? There is no effort by the folks promoting the alternate theories to even mention the factors that structural engineers say were central to the collapse.

For 9/11, enter the words WTC and explosions. 2,610,000 results. Now add the phrase “smell of kerosene”, which is the generally accepted reason for secondary explosions at the WTC, and suddenly we are down to a mere 33. For the first entry, you get nothing but conspiracy sites. For the second, you get almost no conspiracy sites.

Gary ignored what I wrote about not playing amatuer psychiatrist, and then went on to ignore my main point.
Can someone explain away the number of very powerful statements and questions in ‘raw’ form, raised immediately or almost immediately after the event? I’m speaking specifically of stories and testimonies that came forth before any concept of a ‘conspiracy theory’, Each of these people were moved to step forward with testimony of observation of anomolies because they were trying to help by providing independent information that they believed would shed light on the perpetrators. They did so in many instances without any thought of conspiracy theories, without concern for appearances, support of any group of theorists and without time to ‘reorganize’ or revise their testimony to fir any theories.
The list is very long, but
I’ll start with the testimony of Willianm Rodriguez who was a hero on that day and lead three groups of the firemen into the buildings where he and they witnessed numerous explosions and other anomolies.
There are also many taped remarks of firemen and numerous testimonies of explosions before the buildings fell down.
Gary and/or other ‘debunkers’ can chime in at any time while we build a list, but i hope they will address the question without other accusations, personal attacks or playing psychiatrist. We are a large group not lending ourselves to cheap analysis, and i doubt we’ll benefit from same.
Gary remarks that since I’m not a broad ranging conspiracy theory ‘buff’ it ought to make more sense for me to accept that all conspiracy theories are fallacious. I don’t know what kind of logic this is. Would it be called – maybe wishful thinking? Simply put Gary, I have seen a long chain of incredible and unlikely events, requiring acceptance of a long, long list of coincidences and anomolies, as normal. I’ve then watched them lead to attacking the Taliban which were our asset not to long before. I’ve watched us suddenly comletely embrace Pakistan, then seen our government lie to us about WMD in Iraq and take us into a war, they knew they couldn’t present truthfully to the public or our representatives & ulimately maintained by an amazing variety of changing arguments. I’ve heard Cheney say a hundred times or more ‘it isn’t about the oil.’
I’ve spoken to and read info from people like Stephen Jones who asked questions for years, based only on the science and restrained himself from any theories of how it happen4d or who was responsible, for years. I have seen him resign from a very comfortable position as a respected professor – out of conviction that something was very, very wrong here.
I’ve watched Americans’terrorized’ purposefully – by their own gevernment.
I see any number of problems with the official story almost beyond counting.
I am convinced to my core that the official story, in all it’s developmental versions and variations has very serious problems. The very political nature of the 9-11 commission and it’s findings is so obvious that ‘cover-up’ seems like the only plausible explanation.
I’m not necessarily convinced that a missile hit the Pentagon, but the official version certainly doesn’t make any more sense. How did that airliner, ploted by the worst of a bad group of tyro-pilots, come in that low, not make any marks on the lawn, not disturb the constrction equipment lying around and how did the soft nose of the plane make a hole – of questionable dimensions – while the engines didn’t make as much as a scratch on each side of that hole. What happened to all the wings, engines and parts that had to remain outside the building? I’m not speaking of a little box full of detritus, I’m talking about two engines weighing several tons each. The wings had to be torn off and they and the engines left lying outside. Can you really argue that they disintegrated, into unrecognizable dust?
Gary, if you had really read my earlier post you’d have realized that I just haven’t had time for all the historic conspiracy theories in my lifetime, but an interest in this one leaves far more questions than answers.
One of my questions is, ‘why does someone like you have such an interest in defending the official story?’

Fred asks:

Can someone explain away the number of very powerful statements and questions in ‘raw’ form, raised immediately or almost immediately after the event? I’m speaking specifically of stories and testimonies that came forth before any concept of a ‘conspiracy theory’…..

…… I’ll start with the testimony of Willianm Rodriguez who was a hero on that day and lead three groups of the firemen into the buildings where he and they witnessed numerous explosions and other anomolies.

Let’s examine Rodriguez’s testimony from that very terrible day:

Aired September 11, 2001 – 13:30 ET

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.

After a period of time in which an attention loving Rodriguez came upon hard financial times, and had contact with a lawyer, his testimony evolved into claiming that he heard a “huge explosion” just before the jet impacted. In addition, someone having their skin burned off would fit much more closely with a kerosene fire-ball than it would with some kind of demolition charge, or so it seems to me.

So take you pick, Fred. Is it raw, or refined?

Strangely, and I mean no sarcasm here, not one of the links that have been posted here since I began reading and posting here a few days ago, has worked for me. I haven’t had much help from them.
I understand how Gary feels about the tax dollars involved in the ‘investigations’ to date. Now, imagine how it feels to understand the politics and lack of integrity in the way their procedures worked and to know (perhaps I should say to believe), that all those tax dollars were wasted on a carefully controlled and constructed cover-up!
Like you, I have to rely on my own intelligence and even a little intuition in judging the disagreements between people like Stephen E Jones and his (few) detractors. In my mind Jones wins in a ‘landslide’.
This man is a very serious, quiet, even humble Mormon, an outwardly conservative man (I’d about have to guess he voted for Bush in 2000) who HAD a nice position as a professor of physics at BYU. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists have assumed, BYU is a church school and receives no government funding.
In the past couple of years the Mormon Church has felt it necessary to officially announce that they do not support any political party or philosophy, because so many Mormons really seemed to believe they did and that the ‘right thing’ would be to vote Republican. Mormons want above all else, to be accepted by the world as mainstream, fiscally and socially conservative. Utah’s Democratic Party is a joke and the presidential candidate has zero chance in the electoral college. Professors at BYU are required to maintain a ‘temple recommend’ (certifying worthiness to participate in temple rituals) at all times and to abide by strict Mormon principals. I believe I’m correct that drinking coffee would end a BYU prof’s career.
BYU security has authority to act, enforcing proper behavior of the students even off campus and I know people who have been busted by campus security at ‘wild parties’ off campus. Jones thrived for years in this environment never being involved in any controversy, reprimanded or raising any questions about a long glorious career as a respected teacher and serious scientist. His sincerity is impeccable, as is his integrity.
For years after becoming involved in the 9-11 research, he studiously avoided any statement regarding any theory of the how, who or why the cover up of 9-11 took place but stated clearly from the beginning that he was drawn into the discussion only by the science. That changed a few months ago when he was a guest on the local PBS station on a local morning program. The moderator pressed him for his thoughts on who the conspirators might be. I was listening as he repeated that he didn’t have a theory, but was becoming aware of and feeling pressure from a cover-up. Then he obliquely stated that Webster Griffin Tarpley thought the World Bank was involved, never using any words like ‘jew’, Israel, etc. The following guest just happened to be both a debunker and a locally prominent member of the Jewish community and needless to say the anti-semitic shit hit the fan, as far as I could ascertain for no substantial reason!
BYU which had tolerated his work and the things he’d published over a period of years as well as his known membership in Scholars fo 9-11 Truth, was suddenly very concerned about his scholarship and his science and suspended him while they investigated his work. Within the next couple of weeks I heard that he had resigned. No new findings have been forthcoming from the college or the science community and the resignation was his choice. Full disclosure – another BYU prof. disputes Jones’ theories.
I hardly think he expects to replace his professor’s salary as a paid conspiracy theorist and I doubt that any books are in the offing. If there are they’ll be scholarly, thorough and focus on the science. I haven’t seen any of the contradictions to his work, that made more sense to me than his research. From all outward appearances he has resigned over matters of integrity and conviction, in defiance of an institution which is very much a part of his faith, and at the loss of his position, tenure and salary.
Contrary to what the 9-11 Commission Report said, there were 16 massive I-beam columns in each central core, which were the main structural support for those buildings. The exterior columns supported what amounted to a curtain wall, which required extra support because of it’s cumulative mass, stacked so high.
I’m no physicist or engineer, but I do understand building and structure & I know enough to know in spite of anything anyone says that those 16 massive columns did not have any sidewise pressure to snap them like twigs – into sections – and they simply did not break into smaller lengths that could fall straight down. Think about it- they didn’t melt, they didn’t spontaneously break into sections, they weren’t moved by any sidewise pressure which would have moved them out of the footprint of the building (and would have spread huge, dangerous, falling debris over blocks) There simply aren’t that many ways the columns could have come straight down like that. They could melt (they didn’t), they could disappear, down into the earth, (they didn’t) they might have been broken by sidewise pressure, say if several planes struck them at intervals all the way down, (and with much more force than these hits appeared to have) but this would have toppled them over sideways, or at least scattered debris sideways, they could have been dissolved, by death rays from space :‘wing-nut-conspiracy-theorist’ , but I find the first scenario a lot simpler, a lot easier to wrap my little pea-brain around!

Strangely, and I mean no sarcasm here, not one of the links that have been posted here since I began reading and posting here a few days ago, has worked for me. I haven’t had much help from them.
I understand how Gary feels about the tax dollars involved in the ‘investigations’ to date. Now, imagine how it feels to understand the politics and lack of integrity in the way their procedures worked and to know (perhaps I should say to believe), that all those tax dollars were wasted on a carefully controlled and constructed cover-up!
Like you, I have to rely on my own intelligence and even a little intuition in judging the disagreements between people like Stephen E Jones and his (few) detractors. In my mind Jones wins in a ‘landslide’.
This man is a very serious, quiet, even humble Mormon, an outwardly conservative man (I’d about have to guess he voted for Bush in 2000) who HAD a nice position as a professor of physics at BYU. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists have assumed, BYU is a church school and receives no government funding.
In the past couple of years the Mormon Church has felt it necessary to officially announce that they do not support any political party or philosophy, because so many Mormons really seemed to believe they did and that the ‘right thing’ would be to vote Republican. Mormons want above all else, to be accepted by the world as mainstream, fiscally and socially conservative. Utah’s Democratic Party is a joke and the presidential candidate has zero chance in the electoral college. Professors at BYU are required to maintain a ‘temple recommend’ (certifying worthiness to participate in temple rituals) at all times and to abide by strict Mormon principals. I believe I’m correct that drinking coffee would end a BYU prof’s career.
BYU security has authority to act, enforcing proper behavior of the students even off campus and I know people who have been busted by campus security at ‘wild parties’ off campus. Jones thrived for years in this environment never being involved in any controversy, reprimanded or raising any questions about a long glorious career as a respected teacher and serious scientist. His sincerity is impeccable, as is his integrity.
For years after becoming involved in the 9-11 research, he studiously avoided any statement regarding any theory of the how, who or why the cover up of 9-11 took place but stated clearly from the beginning that he was drawn into the discussion only by the science. That changed a few months ago when he was a guest on the local PBS station on a local morning program. The moderator pressed him for his thoughts on who the conspirators might be. I was listening as he repeated that he didn’t have a theory, but was becoming aware of and feeling pressure from a cover-up. Then he obliquely stated that Webster Griffin Tarpley thought the World Bank was involved, never using any words like ‘jew’, Israel, etc. The following guest just happened to be both a debunker and a locally prominent member of the Jewish community and needless to say the anti-semitic shit hit the fan, as far as I could ascertain for no substantial reason!
BYU which had tolerated his work and the things he’d published over a period of years as well as his known membership in Scholars fo 9-11 Truth, was suddenly very concerned about his scholarship and his science and suspended him while they investigated his work. Within the next couple of weeks I heard that he had resigned. No new findings have been forthcoming from the college or the science community and the resignation was his choice. Full disclosure – another BYU prof. disputes Jones’ theories.
I hardly think he expects to replace his professor’s salary as a paid conspiracy theorist and I doubt that any books are in the offing. If there are they’ll be scholarly, thorough and focus on the science. I haven’t seen any of the contradictions to his work, that made more sense to me than his research. From all outward appearances he has resigned over matters of integrity and conviction, in defiance of an institution which is very much a part of his faith, and at the loss of his position, tenure and salary.
Contrary to what the 9-11 Commission Report said, there were 16 massive I-beam columns in each central core, which were the main structural support for those buildings. The exterior columns supported what amounted to a curtain wall, which required extra support because of it’s cumulative mass, stacked so high.
I’m no physicist or engineer, but I do understand building and structure & I know enough to know in spite of anything anyone says that those 16 massive columns did not have any sidewise pressure to snap them like twigs – into sections – and they simply did not break into smaller lengths that could fall straight down. Think about it- they didn’t melt, they didn’t spontaneously break into sections, they weren’t moved by any sidewise pressure which would have moved them out of the footprint of the building (and would have spread huge, dangerous, falling debris over blocks) There simply aren’t that many ways the columns could have come straight down like that. They could melt (they didn’t), they could disappear, down into the earth, (they didn’t) they might have been broken by sidewise pressure, say if several planes struck them at intervals all the way down, (and with much more force than these hits appeared to have) but this would have toppled them over sideways, or at least scattered debris sideways, they could have been dissolved, by death rays from space :‘wing-nut-conspiracy-theo rist’ , but I find the first scenario a lot simpler, a lot easier to wrap my little pea-brain around!

Fred, the software on this site (rolling stones comments pages) is specifically designed to “kill” direct links by inserting spaces in the links. This is a RS policy issue.

What you have to do is carefully copy the entire link to a text editor, word program or directly to the address bar of your browser program. Then you have to carefully look at the ling and delete and BLANK spaces that you find.

It’s a pain in the behind, I know, but that is the only way it works.

Can’t explain how this was double posted of thow the last portion was turned into babble – if the moderator removes those two incoherent, duplicated postings I’ll try it over…

Can’t explain the double posting or all the gobble-de-gook at the end! Hopefully the moderator can remove BOTH postings and I’ll do a re-do!
I hope there is a moderator!
F

Thanks Sanity,
I’m sure that’ll help – I’m working for a while with a 56K modem and Hotmail email, so a little inconvenience is nothing!

I see I even double posted my comment to the moderator – is there a moderator?

Going to go on ahead and post my intended last portion – ONCE ONLY I hope! – Sorry!

Think about it- they didn’t melt, they didn’t spontaneously break into sections, they weren’t moved by any sidewise pressure which would have moved them out of the footprint of the building (and would have spread huge, dangerous, falling debris over a large area) There simply aren’t that many ways the columns could have come straight down like that. They could melt (they didn’t), they could disappear, down into the earth, (they didn’t) they might have been broken by sidewise pressure, say if several planes struck them at intervals all the way down, (and with much more force than these hits appeared to have) but this would have toppled them over sideways, or at least scattered debris sideways, they could have been dissolved, by death rays from space :‘wing-nut-conspiracy-theorist’ , but I find the first scenario a lot simpler, a lot easier to wrap my little pea-brain around!

Sorry, will try the last part one more time – hope you cqan make sense of it!- F
…or at least scattered debris sideways, they could have been dissolved, by death rays from space :‘wing-nut-conspiracy-theorist’ , but I find the first scenario a lot simpler, a lot easier to wrap my little pea-brain around!

I’ve decided my typed emoticon didn’t work and truncated all the the rest If the moderator removes all that junk – starting withthe duplicate posts – I’ll do it over.
Or id he/she doesn’t or if there is no moderator, I’ll do it tomorrow!
Ignore me for now!
F

“…His sincerity is impeccable, as is his integrity”……

No, this is far from the case, at least as far as Jones’ 9/11 paper is concerned. His paper is full of distorted, mischaracterized photos, and manipulated quotes. He cites Holocaust revisionists. (Chris Bollyn) He cites an admitted fan of LSD, who has no expertise in structures. (Peter Meyer)

Jones almost certainly has purposefully left out key information that serves to explain things. For example, it’s pretty common knowledge that WTC7 was constructed over huge electrical transformers, probably unadvisedly, using what is known as “transfer trusses”. Jones makes no mention of this, and tries to paint WTC7 as being just a common steel framed building. He makes passing reference to “possible” damage to the building by WTC1, but fails to cite commonly known testimony that describes it as being pretty massive. Jones fails to cite the strong belief among the firefighters that the buildilng was going to collapse several hours before it did.

He uses a picture of a mass of compressed floors, but distorts the color and the clarity to make it appear like a cooled chunk of molten metal. In the real picture, you can clearly see pieces of paper in the mass, along with other non-molten objects.

He uses a picture of firefighters searching for survivors with a bright light, and distorts the color so as to make the claim that it’s the glow of molten metal from below.

He leaves out a key sentence from an editorial by William Manning that makes it clear that his theory is that poorly fireproofed trusses are behind the collapse. He commandeers the editorial, editing it in such a way to make it appear that he just might believe in thermite as well.

Perhaps the most glaring dishonesty is his claiming that his paper has been peer-reviewed. Yeah, sure, if you set up the peer-review panel yourself, and make up your own ad-hoc “journal”.

Somehow I can’t believe that Jones is this ignorant. I must conclude that he is being deliberately dishonest, for reasons that are unfathomable to me. He’s a fascinating bird, to be sure.

That’s very confusing information about Jones – if it’s correct. Who’s the authority who claims these distortions, and why do you think ‘your authority is bigger than my authority’?
BYU was very acceptiong of the science and scholarship of his work before he got ‘anti-semitized’. I remark further on all that kind of pressure and my suspicion of it below. If the official story is correct, why won’t it stand on it’s own – without political manipulation?
I was ‘present’ fro all of that and clearly saw that he was restrained in his presentation and that he never used the words Jew or Israel. He very clearly said that Tarpley thought the World Bank was involved – AFTER saying that he didn’t have an opinion himself and was only concerned with the science.
What does your own knowledge of the world – simple, seat-of-the-pants-physics – suggest to you, about what happened to the vertical columns – how can you imagine those 32 columns (16 each bldg) came straight down into the footprint of the building – not even one still standing or flopping sideways outside the footprint?

I’ll post the last part of my last attepted post here. I still think it asks some of the most important questions that I’ve never heard answered to my satisfaction…

There simply aren’t that many ways the columns could have come straight down like that. They could melt (they didn’t), they could disappear, down into the earth, (they didn’t) they might have been broken by sidewise pressure, say if something like several planes struck them at intervals all the way down, (and with much more force than these hits appeared to have) but this would have toppled them over sideways, or at least scattered debris sideways, they could have been dissolved, by death rays from space, or they could have been cut into lengths as in a controlled demolition.
Lacking one of these events they should have remained standing, as the floor pans fell down around them – assuming a plausible explanation why even the floors would fall – in fact I find it hard to see how they could have been standing much less than their full height for the reasons above. Even if all sixteen – in each building – ‘broke’ neatly, right where the planes struck, it doesn’t take a degree in physics to see that the upper parts would topple out of the buildings’ footprints, killing pedestrians and damaging surrounding buildings all around the area. Then after the floors fell down around them like a stack of records in a jukebox – unlikely as that is – the columns would still be standing up.
Perhaps you can mention another way.
I could do a computer simulation of fire burning water, glass and steel, but I challenge you to try a simple, real simulation – without the element of theory a computer simulation would have. Look at the other science already extant. Better yet, use your own common sense. The one element outside the range of our ‘common sense’ is burning jet fuel. I find nothing anywhere to refute the science which says that it burns under optimum conditions at a temp about 1000 degrees LOWER than would be required to effectively make ANY molecular change in that steel structure. As I understand it, that means the steel itself without any regard for the ‘fireproofing’, it’s absence or it’s condition. Common sense does tell you that you saw a lot of the fuel burned outside the building upon impact, and that the spaces they entered weren’t optimum combustion chambers.
Besides being built of steel, concrete and glass and filled with Class A fire rated materials, those buildings were built with numerous design features that should have kept fire from spreading down the elevators, stairwells and utilities cores. If the impact and explosions disabled some of those doors, separators and partitions, the fire should have been contained within several nearby floors at most, not spreading clear down to the sub-floors or ground floor. Each deck was a steel pan containing a thick (I don’t have the dimensions at my finger tips) layer of concrete. It’s been demonstrated repeatedly and never refuted that I have ever seen, that jet fuel under optimum conditions (say a carefully designed combustion chamber) burns at a temp about 1000 degrees less than would be required to change the molecular structure of the steel columns. We’ve all seen office papers that were falling from the floors which were opened up, totally unscathed by the flame and live survivors moving about those spaces. That’s not to suggest there weren’t flames they just didn’t have anything close to the optimum conditions to reach the temps required to affect any change in those structural columns right there on the floors that were hit, not to mention damaging the steel further down away from the locus of the crashes and fires. Re-read above, to find out why I think this is very important to the ‘official’ theory.
There isn’t a single, alternative theory of how this happened that doesn’t require some degree of melting or warping of those massive, fireproofed, steel columns. An engineer from the manufacturer of the columns said that was impossible in the early stages of the investigation, then backed away seemingly under pressure,
Frankly – and I don’t have a count for you, but – I find the numbers of testimonies of all kinds including scientists’, which have been supportive of the controlled demolition theories and other parts of the ‘conspiracy theory’, then retracted, and changed under some pressure or other, far more suspicious than any variations in testimony no matter how numerous, from the other side. While ordinary people might have ulterior motives, perceptual weakness, failure of memory and other reasons for variants in stories I would expect, especially in such important matters, that science, professional testimony and such would be constant. Seeing people like that change their stories to fit the official story is very suspicious and much harder to explain.
Along with the massive, coincidental and somehow convenient, failures of our so-called-defense, the suspicious coincidence of the war games that day, the obvious and glaring distortions in the 9-11 Commission Report, the clear stonewalling of evidence of all kinds and what I know of the political maneuvering as the Commission was seated, I find the retracted testimonies of scientists, experts and public officials, far more disturbing and much stronger indication of deceit, than the subtler modifications and contradictions in perceptions of the conspiracy theory side.
All the debunkers seem to ignore the evidence of officials receiving warnings and choosing not to fly, the issue of the put options and the even more suspicious stonewalling on the info, science and details, and the political makeup of the Commission itself, but I find those alone much more disturbing, much more compelling than any concern about mistakes, contradictions and distortions in the thousands of bits of information that go into this side of the argument.
Finally, one has to either accept a complex, convoluted even at times counter-intuitive, conspiracy to create a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ as pretext to start a war and grab political power OR the coincidence of an insidious, complex, well orchestrated and perfectly managed terrorist attack with a massive failure, resulting from one small failure piled upon another and another – numerous security failures, intelligence failures, communications failures, military defense failures, structural failures in landmark buildings, ad infinitum… all very convenient for the perpetrators, adding up while the hapless bunglers behind all these failures, either steal elections or manipulate the voting public into illogical outcomes while also cleverly manipulating them into two illegal, immoral wars and into giving up their liberties and civil rights – even some of the basic rights of their constitution.
The ‘stupids’, the bunglers behind these failures, while incompetent on the one hand, are bold and unbelievably clever when it comes to cover-ups even if/when said cover-ups are hiding nothing more than coincidence and ineptitude, and again, fiendishly clever when turning their failures to their advantage, greatly changing the very face of the nation.
Call me crazy, call me ‘wing-nut-conspiracy-theorist’ , but I find the first scenario a lot simpler, a lot easier to wrap my little pea-brain around!

I don’t expect to refute anything with this question but I think it appeals to ‘common sense’.
Gary remarks that Stephen jones is ‘an interesting bird’ and I agree, but that isn’t enough. What could possibly motivate rational men – or men formerly accepted as rational men – like Jones and the other scholars involved in 9-11 Truth to attempt to create a fiction – a house of cards, with all their insider information and knowledge about the worlds of science and scholarship? Why would any 10 year old distort or manipulate a photo that is available all over the internet in it’s original version for comparison? Why would you distort science in a world you know to be full of scientists, eager to prove you wrong and you distort science one must assume that you know you’re wrong, going in!
They would surely recognize, even if they occasionally had to remind each other – that they would be found out! Notr only would they wind up with egg on their faces – bad enough – but wreck their own careers, directly and purposefully.
If they are so wrong, if the evidence to the contrary is really that clear, that broadly accepted they must’ve really drunk the Kool-Aid, because any rational men would knwo this was career suicide.
Niether Jim Fetzer or Jones have progressed as far as they have in the world of scholarship, without knowing full well what tenure is worth not to mention reputation and what the career of a serious scholar is worth as well as how easily such a life can be destroyed. Could they actually expect little green men to come in space ships and save them?
Doesn’t prove much but like many other details the alternatives to sincerity just don’t make any sense!

Very good questions, Fred. However, I would submit to you that the answer is not necessarily because these guys are right about what they say about 9/11.

I honestly can’t explain what would make a supposedly intelligent, careful and ethical man be so careless, ignorant or dare I say malicious with his research.

I can’t explain why Fetzer, another supposedly educated sane individual would entertain such theories as that something else besides flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 hit what most everyone else knows they hit. I can’t explain why he’s recently expressed support for a “Star Wars beam weapon” being what “pulverized” the towers.

Can you? Heaven forbid, I don’t think he’s right. (I know he’s not right) I don’t think that’s the reason he’s apparently sacrificed his good name and reputation. There’s got to be other reasons.

Until Jones can provide some kind of rational explanation for the photos having been altered, or why he’s taken the liberty to quite unprofessionally twist the context of other people’s words to his liking in a supposedly “scholarly” paper, or why he hasn’t provided any kind of calculations similar to the ones provided by Bazant/Zhou in the “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse” paper I pointed out earlier, I would “appeal to your common sense” to greet what he proposes about thermite and molten metals with extreme skepticism.

Fred wrote:

“The one element outside the range of our ‘common sense’ is burning jet fuel. I find nothing anywhere to refute the science which says that it burns under optimum conditions at a temp about 1000 degrees LOWER than would be required to effectively make ANY molecular change in that steel structure.”

You don’t have to cause a “molecular change” (whatever that means) to weaken steel

Temperatures as low as 600 C will cause the yield strength to decrease by up to 50%.

As far as the temperature of burning jet fuel goes, there are a lot of myths and bad science being passed around on conspiracy theory web sites.

The truth is a structure fire can reach 1000 C even without any jet fuel present.

The temperature of burning jet fuel is NOT limited to 800 C as is commonly claimed.

After reading all that, Fred, it’s easy to understand why you suspect what you do.

However, I think you’re making some invalid comparisons and some inaccurate assumptions. The deliberate murder of 3000 American civilians, with the potential obviously being there for it to have been many thousands more, is hardly comparable to the regrettable loss of the lives of our soldiers in Iraq. One scenario has us doing everything in our power to kill our own, and the other has us doing everything in our power to prevent it. (other than never going there, I know) The intention and goal from the start in Iraq was to minimize the loss of life, not the opposite.

I think a more fair reading of history will find that nobody in our government ever even considered deliberately murdering their own fellow citizens to further any kind of policy goal. Military deaths are in quite a different category, and the atrocities of hundreds of years ago regarding slavery and Indians are hardly relevant today.

On the contrary, totalitarian govts. have indeed intentionally murdered some 200 million of their own citizens during the 20th century alone.

Our contrast with them couldn’t be more stark.

This is the kind of thinking that has caused you, and even my Dad for a short time, to take seriously the crazy notions of demonstrated dissemblers like Jones.

“that through a rebellious artist’s eyes I see injustice more readily and solutions more liberally.”

Oooh, how special of you!

I like your quote, Fred. Don’t be bothered by Sanity. He thinks he knows everything and when he couldn’t punch a hole in your arguement he resorted to name calling. He’s a big doo-doo head.

Deez Nuts – thanks!
My only concern about Sanity is what he might do for the reputation of a formerly, perfectly good word!

The lies of our own Evil Empire seem to be raining down on their little, pointy heads and perhaps the whole truth will out, even as they’re marched off to their cells. I don’t pretend to knwo the truth of the events of 9-11 – only that it’s a tangled web of more of their lies – but of all the mysteries of our history this is one we may know before we die, if only because they’ve over-reached and been soooo arrogant!
Think we’ll see Dick Cheney hang his head in shame and say, “I’m sorry.”?

The worst news?
The good ol’ U S of A may be just as long in recovery from the mess they’ve made as Iraq and Afghanistan!!

AND, that’s a long, long time!!

Thanks Gary,
Looks like I have my weekend reading all laid out!

Fred,

Far more likely, but much less interesting, is that stuff just happens. There could have been good reasons for the airline doing what it did, (one way ticket, paid by cash) or perhaps it was simply a case of someone transposing a keystroke while doing some data entry. I think that because she said something somewhere is probably the least likely reason for her problems.

Conspiracy theories are fun and intriguing, but also are almost always simply a reflection of what one wants to believe.

Fred,

Sorry, that was me as anonymous, forgot to put my name in.

Heavens, isn’t everyone and their dog speaking out against Bush environmental policies? Do you honestly think that they would be so petty as to punish someone for speaking somewhere? Do you think that they are so omnipresent that they have spies at every gathering, who are ready to report the contents of a speech to their overlords, much less that this would happen so instantly and efficiently?

Punish her? For what practical purpose? How would she even get the message that her experience at the airlines was supposed to be punishment for her speaking out about environmentalism?

It just doesn’t make any sense, anymore than it makes sense that the govt. would blow up its own financial and military nerve centers.

In the case of 9/11, there is a simple explanation. Brainwashed Muslim murderers pulled off a long prepared and practiced for plot that was 3/4 successful. There is evidence piled to the ceiling to support this explanation. The perpetrators themselves admit to doing it. The towers collapsed due to their design, and the effects of damage, fire and gravity, again supported by piles of evidence, gathered and analyzed by genuine engineering and scientific professionals.

I’m quite confident that there is an equally simple explanation for your friend’s trouble at the airport. I’m quite confident that just as many people who have never spoken out about anything whatsoever have the exact same rate of such experiences.

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that anyone thinks there was anything fun or funny about 9/11. But there is a word for what motivates a relatively small group of people to start hundreds of websites, produce videos, do podcasts and spend endless hours on the Internet looking for more puffs of dust coming from the tower windows, and timing the fall of the towers with their stopwatches.

There’s an appeal, an attraction, a buzz, an addiction if you will. A void is being filled. They feel empowered. I don’t think fun is too far from what these people are having.

What isn’t fun or funny, is that these people are successfully warping reality in the minds of young, and some old people who lack critical thinking skills. People new to the Internet, who haven’t yet figured out that virtually all of the 9/11 truth online world is the equivalent of the supermarket tabloids.

Gary,
..and I didn’t mean to reprimand you for bad taste about ‘fun’ – just making the point that it’s serious business, to me too. As I’ve said before, I don’t have lots of time for ‘conspiracy theory’ but know well that our governement has a dark side, and want to learn all I can about what happened here.
I agree tht there appears to have been a plot hatched by an islamic terror group. It’s obvious that the buildings were hit by planes and they clearly appered to be large like airliners. Our perceptions could have missed other details.
There is very weak evidence that it had anything to do with Osama – even more evidence that Osama if he was involved, had many CIA contacts and influence, and that his family has dubious and numerous connections to the Bush family.
It also appear that they had to have some level of ‘insider’ help to grease the skids and make all those details work out so well. Like you I can;t imagine it was planned by high level officials but I can easily imagine that some level of blackmail, embarrassment, shame, or at least opportunism, has involved them in a cover up.
Were it mere, sequential security failures that’s as large a crime as the ‘major conspiracy’ would be. To add to the insult of those failures no heads have rolled for all those failures and somehow that doesn’t seem to bother a lot of people – I guess, including you?

About my author friend – her profile, readership and influence is nearly as threateniung potentially, as Joseph Wilson’s. Tell me he wasn’t worth their trouble, or not ‘covered by their network’.
Tell me that the numerous videos of fat, or unusual looking ‘Osamas’ along with the numerous reports of his death and private Wahaby burial in the desert, in late 2001, don’t suggest at least a minor, little conspiracy to use him as a straw man.
Further, tell me just lying to take us into Iraq ‘to fight terrorism’ coupled with this current, irrational hanging on to the occupation like a dog with a bone, doesn’t smack of something terribly wrong and remind you that
things aren’t at all like they appear – like they want us to believe!
No single element of ‘conspiracy theories’ is necessarry here to see that this mess stinks like rotting fish and you and I will likely be very old men before we totally understand what’s happened here or most importantly, what America has lost!
I would like to continue our discussion about the oil sometime next year, but lacking that just remember me as this plot unfolds. I suspect maybe you’re coming ’round to my point of view on that subject already?

jonny205

Politics and science don’t mix. You can’t explain the ever changing positions and stances of politicians using science, and you can’t answer science/engineering questions using politics.

911 TRUTHERS!!! STAY AWAY FROM THIS SITE! DO NOT POST HERE!

Taibbi is simply luring you to post responses then the govt is tracking your posts via your servers then to your internet providers. They will then round everyone up and force you to live underground in the Greenbriar West Virginia bunker until this all blows over and the conspirators are safe.

I AM ONE OF YOU! I AM WRITING FROM A FOREST CLEARING AFTER MY ESCAPE. SEND HELP & CRUNCH BERRIES!!!!

The whole world saw the towers demolished.
Period.
Everybody knows what the Bushes are capable of.
Period.
Talk all you want Taibbi.
We know what we saw.
We know what we know.

I had many doubts about 9/11 conspiracy theories, until I started looking at the photographs of the pentagon. It simply WAS not hit by a 757. Go to right wing media sights, look at pictures of the damaged building, it is impossible for a large jet to do so little damage. Remember the explosions on the WTC? How big and wide spread they were. Compare how little damage is done to the building. Also, how can some camel herder with very little piloting experience hit a 5 storey building with a 757. Please post pictures of the pentagon attack, and explain to me how I am wrong in my assumption that this was an inside job.

Perhaps you can debunk the real issues of 9/11 Truth:

Like:

Sibel Edmonds, Gagged FBI Whistleblower

Norman Mineta’s 9/11 Commission Testimony

$100,000 Wire Transfer to Mohammad Atta, authorized by Pakistani ISI

The 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report that have not been declassified.

This is a good place to start.

Do not spit the same venom about the “theories” that we have all heard over and over again. Where have all the real journalists gone?

And everyone go to google video and watch the 9/11 Victims’ Families Documentary “911 Press For Truth”

Remember it was the families that had to FIGHT for an investigation…while Bush Administration fought AGAINST IT!

You’re still at it, and quite good at sounding uneducated as well, I see.

This is a lesson in futility, but you and those posting comments here who believe that (a) the government is too incompetent to pull this off; (b) the government isn’t evil enough to pull this off; or (c) a bunch of arabs with boxcutters/plastic knives/etc. were capable of not only commandering four airliers, but also keep the US military apparatus off them for nearly 2 hours while they struck 75% percent of their targets, as well as suspend the laws of physics all in the same place, at the same time – well you all deserve what’s coming to you. Sorry if I and others like me won’t join your death wish party.

The truth has a funny way of surfacing. The fact that you are still writing stories about this is self evident.
Your article calls all the victims, eye witnessed that day that heard bombs and explosions liars. There’s this level of denial of what we all witnessed that day, and this was simple, easy to see, and understand, these buildings were demolished by a sophisticated form of controlled demolition. Who was behind it we will never know unless we demand a real investigation.

I see the pathetic twoofers show in droves to spread their dishonest drivel. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever 9/11 was an inside job. However, these clowns want to believe it is because they can’t or don’t want to grasp reality. Islamic militants targeted this country on 9/11 because we maintain such a high profile in the region. We need to take a look at the reasons we stay there, oil and Israel, neither of which are worth American blood. However, the stupid twoofers waste their time on idiotic conspiracy theories rather than focus on real issues.

I guess it only takes Rolling Stone 44 years to find and print the truth. While you showcase E. Howard Hunt’s confession on JFK assassination you are concurrently helping spread the biggest conspiracy theory of 911. That 19 Arabs being directed by some idiot in a cave defeated the most heavily defended airspace in the world and hit 75% of their targets.
Hunter would be ashamed.

Whatever happened to third part of this story? Matt promised to refute the scientific claims of the so-called, Hoplessly Stupid. I guess I’m hopeless and stupid because the events of those days still don’t add up to what we’re being told.

Whatever the truth that lies behind 9/11, one thing is beyond dispute – the government’s secrecy surrounding the events of that day has been without precedent.
However, they may abandon their cult of secrecy on the basis that they can get away with anything now thanks to the determined gulliblity and incuriousness of journalists like those at Rolling Stone.

I have been looking forward to reading the promised part 3. It appears most of your commeters are firmly in the “government did it” camp. I don’t know anything. Most of Matt’s writing suggests that the Bush regime is too inept and incompetent to pull it off. I tend to agree. Without the open and honest investigation we will never get from the Bush gang, how will we ever know what really happened? Meanwhile, I hear more than enough of the “Bush and Cheney did it” from people close to me. I want to hear more from Matt.

You said something like “THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A PERSON WHO DIDN’T WIN THE POPULAR VOTE” in regarads to Clinton. What do you think Busch did. I guess it’s okay when Republicans do it but not the other side. Typical for your side. Smug. Comb your little wave in front back you’re not fooling any body.

You said something like “THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A PERSON WHO DIDN’T WIN THE POPULAR VOTE” in regarads to Clinton. What do you think Busch did. I guess it’s okay when Republicans do it but not the other side. Typical for your side. Smug. Comb your little wave in front back you’re not fooling any body.

Try and see if you can find usama bin laden listed as a suspect for 9/11 on:
f b i . g o v / w a n t e d / t e r r o r i s t s / t e r b i n l a d e n . h t m

I was watching a somewhat ridiculous program on History or National Geographic I think it was that was talking about December 21 2012 being some sort of end of the world just because of it supposedly or officially being the end of the Mayan calendar, and it was going over terrible things that have been happening in the world similar to things that were predicted by the Mayans and how the wobble of the earth is going to go through a huge change on 2012 (I say it was SOMEWHAT ridiculous instead of completely ridiculous because the wobble is somewhat correct, but probably wouldn’t mean end of the world even 150ish years from now when we enter the age of Aquarius [in age of Pisces now], but somewhat ridiculous to think that the Mayans could predict such a thing especially since a lot of it is based on mythology. Anyway, in the program they showed 9/11 briefly and you could actually see yellow/gold thermite/thermate sparking, pouring out of part of the remains of one of the towers after the approximate 10 second straight down collapse.

If the fires were so hot how were there people peering out of the buildings where the plane hit on each of the towers waving for help? You know what Matthew I’ll answer this one for you: A lot of things changed on 9/11. That includes the laws of physics. You can’t use common sense anymore; not when the government and media blame the Taliban at 9:50a.m. 09/11/2001. The jet fuel that didn’t burn up soaked up the trusses, support beams, and core columns, and made the floors crumble all in 10 seconds with no where to go but straight down.

a clarification for fred: the taliban were not really an american asset, more pakistan’s