YBNBY Logo
ornate line
Taking a Piss On the 9/11 Conspiracy Nut Jobs
144 Comments
World-Trade-Center.jpg

We are rapidly approaching the seven year anniversary of one of the darkest days on this great country's history. A day that can still cause me to choke up when I see that horrible footage.

Just thinking of those homemade flyers that were pasted on church fences in my Greenwich Village neighborhood, asking in desperation "Have you seen ____?" makes me upset. It was gutting seeing those flyers. It was horrible hearing the machinery clearing out the rubble at Ground Zero at three in the morning.

The terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 changed this country. A country that I love. As the seven years have gone by, and our nation has struggled to maintain a proper course, an obnoxious and vulgar group has continued to recruit believers. Those that believe that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and an elaborate conspiracy.

Listen carefully: There is not one shred of evidence of a conspiracy.

None. Zero. Zip. Squadush.

I wish to release some of my frustration and dismantle any notion to the contrary.

As with most of the nutty conspiracy theorists, the groups grab odd coincidences, wild speculations, out of context quotes and imagination, then shuffle them like a deck of cards and put them together to "prove" a devious collusion. The practice is no different than the chaps that look at Nostradomus's "prophecies" and say, "see, if you take this word and switch these two letters, then flip this letter upside down, it says 'Bush is the Devil.'" I'd like to smack those dopes upside the head.

nixon2.jpg If there was any proof of conspiracy, it would be the largest news story in history. Not posted on the internet along with Chupacabra sightings. The ironically self-named "Truthers" will tell you that the story is not being reported because the media is controlled by the government. Moses smell the roses... If that is the case, then how did the Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, Grover Cleveland's illegitimate son, Whitewater, Alberto Gonzales' dismissal of U.S. attorneys, Thomas Jefferson diddling Sally Hemmings and other Presidential scandals slip through the cracks?

You're telling me that not one young, ambitious reporter doesn't want to report this "conspiracy" and win a Pulitzer Prize? When Watergate began to unspool, it did so in the pages of the Washington Post. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, wait, no ... that's not right ... Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (there, that's better) dug up proof of slush funds, hush money, paper trails, witnesses and had a high ranking government informant - Mark "Deep Throat" Felt - come forward. There was actual evidence to go along with suspicion.

Any evidence along those lines for a 9/11 inside job? Nope.

Real publications such as Time, Newsweek and Popular Mechanics publish articles disproving the lunacy. But facts, logic and common sense are not as sexy as government conspiracy.

It is good to question our leaders. It is good to question our government. However, there is a not-so-fine-line between questioning and crazy. A line these loons left miles behind them as they grabbed bullhorns and started yelling about conspiracies on YouTube.

Last January I had some visitors here in Manhattan. I played tour guide for a few days. We were downtown to see Wall Street and Trinity Church and popped over to Ground Zero. There was a couple of these jokers handing out flyers and yelling their nonsense. Annoyed, I decided to have my fun and engaged them in an argument. As they spouted their swill, I kept poking dump-truck-sized-holes in their points. One after the other. Then I kept at it, showing how insane their claims were by just repeating them. The calmer and more rational I was, the more angry they became. When the tourists were laughing at them and cheering me on, they were even more enraged. Now they're screaming at me and wanting to fight. (Not a good idea, pally.) I continued to laugh. The tourists continued to cheer. Now, if you are going to debate with me, you need more than your "facts." I am going turn your argument into verbal Swiss cheese and make you look stupid. (Humble, I am not.) You better have more in your quiver than "this couldn't happen" and "that is impossible."

Here are some of the ridiculous claims of the conspiracy theorists. Things that "couldn't happen" or are "impossible."

Claim: There is no way that jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt the steel in the World Trade Centers. Therefore, the fires from the planes could not be the cause of the Tower's collapse.

Reality: Jet fuel burns at 800 degrees to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel melts at somewhere in the ballpark of 2,750 degrees. However, the steel did not have to melt like candle wax to cause a collapse. According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, steel loses 50% of it's strength at about 1,000 degrees. In addition, the jet fuel was not the only substance burning. In extreme heat, steel can expand, then sag, then crack, then give way.

Claim: As the Towers collapsed, we see small explosions firing outwards ahead of the collapse. Showing additional explosions or "squibs" to help facilitate a controlled demolition.

Reality: During the collapse huge pockets of air were being forced down at amazing rates. The force pushed out the air as the floors of the building were, as engineers call it, "pancaking." All the pressure of the collapse rushing down began to pop out windows, shooting debris sideways. A controlled demolition has evenly spaced charges, not sporadic ones randomly firing.

Claim: World Trade Center 7 could not have fallen from the damage incurred from the falling Towers and fires inside the building. WTC 7 was taken down in another controlled demolition. This was done - and I'm not making this up, some people believe this - because a "headquarters" was in the building 7 overseeing the operation and the conspirators needed to eliminate the evidence.

This is one of the favorite questions the nuts will ask. When you begin to hammer their "ideas," they'll say "Oh yeah, then how did Building 7 fall down?" It's a tactic taught on junior high debate teams. Deflect a question with a question. Before the reality, a common sense question; If there was a need for a base of operations to coordinate the operation, why put it in a building that you would need to destroy when you could set up shop in any one of dozens apartments that overlook the area? Doesn't it seem more trouble than it's worth to blow up a whole building when you could hide your activities in a penthouse? We could be cooking up meth or plotting to assassinate the cast of The View in our Upper West Side flat and nobody would know. In addition, if you knew that by the time building 7 went down that the world's media would be focused on the area, why would you blow it up with everyone watching? Not a very stealthy plan.

Reality: A combination of fire and intense structural damage contributed to the collapse of building 7. The fall was what engineers call a "progressive collapse." Video shows cracks in the building's façade just before two of the penthouses fell into the building, starting the fall. A rapid chain reaction occurred from there.

Claim: Right before the jets hit, there was a "flash" indicating a missile fired from the modified jets.

Reality: For crying out loud. What actually happened is that at that speed, when objects collide, there is a transfer of kinetic energy that can cause a flash. Common sense question; So, as an airplane is flying at about 500 miles per hour, one could fire a missile perfectly timed to less than a hundredth of a second before impact at the exact spot the explosives are planted? Really?

Also, if there was a missile strapped to the belly of the plane, how did the pilots and aircraft crew not see a freaking missile attached to the plane before takeoff? They do what is called a "walk around" before every flight, checking the exterior of the plane for any abnormalities. A missile may have caught someone's attention.

Claim: Never before has steel structured buildings collapsed due to fire.

Reality: Also never happened before; two jumbo jets full of thousands of gallons of combustible fuel crashed into buildings. What makes you think you could predict exactly what would happen? By that logic, every house fire would be exactly the same. Go ask your local firefighter that question. Fire is an unpredictable beast.

Claim: The Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 but by a missile because the hole in the building is not big enough.

911-flight77-debris.jpg

Reality:
Now we get into the really stupid. Do you think there would be a perfectly-punched airplane shaped hole like when Bugs Bunny runs through a brick wall? Number of eye witnesses on the record who say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon = about 150. Number that saw a missile = a bagel. The nuts will tell you that there isn't plane wreckage found. Absolutely wrong. There are dozens of pictures of wreckage. (Maybe after the crash some conspirators made their way onto the site with wheelbarrows and planted to debris.) Then they'll say there wasn't enough wreckage. So, by your same logic, any debris from a missile? Nope. Any evidence of a missile or unmanned drone? Absolutely not.

I've read the theories of military planes being used in the attacks. "It wasn't an airliner, there wasn't any windows." (Of course a row of windows was found in the rubble.) Any photos of those "military planes?" No? Common sense question; If this was an elaborately planned event and you needed to make it look like commercial jets, why risk a military jet being photographed?

There are beliefs that the people on the hijacked planes were taken to a facility and unloaded, or that they were conspirators themselves. Damn any of you that believe that. I hope you say that to one of the grieving families of those that died in the crashes and they kick your teeth in.

One of the most amazingly moronic theories is - again, there really are dopes that believe this - that NO planes hit anywhere. What we saw was doctored CGI footage on television and photo-shopped pictures. What thousands saw in lower Manhattan was a "hologram" projected into the morning sky. Common sense question; Were there technicians planted at every local news station and every network to doctor the footage? Someone faking the thousands of still photographs? Was Industrial Light and Magic hired to create the illusion? This one is almost too dumb to mock. But if a photo that nobody cares about of a shark jumping out of San Francisco Bay attacking a helicopter pilot can be shown to be fake, I'm pretty sure the most covered news story in history would have a few people examining photographs.

A hologram in the sky and faked footage is more plausible than hijacked airplanes crashing into the Towers? Bollocks.

Common sense question; If you already had the buildings wired with heavy explosives and Al Qaeda set to take to fall, why crash airplanes in the first place? Doesn't that provide a wildly difficult operation where too much can go wrong? Why not blow up the buildings and name the patsies?

lee_harvey_oswald_2.jpg How many people do you crackpots think could be in on this? With absolutely no concrete evidence, this is one thing that kills these paranoid delusions. Three people can keep a secret. If two of them are dead. If you listen to these idiots, there would be the White House staff, government officials, explosives experts, explosive manufacturers, pilots, people planting bombs, Pentagon employees, Saudi's, Jimmy Hoffa, military officials, the cast of Lost, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, salvage companies, do I really need to keep going? When we talk about hypothetical "impossibilities," here's mine; No group that large can either keep a secret or not leave a paper trial or a money trail or a trail of breadcrumbs. Dozens if not hundreds involved and nobody comes forward to cut a deal for immunity and name names? Not one guilt-ridden conspirator or patriotic staffer? Maybe Oswald didn't act alone when he killed Jack Kennedy in '63. But if you think it was more than a half dozen involved, you're out of your mind.

People talk. They want to tell others they are in the know. That they have the skinny. The scuttlebutt. Sometimes for vanity, sometimes out of duty. But a group of more than twenty-five people keeping a secret this big would rival the odds of being struck by lightening while a shark chomps your leg off and your winning lottery numbers are being called on the six o'clock news.

Final common sense questions; Do you really think there was a few dozen guys dressed in UPS uniforms were sneaking around the World Trade Center building for weeks planting explosives? Then airplanes could hit the spot where the explosives are planted to start the demolition? If you do, I have the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge and am considering selling. Let's talk.

All this being said, this is the main reason I hate these people. Those that spread this unsubstantiated nonsense. Why I hate a sonofabitch like James Fetzer at "Scholars" for 9/11 Truth and the hacks that made the laughable Loose Change "documentary." (One of the producers of that film is a guy named Korey Rowe. I never trust a man named Korey spelled with a K. Under any circumstances.) The half-cocked theories are really about selling books. And DVD's. And collecting fees for lectures at conspiracy conventions. These swine are profiting off this garbage. Taking advantage of the natural human desire to know more than you are supposed to. It's why the gullible buy tabloids with the headline "Inside Brangelina's Relationship!" The tabloid rags are not inside anyone's relationship.

The motivation for the distribution of these crazy-go-nuts theories is greed masked by phony patriotism. If there wasn't money to be made, these jokers would slip into the shadows.

It is my belief that we must question any of these poisonous elements that are making money off their claims.

The banshees scream "why won't the government answer my questions? Why won't they release the black box recordings?" I'll tell you why. Because that would give credibility to these fringed elements of lunacy. Why address the irresponsible and delusional?

My friends, there is reason to question the direction of our country. There are real issues that should be debated so the public can make their own educated opinion. The empty anomalies and ridiculous speculation about our government cooking up the worst disaster on American soil is not one of them. When the crazies shout questions about not enough bones found in the Flight 93 crash site and claim the Saudi hijackers are still alive, don't bite. Only ask for evidence for any of their claims. Sure, a few odd things don't have an answer. But no claim of government collusion dealing with the terrorist attacks on 9/11 has any merit.

What happened on that horrible day, unfortunately, is 19 hateful, delusional, religious zealots hijacked airplanes and managed to crash three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Like the iceberg that sunk the Titanic, sometimes a seemingly innocuous enemy can take down a mighty opponent. That infamous maritime disaster started with a few holes popped into the hull from a still iceberg. Two and half hours later, the mighty Titanic was gone.

You want to write books about UFO's and Sasquatch and The Loch Ness Monster, fine. That's funny. It's harmless storytelling. But when we talk about 9/11, you are dealing with thousands of families that were damaged by that day. That day created widows, widowers and orphans. Friends of mine were there. One who I love dearly that couldn't even talk about it. I know cops that lost friends. I was there when a celebrity who will remain nameless (That's how he or she would want it. He or she is not Oprah, only doing good deeds when the cameras are rolling) delivered new fire trucks to a station and saw the brave firefighters weep in gratitude.

America still stands. She has not sunk into the dark ocean. She is still here. Those that produce this swill are not Her ally.

Selah.





Authors Note: Write whatever you want in the comments. But I will not engage in ridiculous debate in them. It is pointless. Don't think for a minute you are clever for trying to use "common sense questions" against me. I could see that coming long before you thought of it. I won't lower myself to the YouTube style of arguing and anonymous threats.

JW

Share on Facebook StumbleUpon ToolbarStumble This    Submit to RedditReddit!

144 Comments

Well done JW. You know you're stuff.

said E on August 7, 2008 1:02 PM.

Very nice. With a blog this eloquent, I don't think your Author's note is even necessary.

said ConservaLiberCrat_08 on August 7, 2008 1:21 PM.

Amen to that Johnny! Nice job.

said Nicole on August 7, 2008 1:31 PM.

Dave would be proud

said Bigus Dickus on August 7, 2008 1:58 PM.

Excellent piece. I'm not even going to pollute your comments with a smartass remark.

said Dave on August 7, 2008 2:04 PM.

Thank you all above for the nice words.

Thank you for reading.

JW

said Johnny Wright on August 7, 2008 2:05 PM.

Bravo.

said RudeMorgue on August 7, 2008 3:03 PM.

Congratulations,

you bought it all and all you had to do was sit there and believe everything you were told, while your rights and freedoms were taken away. Baaaa.

said manchegoman on August 7, 2008 3:05 PM.

The question isn't weather it was an inside job, but if someone in our government actually knew, then did nothing to stop it. It only takes a handful of people not relaying information to cause a disaster. The 9/11 Report states that Bush administration was briefed and were aware of imminent threats from al qaeda prior to the attack which would involve running airplanes into buildings and did nothing. GW went on vacation.

The motivations are obvious, we invaded afghanistan and iraq and the IMC gets paid. Conspiracy theory or no, we've lost the right to habeus corpus, privacy, the bill of rights and now live in a near police state because of 9/11. We deserve some honesty and answers and should demand accountability from the assholes in charge.

said ryan on August 7, 2008 3:18 PM.

I'm with Dave. Ordinarily I'd have some ironic comment, but this one deserves a straight response. Nicely said.

said limbodog on August 7, 2008 3:21 PM.

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgement. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

G. K. Chesterton

said E on August 7, 2008 3:31 PM.

Ryan has watched Fahrenheit 9/11 one too many times.

Michael Moore is ALMOST as ridiculous at the conspiracy theorists.

said Johnny Wright on August 7, 2008 3:32 PM.

If you listen to the conspiracies, its NOT about whether someone knew and did nothing. The conspiracy theorists claim this to be the burning of the Reichstag, which was actually done by the NAZIs and then used as an excuse to gain more power. Well, the sad truth is this was done by certain EXTERNAL terrorists, but that the trust from that was abused for more power by certain people.

As far as someone having known ahead of time, I think that's bullshit. Most reports say that people thought something might be coming, but no one knew specifically what it was, and the intelligence agency was stuck in a pool of languidness.

As a skeptic, my job is to go with the simplest explanation until there is overwhelming evidence otherwise. Same deal with the moon landing. We were fucking there people. Look at the freaking science before you make these idiotic claims.

Well done Mr. Wright.

said kbk on August 7, 2008 3:33 PM.

Thanks KBK. Again, good to have you.

The vast majority of the time, the simplest explanation is the correct one.

said Johnny Wright on August 7, 2008 3:40 PM.

Man E, that quote was really good. I tip my deerstalker cap to that beauty.

It's better than the old adage, "Never argue with a drunk or a fool."

said Johnny Wright on August 7, 2008 4:03 PM.

It bugs me that there are dumbasses like Ryan, while praying to their Michael Moore shrine for revelation, are quick to point a finger a Bush or anyone who had access to intellegence.
There isn't a sane person alive that would have let 911 happen if they even had an iota of a chance of stopping it.
These same finger pointers are there to call fowl when the leaders of the nation act on any type of intellegence (Iraq War). What the hell are you supposed to do? I watched the intellegence on the Iraq WMD's, I was convinced along with Hillary and everyone else, but who am I to make the decision?
Damned if we do damned if we don't.
I'm glad we have folks like Ryan and Michael Moore armed with thier high school diplomas to help iron out the wrinkles in our intellegence systems.
Douche bags.

said Dave on August 7, 2008 4:05 PM.

FWIW, Rosie O'Donnell is supposed to be one of the cranks. Great minds think alike.

said E on August 7, 2008 4:11 PM.

I don't believe in the really wacky planted explosives stuff, but... thing is, after eight years of Bush & Co., it's hard NOT to believe there was more to this story than terrorists. If you think about it, all we really know for CERTAIN is that the twin towers were hit by airplanes and destroyed, killing lots of innocent people. Everything else (who planned it, why they planned it, how they planned it, who pulled it off, how many people were involved, etc.), is what we've been TOLD. Not what we KNOW, but what we've been TOLD. Because of their Nixonian penchant for secrecy and manipulation, it's easy to believe Bush & Co. at least knew about it, if not helped it along, if not outright planned it. Think of it this way. If it came out tomorrow for a FACT that Bush & Co. knew about/allowed/assisted/planned 9/11... would it shock you? It'd make us mad, sure thing. But would you really be all that shocked? Can't say I would be. And that's a sad comment on the Bush presidency. Maybe on me, too, I admit.

said mooncity on August 7, 2008 6:14 PM.

wow, the site really has changed. It used to be ok to question the govt and not be called names for doing so. Hey, Scara, please take my picture off the site. It's not the one I used to write for.

said Jellio on August 7, 2008 6:28 PM.

Thanks for your thoughts mooncity. I appreciate people being thoughtful and rational, even if they disagree with me a little.

I understand being skeptical of an administration that has been inept and has quite a few scandals still going. I certainly gave up on this group long ago. But we would need actual evidence, not cynical speculation.

Thanks for reading. I honestly do appreciate it.

JW

said Johnny Wright on August 7, 2008 6:30 PM.

Jellio,

Am I saying it's not okay to question the government? Read it again. I actually say it is good to do so.

I will call anyone names that believes this garbage. If I remember correctly, you also said you believed in psychic ability. Both the 9/11 conspiracy theories and psychics have the same amount of proof. None.

I am right, you are wrong.

Love,

Johnny Wright

said Johnny Wright on August 7, 2008 6:36 PM.

Sorry John, I thought I just read a thoughtful dissenting comment posted by "e", that was followed by your comment saying he watched Fahrenheit 9/11 too many times, and Michael Moore is ridiculous...my mistake.

By the way, I visited a psychic this morning that said I would soon find myself trading comments with a douchebag....huh, go figure.

said Jellio on August 7, 2008 6:43 PM.

The Chesterton quote was to point out how difficult it is to discuss things with people in the grips of mental fixations.

Plenty of people who question the government don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy.

said E on August 7, 2008 6:55 PM.

sorry..."ryan", not "e"

said Jellio on August 7, 2008 6:59 PM.

your screed adds nothing to the debate, only recycles the same red herring talking points mentioned over and over by the willfully blind.
one you forgot to mention: how come the govt. quickly acted in every way like conspirators? rushing the "Patriot" act through, invading Iraq ASAP, strongarming the 911 Commission's stonewall bullshit through? If you only looked at how they'd behaved, ignoring all the other evidence, you'd be sure something was up.
what a waste of attention.

said weak try on August 7, 2008 7:50 PM.

Right. The same administration that can't keep any of it's former employees, including it's former spokesman, from pointing out mistakes and malfeasance regarding the non existence of WMDs in Iraq is somehow able to get all the involved parties in tearing down the Trade Centers to keep quiet.

said E on August 7, 2008 9:27 PM.

There are some crazy theories out there, but I've never seen them displayed next to whatever Chupacabra is. I'd like to see that website. The truth about Truthers, real Truthers, is they don't overstep the evidence, and they don't claim to know everything; they simply want another, independent, investigation to look at the evidence and the holes in the official story, which are certainly more than you'd imagine. The 9/11 Commission was a politically pressured investigation that many top officials didn't want to happen.

I'm a Truther, and I don't think the Bush Administration did it. What I do think, is there should be no reason to withhold evidence of any kind, and there should be no objections to further investigations.

Have you considered that the reason these theories are accepted by more and more people is that there might be some reason to believe? Some piece of evidence that might ring true?

For me, it was the Fire Fighter Oral Histories collected within months of the event. Half of them recalled some reference to an explosion or multiple explosions that they did not consider associated with the impacts of the planes. These statements were not the result of a question about secondary explosions; they were volunteered out of honest memory. These statements should have made Ground-Zero a crime scene. Instead it picked up and shipped out as quickly as possible. When Oklahoma City was bombed, the FBI combed through the debris, and found enough of the vehicle to build a case against McVay. The first attack against the WTC was the same scenario. Why not the events of 9/11? Wouldn't the statements of the Fire Fighters, all eye-witnesses to the event, invoke the need for a massive investigation?

Surely you're not willing to call every last believer an unreasonable person. There are some very smart people supporting this movement. I don't claim to know it all, and neither do real Truthers. I apologize for the confrontation you experienced, please don't stereotype all of us. I thank you for your discourse, and encourage you to keep questioning your assumptions in all aspects of your life.

Maybe start with Journal of 9/11 Studies.

said David Lohnes on August 7, 2008 10:03 PM.

I agree with all the points listed here. I do harbor some doubts about fore knowledge of a hijacking / attack though. There was a lot of suspicious financial activity going on just prior to the incident.

Also, one thing I will always HATE, is that when Bush addressed the nation after the attack he SWORE no one had ever foreseen the possibility of the attack. Even though there was legislation in Congress that didn't pass that would have mandated re-enforced cockpit doors. Even though Tom Clancey wrote a bestselling book that had a detailed ending about crashing a commercial aircraft into the Capitol building, and how much damage it would cause, even describing the effects and amounts of burning jet fuel on a building. Yeah, they never imagined it.
(Book - Executive Orders 1997)

said catskill on August 7, 2008 10:04 PM.

until we are allowed to see all the tapes pertaining to the pentagon attack, no one will trust what happened, there were eyewitnesses on the ground on that highway that day who said they saw a small plane and nothing like a big passenger plane. its not a nut job theory if there is evidence they just don't want anyone to see... and a small 5 second still frame shot doesn't cut it either.

said bleah on August 7, 2008 10:17 PM.

'What time is it?'
'9 o'clock'
'How do you know that?'
'I checked it on time.gov.'
'That's a government web site! You trust the government. LOL!'

said E on August 7, 2008 10:32 PM.

Beauty, E.

said Johnny Wright on August 7, 2008 10:34 PM.

I actually heard that Johnny, quotes approximate anyway. Takes all kinds.

said E on August 7, 2008 10:36 PM.

Also knew a few people who thought AIDS was created by the government too.

said E on August 7, 2008 10:37 PM.

David, we may disagree, but you are a gentleman. Less of a prick than myself. I appreciate your comments.

JW

said Johnny Wright on August 7, 2008 10:41 PM.

There is an all together different possibility regarding the Truthers movement. It is the same possibility regarding the Crop Circles folks, the Area 51 people, the (insert name here) suppressed medical treatment of the month advocates, the CIA-created-AIDS conspiracists, UFO-ologists, the Hitler / Elvis / Kennedy is still alive types, etc, etc.

What do all these groups have in common? They all are stating variations of, "Despite living in a house trailer and having no relevant credentials of any type, and also not having a life, I know something you don't know and here is my chance to become the Center of Attention with that insider knowledge."

Next time an advocate of any of these -- or other -- conspiracy theories starts
expounding, make it a point to count all the times that person uses I, me, my and other first-person pronouns. As well, count how many of their premises are actually questions ... not statements? The resulting numbers will clearly get to the heart of that speaker's reliability.

said GregC on August 7, 2008 11:06 PM.

My particular beef with conspiracy theories such as 9/11: the theory depends on the bad guys being, by turns, utterly brilliant and sneaky or clumsy dumbasses--transitioning from one state to the other, as needed to support the theory, with such breathtakingly convenient timing as to be about as statistically likely as one person winning all of the state lotteries in the country.

said David on August 7, 2008 11:07 PM.

Greg, that damn near caused my Aquafina to shoot out my nose. Well done.

JW

said Johnny Wright on August 7, 2008 11:13 PM.

you forgot about the theory that the airforce was running a training drill that had planes hitting the towers and the pentagon. this seems more than a wierd coincidence. it seems more like the government didnt want the jets to have time to shoot down the planes because of confusion.

this video puts it better thqn i cqn. i know this is a forum full of enemies to the conspiracy theory, but a lot of science backs up the twin towers as a controlled demolition. that and many terrorists who were said to have flown the planes are still alive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JithuVAIb7Y

said gunney on August 7, 2008 11:16 PM.

Selah, Johnny.

I've been reading YBNBY for quite some time now, and thought this was a great post on which to begin participating. This blog rocks.

kbk, you're exactly right. Well said.

Dave, if I had been eating food when I read your Ryan/Michael More statement I would have surely choked. LOL!

Keep up the good work, JW. You're a class act.

-EW-

said TheStu on August 7, 2008 11:24 PM.

Your first point only illustrates that it may have almost got hot enought to fall down in a manner that appears not unlike a controlled demolition, guys that do this for a living seem to think its quite tricky to make a building go down like that... you building building 7 argument only addresses the point that the idea of using it as a 'base' is ridiculous - there are many more probable explanations as to why it was taken down, that if fell down for little apparent reason is still ridiculous. As for the pentagon, no one is suggesting that there should be a perfect plane sized cutout in the side of it, but there should at least be damage as wide as a plane - not just a hole. Why not just blow it up? I think an airplane flying into a building creates a much more effective image and scenario than the building suddenly just falling down. why did the guy who owned the buildings take out airplanes flying into building insurance weeks before it happened? Why did the most powerful nation on earth not have a single plane available to intercept these airliners? looks to me as if you've only addressed the obvious and the ridiculous - there's still plenty of questions to be answered and this is a fairly half-baked attempt to do so.

said unconvinced on August 7, 2008 11:24 PM.

Well said David.

For anyone who wants to evaluate Michael Moore's judgement, take a look at the OJ section in Downsize This. He argues that OJ couldn't have done it - because he's rich. Right. When Moore/OJ find the real killer let me know, otherwise I think OJ did it.

said E on August 7, 2008 11:28 PM.

Umm.. Check out the little culture war. I wonder where this goes? Do we want to go there?

No can handle conspiracy theorists? We've got bigger fish to fry I think. We have a lawless state run amuk. Are we really worried about the non-reality based left - even the ones spitting mad, even the ones needing medication? I think no.

Conspiracy theorists have a lot more to say than just 'bombs were heard by many as the towers fell' and 'silverstein himself is on you tube saying they pulled building 7'. There's internment camps, one world govt too, with eternal genetically endowed hamptonites presiding over a slave caste; there's the cornering of the food market and starvation of millions; there's a bloodly grab for the oil that keeps the US military dominant in any conflict, and keeps the trillions bux out of the other guys' hands. Hey, don't forget they print the money and tax to pay for it, too..

Those.. Fu**ers!

What we don't need is an anti-conspiracy theorist movement. The left is great, we should preserve them all, even the non-reality based. Let them be the canary in the coal mine of the lawless RNC state. If the dems get 5 of the next 7 elections and the lefties hound them to smoke weed and make peace, the guy spitting when he talks on the streetcorner about how we need military competitiveness will be another canary. Forgive him if he gets up in your grill.

said aumana on August 7, 2008 11:32 PM.

Thank you for reading Everett. Class act may be pushing it, but thank you.

I can't tell you how impressed I was that you dropped a selah on me.

Cheers,

JW

said Johnny Wright on August 7, 2008 11:34 PM.

The one thing we can be assured of is that the "official line " is a lie.

Your reasoning on every issue is also only a theory. Don't cite corporate or gov't sources to those who question the complicity of corporate and gov't entities.

To infer you know the truth about any of this underscores your naivete and ignorance about power politics and mass media. Ignorance and pride breed blind obedience and injustice.

said Explain the secrecy on August 7, 2008 11:37 PM.

There is only one conspiracy - the conspiracy of incompetence.

said teambob on August 8, 2008 12:17 AM.

Wow, Thanks Johnny for basically doing a cut & paste, regurgitating all the same drivel that can be found on countless websites and offering nothing new or relevant to this discusion other than expressing your own anger and ego.
You've stooped as low as the "truthers" by even wasting your time along with the loyal readers of this blog.

said chad on August 8, 2008 12:20 AM.

You're surprised I flexed my ego? You must be new.

said Johnny Wright on August 8, 2008 12:27 AM.

You call that flexing? More like farting in the wind.
Maybe you should stick to mutated cats and leave the political rants to someone with some writing skills.

said chad on August 8, 2008 12:37 AM.

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

said relax on August 8, 2008 1:51 AM.

Never forget to mention the 13th of may 2008. The day one building of the university of Delft (Holland) partially collapsed because of a fire that started inside a coffee vending machine. Obviously, coffee doesn't burn at 2.700 degrees... must have been an inside-job.

said b°b on August 8, 2008 2:04 AM.

Oh Snap Chad! Next time you might want to actually say what you disagree with though.

said E on August 8, 2008 2:04 AM.

The one thing we can be assured of is that the "official line " is a lie.

Great point. That proves Aliens are here, AIDS is a manufactured disease, etc.

Awesome analysis.

said E on August 8, 2008 2:06 AM.

Why do you care? it gives the nerds something to do

said Franklin on August 8, 2008 3:16 AM.

9/11 was obviously done in a sound stage. with actors. and special effects.
the same way they faked the moon landing.
obviously

said chudez on August 8, 2008 3:20 AM.

OK E. I'll bite

I disagree with Wright's judgement in posting this unoriginal diatribe and I disagree with the fundamentalist manner in which he composed it.

As far as conspiracy theorists, I feel sorry for them. And I despise the shepards that capitalize on their paranioa.

I agree with most of everything that Wright has written above and can only speak for myself when I say that this kind of trite "ego flexing" is not why I visit this site daily.

Bejing Olympics...HELLO? Surely there is a glut of new and exciting fish to fry with this dog and pony show.

said chad on August 8, 2008 3:34 AM.

The only 2 "conspiracy theories" you didn't meantion is the famous one saying the forth plane was shot down by the military and the one stating 4 - 7 of the terrorist involded were alive and well up to six months after 9/11. I've never personally put to much thought into conspiracy theories and don't mean this comment to be a fuel point for debate. Your post is great and speaks volumes for why people are stupid in that they will beleive things to be true because either they want them to be true or they fear them to be true.

said Richard on August 8, 2008 4:32 AM.

Wow - it got a little hot in here last night.

Chad - I'm a loyal reader, and don't consider myself wasting my time. So far, you've contributed nothing other than your disagreement with Johnny's opinion (who obviously disagrees with your opinion). If you have one, please share. But do so with a little more tact, and provide some type of evidence, or LOGICAL arguments that support your opinion. You too, can be seen as "offering nothing new or relevant to this discussion other than expressing your own anger and ego". Just depends on who you ask.

Unconvinced - please share some... okay... ONE of the "many probable explanations as to why building 7 was taken down". I like to consider both sides before making a fair opinion. You put it out there - now go ahead and finish it. Ambiguous statements will not suffice as LOGICAL input worthy of consideration.

Aumana - Got Meds?

Reverend JW - Don't smite them just yet until they support their cases. Remember, WWJD? Rock on man, rock on.


said ConservaLiberCrat_08 on August 8, 2008 8:32 AM.

People are still arguing about 9/11? Booorrriiinnnggg.

said stonewall on August 8, 2008 8:33 AM.

E-You called out the snap with perfect timing.
I'm almost thinking that I need to visit YBNBY at night. There are some pretty interesting people that slither out of the darkness.
I know this is probably a day late and a dollar short but I was impressed with Chad and his comments.
When I read a comment in general, I try to picture the person commenting and try to imagine their surroundings. This is how I pictured Chad.
Late at night, sitting alone in his trailor, Chad had just finished watching the Girls Gone Wild infomercial, when he realised that his job at Taco Monkey just wasn't cutting the mustard. It had been years since he had even talked with a girl and was really wondering if perhaps he should give men a try. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)
After tossing and turning on his couch and itching his nuts from a case of the crabs that he had picked up from the second hand couch that he had purchased from the salvation army, he gets up and decides that he should look at a little porn.
So he goes to Google and googles "giant members", only to find the YBNBY skyscraper column by Baierman.
Striking his curiosity he decides on a little culture and reads Johnny's column on 911 conspiracys.
Frustrated that it was getting late and knowing that he had to be up early at 11:30 Am to work at Taco Monkey, Chad realised that not only did he hate Tacos but he hates Monkeys.
Knowing that Johnny loves Monkeys, Chad had to say something to keep his anger in balance by trying to insult the advocate for all monkeys.
Hence Johnny was the release valve to Chad's anger.
To add insult to injury, my friend E throw out a perfectly timed snap with a whitty comment that sent our hanging Chad to bed.
With the tendencys that Chad carried (not that there is anything wrong with that) the "Snap" hit him below the belt and we will probably never see him again.
Chad, good luck at Taco Monkey. We never knew thee.

said Dave on August 8, 2008 8:35 AM.

DAAAAAAAAAVE!!! Dammit, I just shot coffee all over this damn keyboard!

You rock.

said ConservaLiberCrat_08 on August 8, 2008 8:45 AM.

Okay guys, let's leave Chad alone.

Let the kids take shots at me all they want. My massive ego will not be dented.

Richard, I have read about the hijackers still alive. (I mentioned it very briefly.) Some say they are computer programmers or pilots in Egypt. I've also heard that Jim Morrison faked his death and is living in Africa and Tupac is still alive making records. Pictures and interviews with the 9/11 hijackers with help to substantiate that one. Of course being told "they are alive and well" is enough for some.

I am now searching for more stories about kittys with two heads.

said Johnny Wright on August 8, 2008 8:53 AM.

JW-Tupac is still alive. Lets not go there.
I know this is a bit crazy but there are 3 things that really offend me.
1.Not loving the U.S.
2.Dudes that hit women.
3.Denying the living existence of Tupac.

Johnny, please for the sake of our friendship, lets just leave Tupac alone.

said Dave on August 8, 2008 9:02 AM.

CLC08- thanks buddy.

said Dave on August 8, 2008 9:03 AM.

My apologies Dave. I lost my temper. I will begin to pen a column entitled "Tupac Lives!" for my penance.

I better start the research.

said Johnny Wright on August 8, 2008 9:07 AM.

I've been waiting to bust this one out for just such an occasion:

"Go! Johnny, go go go!"

And thank you for your service to anti-schmucktardery.

said Don't Swayze Bro on August 8, 2008 9:18 AM.

"Even a fool is thought wise if they remain silent"
That's for you Dave.
Johnny's not an fool. He's an asshole.
That is a couple steps up from you Dave.
I'm glad you found yourself a mentor.

Someday he might teach you the magical magic of timezones.

said chad on August 8, 2008 9:21 AM.

Sorry to be so high maintenance JW.

In the words of Tupac ....

So tell me why you changed
Choosing new direction
In a blink of an eye
My time away just made perfection
You think I'd die
Not gonna cry
Why should I care
Like we holding on to love
Thats no longer there
Can you please help me
God Bless me please
Keep my seeds healthy
Banging on my enemies Bleed
While my G's healthy
Hoping they bury me
With ammunition, weed, and shells
Just in case they trip in heaven
Ain't no G's hell ..

Johnny, there ain't no G's in hell. Not even Tupac.

said Dave on August 8, 2008 9:22 AM.

How do you expect people to keep an open mind in your column when it is filled with degrading and insulting remarks? The title "Taking a Piss on the 9/11 Conspiracy Nut Jobs" leaves no doubt to your obvious intention to overarchingly "disprove" those who rightfully question what happened. You may thank someone some day for not blindly swallowing what they are force fed not to mention being discouraged by the slanderous view you have proffered here. The "evidence" you provide also appears to be nothing more than common sense speculation with no links to any credible news articles or other sources. The emotional way you have presented your side is understandable but it is detracting from the real point you are making - something that your commentors (which you cannot control) are perptuating in this forum. Perhaps I'll go to the next article "TEN TRULY PHALLIC STRUCTURES" for more real information.

said arob on August 8, 2008 9:31 AM.

Dear Chad,
Your anger only proves the correctness of my imagination. Come on buddy give it up, how close did I come? Trailor, Crabs, GGW, Giant Members google seach? Give it up, you'll still remain anonymous. OK, perhaps I was a little off, on the time zone. Where do you live?
Scaramouch-If you can, pull up your statcounter and take a look at the time that Chad posted and get his location. I couldn't be that far off.
Back to Chad.
Chad, I'm sorry, honestly I don't know you. I have an incredible gift of reading people. If I were a betting man, I bet you read what I wrote and thought to yourself: "holy crap how did Dave know that I had the crabs from a salvation army couch, and that I was considering dudes after a fruitless hour of watching of the GGW infomercial and how would Dave know that I work at the Taco Monkey?
Chad, I am a wise man. That is all you need to know.
Come on buddy, chill out a bit I know they bitch slap you a bit more than you would like at the Taco Monkey, but we need you. I love the Taco Monkey.
Take this link, I think it will cheer you up a bit and we can all be friends.

www.giantdongsfordudesthatworkatthetacomonkeyandcantgetchicks.com

I love you Chad.

Love Dave

said Dave on August 8, 2008 9:56 AM.

Arob, you nailed it. The guy says at the end of the article that he's not going to engage in ridiculous debate (like he's above it all), but calling people conspiracy nut jobs in the title, and going on to use other putdowns all throughout the article is totally fine. And what I really love is how he posts his thanks every time someone agrees with him, like he's fucking Sally Fields at the Oscars, and the people like him, they really like him. Man, I would've paid anything to see the scene he made at ground zero. Only I'd bet it went down just a little differently then the way he remembers it. "The tourists were laughing and cheering me on"...jesus, what an asshole.

said Jellio on August 8, 2008 10:00 AM.

(awww)... "The Lighter Side of Dave". I never knew you had it in you.

said ConservaLiberCrat_08 on August 8, 2008 10:02 AM.

Dear Jellio-
After reading your comments, I am sensing a bit of anger. Not just at the article but perhaps a deeper anger. I haven't read anything from you for quite a while and was wondering why?
Your first comment about wanting to be removed from YBNBY was that serious?
Whats going on my creative gummy bear friend?
Fill us "on the outside" in on what has gone on in the inside. I know that it may be none of my business, but I think we would all be feel better letting that type of stuff out.
Anyone? I know this is off the subject but I think we have all said our peace.
Jellio? Johnny? Am I reading this wrong?
I'll keep an open mind before lashing out I promise.

said Dave on August 8, 2008 10:31 AM.

Regarding this by unconvinced:
Why did the most powerful nation on earth not have a single plane available to intercept these airliners?

Perhaps they didn't know they were planning to fly into the Trade Centers? Perhaps they don't like to shoot down planes for being off course? Also, from what I understand they are responding with more alacrity now.

I can't prove (as in mathematical proof) there's not a conspiracy. But I find arguments like the above completely unpersuasive.

said E on August 8, 2008 10:45 AM.


I would like to give this article credit for at least considering some of the more relevant facts.

However, the whole article is completely unprofessional and biased, full of name calling, slander, and emotional manipulation. Starting from a certain conclusion and selecting just the evidence that fits them. It is appropriate for a "pop culture blog", but not for a source that would help you figure out what is going on in the world. The slanderous assertation that "The motivation for the distribution of these crazy-go-nuts theories is greed masked by phony patriotism." is refuted by a quick glance at one of the most interesting 9/11 sites, "patriotsquestion911.com." This site shines light on the fallacy that those who don't believe the official line are all unemployed thirty year olds blogging from their moms' basements. It includes on the record statements from dozens of military colonels, majors, and captains; lifelong intelligence officers; airplane pilots; and high ranking foreign officials, including a couple European heads of state, top cabinet members, senior military officers, and parlimentary members. About 20% of the statements on this site say that the 9/11 report was an uncredible whitewash; the rest straight out claim that 9/11 was perpetrated by interests within the U.S. intelligence services. It's worth reading for anyone who is truly curious.

First, to deal with his main assertation:

"If there was any proof of conspiracy, it would be the largest news story in history."

Here's the truth: The U.S. Government has a long and successful history of perpetrating massive crimes and subterfuge around the world, spreading lies and misinformation into the public record, and getting away with it. For all those who say that surely, somebody would come forward and report the conspiracy..I saw, what about Iran in 1954? What about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? What about Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, the Iran-Contra affair, etc. etc. etc? Who came forward in any of these cases, all of which required coordinated lies, deceit, and homicidal intent by highly placed officials? They all would have been major news stories, but no plucky young journalist ever won a Pulitzer for reporting them.

In all of these incidents over the last 50 years, officials in the "intelligence" agencies conducted massive crimes against humanity that made 9/11 look like a day at the park. In virtually all of these cases, they succesfully maintained a veil the secrecy and silence from all those who were in on the deeds, and kept the events out of the popular consciousness to this day, even though they are now considered part of the historical record.

Ask the average person on the street about the Iran-Contra affair, in which we secretly sold weapons to the same Iranian regime we now threaten with nuclear annihilation in order to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua, and you will get a blank stare. And this was widely reported and congressionally investigated just 20 years ago. Don't even mention the time our guys killed the democratically elected president of Iran, and succesfuly kept it a secret for decades. As we threaten to go to a disastrous war with Iran, most Americans don't know about that crucial event in the relations between our two great countries.

Yes, he does mention the Iran-Contra affair and Watergate in the article. But, what other incidents of massive crime committed by our so-called intelligence" agencies have been widely reported and have entered the public consciousness? The number of such incidents that were widely reported are miniscule in comparison to those that did not.


The U.S. Intelligence services have a proven track record of committing heinous acts of sabotage and violence, and keep their actions secret for a very long time.

To those who say that there is no way they could keep their actions secret, I ask: Have they not successfully concealed crimes of similar magnitude in the past?

Indeed, some people STILL question whether it was actually Hitler's agents who burned the Reichstagg.

To those who say that no American could be so callous and heartless to kill 3,000 of their countrymen, I ask: What is the difference between killing 3,000 New Yorkers and killing 300,000 Guatemalan Peasants?

Never doubt the corrupting influence of money. Money buys loyalty, money buys silence, money buys fear. Especially when those Ms turn to Bs turn to Ts.

Most of the people who participated in the logistics of the attacks never really knew what they were doing, I bet. They were just following orders, and were on a need to know basis, kept in the dark themselves. most of them still haven't connected the dots as to what they were really doing. As for the people who were actually in on in, I imagine the number is less than 100, all sworn to a blood vow-if any of them spill, their family's lives would be forfeit, I imagine (this is, of course, pure conjecture). Remember: it is estimated that a core group of about 100 is enough in North Korea to keep that country shrouded in lies, disinformation, and tyranny.

On a side note: In America, Television news defines reality. If something does not make the 24/7 news cycle, it is not accepted as having really happened. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is to support it. This crime was of such a magnitude, and hit so close to home, that most people could simply NEVER believe it was possible no matter what evidence was committed.


On to his article:

Claim: "There is no way that jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt the steel in the World Trade Centers. Therefore, the fires from the planes could not be the cause of the Tower's collapse."

A more nuanced version of this arguent is: there is no way that jet fuel could burn hot enough to cause the towers to collapse in the way they did. They collapsed straight down, into their own footprint, at a free fall speed. Undoubtedly, the impact along with massive fires could cause the towers to collapse. But...NOT IN THE WAY THAT THEY DID. Maybe they could cause the top part to keel over, bringing the rest with them. But..THEY FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED. If we are to assume the pancake theory to be accurate, that the top floors collapsed into the lowers floors, it seems reasonable to assume that each floor, being undamaged by fire or impact, would slow down the descent of the floors collapsing on top of it, even a little bit. And yet, this didn't happen. All three buildings that fell that day fell at the same speed as an apple dropped from the roof. So, somehow, the fire on the top floors caused the bottom floors to instantaneously have ZERO structural integrity. I don't understand how this can be. Not to even mention the fact that, if you burn any quantity of fuel, it will EXPLODE. After 30 seconds, what is left burning? Carpets, papers, desks? How hot can they burn? After two hours, is there still any jet fuel burning?

He claims, without support, that "A combination of fire and intense structural damage contributed to the collapse of building 7." The funny thing about WTC7 is that it is simply NOT MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE "AUTHORITATIVE" 9/11 REPORT. Go and ask ten people on the street how many buildings fell on 9/11, and I bet you that 8 will tell you "two, of course." It is amazing that no one knows such a basic fact about what was one of the most widely covered news events in modern history. I mean, "How many buildings fell in NYC on 9/11," what could be a more basic question than that? Also, of course, if you watch a video of the fall of WTC7 back to back with a number of controlled demolition clips, it is visually indistinguishable.

On to the pentagon: It is interesting that all the videos that showed what happened (from local gas stations, etc) were immediately seized by the FBI and never released. If you watch the few frames that were released, it is quite clear: they produce a completely different type of explosion from the WTC explosions. The WTC explosions were dark and smoky, the Pentagon explosion was bright and white. Why would they be different? He then goes on to claim that "There are dozens of pictures of wreckage." He posts one picture. This picture is, of course, THE ONLY ONE. If there are "dozens of pictures" of Pentagon wreckage, I challenge him to post even a second picture. Good luck.


As for the other claims: he's mostly right, they are bogus. A lot of what is written on the internet is really crazy: missiles fired into the buildings, pods on the planes, the planes were CGI, etc. Just because there's a lot of garbage out there doesn't make the official story any more credible. This reflects on the amazing Popular Mechanics article: They cherry-picked just the most absurd and stupid theories, and in debunking them claimed to have verified the official story beyond a doubt.


Johnny claims that there is "There is not one shred of evidence of a conspiracy." I would dispute this, there is a MOUNTAIN of direct and logical evidence. However..what is the evidence of the "official story"? 1) A video tape, supposedly found in an Afghani house, showing Bin Laden confessing. However (and this is one of the first things that clued me in to the fraud)...the guy DOESN'T LOOK LIKE BIN LADEN! All these wars, this massive restructing of society..all based on a video of some fat arab with a beard. news flash: Bin Laden is not fat!...2) A passport that somehow escaped the massive explosion in NYC that incinerated the planes and fluttered to the ground, unharmed...okay, and 3) a bag that one of the hijackers forgot and left in their car in boston with a koran and a flight training manual. Also, some sketchy video of guys with beards walking through Logan airport. I may be wrong, but I believe that is ALL the evidence that was presented for years.

What there is little evidence of are the assertations he makes in this article. It is tabloid sensationalism, and any who believe it deserve the reality they live in.

said I Would Love To Be Wrong on August 8, 2008 10:46 AM.

I would like to give this article credit for at least considering some of the more relevant facts.

However, the whole article is completely unprofessional and biased, starting from a certain conclusion and selecting just the evidence that fits them. The slanderous assertation that "The motivation for the distribution of these crazy-go-nuts theories is greed masked by phony patriotism." is refuted by a quick glance at one of the more interesting 9/11 sites, "patriotsquestion911.com." This site shines light on the fallacy that those who don't believe the official line are all unemployed thirty year olds blogging from their moms' basements. It includes on the record statements from dozens of military colonels, majors, and captains; lifelong intelligence officers; airplane pilots; and high ranking foreign officials, including a couple European heads of state, top cabinet members, senior military officers, and parlimentary members. About 20% of the statements on this site say that the 9/11 report was an uncredible whitewash; the rest straight out claim that 9/11 was perpetrated by interests within the U.S. intelligence services. It's worth reading for anyone who is truly curious.

First, to deal with his main assertation:

"If there was any proof of conspiracy, it would be the largest news story in history."

Here's the truth: The U.S. Government has a long and successful history of perpetrating massive crimes and subterfuge around the world, spreading lies and misinformation into the public record, and getting away with it. For all those who say that surely, somebody would come forward and report the conspiracy..I saw, what about Iran in 1954? What about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? What about Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, the Iran-Contra affair, etc. etc. etc? Who came forward in any of these cases, all of which required coordinated lies, deceit, and homicidal intent by highly placed officials? They all would have been major news stories, but no plucky young journalist ever won a Pulitzer for reporting them.

In all of these incidents over the last 50 years, officials in the "intelligence" agencies conducted massive crimes against humanity that made 9/11 look like a day at the park. In virtually all of these cases, they succesfully maintained a veil the secrecy and silence from all those who were in on the deeds, and kept the events out of the popular consciousness to this day, even though they are now considered part of the historical record.

Ask the average person on the street about the Iran-Contra affair, in which we secretly sold weapons to the same Iranian regime we now threaten with nuclear annihilation in order to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua, and you will get a blank stare. And this was widely reported and congressionally investigated just 20 years ago. Don't even mention the time our guys killed the democratically elected president of Iran, and succesfuly kept it a secret for decades. As we threaten to go to a disastrous war with Iran, most Americans don't know about that crucial event in the relations between our two great countries.

Yes, he does mention the Iran-Contra affair and Watergate in the article. But, what other incidents of massive crime committed by our so-called intelligence" agencies have been widely reported and have entered the public consciousness? The number of such incidents that were widely reported are miniscule in comparison to those that did not.


The U.S. Intelligence services have a proven track record of committing heinous acts of sabotage and violence, and keep their actions secret for a very long time.

To those who say that there is no way they could keep their actions secret, I ask: Have they not successfully concealed crimes of similar magnitude in the past?

Indeed, some people STILL question whether it was actually Hitler's agents who burned the Reichstagg.

To those who say that no American could be so callous and heartless to kill 3,000 of their countrymen, I ask: What is the difference between killing 3,000 New Yorkers and killing 300,000 Guatemalan Peasants?

Never doubt the corrupting influence of money. Money buys loyalty, money buys silence, money buys fear. Especially when those Ms turn to Bs turn to Ts.

Most of the people who participated in the logistics of the attacks never really knew what they were doing, I bet. They were just following orders, and were on a need to know basis, kept in the dark themselves. most of them still haven't connected the dots as to what they were really doing. As for the people who were actually in on in, I imagine the number is less than 100, all sworn to a blood vow-if any of them spill, their family's lives would be forfeit, I imagine (this is, of course, pure conjecture). Remember: it is estimated that a core group of about 100 is enough in North Korea to keep that country shrouded in lies, disinformation, and tyranny.

On a side note: In America, Television news defines reality. If something does not make the 24/7 news cycle, it is not accepted as having really happened. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is to support it. This crime was of such a magnitude, and hit so close to home, that most people could simply NEVER believe it was possible no matter what evidence was committed.


On to his article:

Claim: "There is no way that jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt the steel in the World Trade Centers. Therefore, the fires from the planes could not be the cause of the Tower's collapse."

A more nuanced version of this arguent is: there is no way that jet fuel could burn hot enough to cause the towers to collapse in the way they did. They collapsed straight down, into their own footprint, at a free fall speed. Undoubtedly, the impact along with massive fires could cause the towers to collapse. But...NOT IN THE WAY THAT THEY DID. Maybe they could cause the top part to keel over, bringing the rest with them. But..THEY FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED. If we are to assume the pancake theory to be accurate, that the top floors collapsed into the lowers floors, it seems reasonable to assume that each floor, being undamaged by fire or impact, would slow down the descent of the floors collapsing on top of it, even a little bit. And yet, this didn't happen. All three buildings that fell that day fell at the same speed as an apple dropped from the roof. So, somehow, the fire on the top floors caused the bottom floors to instantaneously have ZERO structural integrity. I don't understand how this can be. Not to even mention the fact that, if you burn any quantity of fuel, it will EXPLODE. After 30 seconds, what is left burning? Carpets, papers, desks? How hot can they burn? After two hours, is there still any jet fuel burning?

He claims, without support, that "A combination of fire and intense structural damage contributed to the collapse of building 7." The funny thing about WTC7 is that it is simply NOT MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE "AUTHORITATIVE" 9/11 REPORT. Go and ask ten people on the street how many buildings fell on 9/11, and I bet you that 8 will tell you "two, of course." It is amazing that no one knows such a basic fact about what was one of the most widely covered news events in modern history. Also, of course, if you watch a video of the fall of WTC7 back to back with a number of controlled demolition clips, it is visually indistinguishable.

On to the pentagon: It is interesting that all the videos that showed what happened (from local gas stations, etc) were immediately seized by the FBI and never released. If you watch the few frames that were released, it is quite clear: they produce a completely different type of explosion from the WTC explosions. The WTC explosions were dark and smoky, the Pentagon explosion was bright and white. Why would they be different? He then goes on to claim that "There are dozens of pictures of wreckage." He posts one picture. This picture is, of course, THE ONLY ONE. If there are "dozens of pictures" of Pentagon wreckage, I challenge him to post even a second picture. Good luck finding one. I've spent hours - theirs only snaps of that one little shred of aluminum on the lawn, that would fit in a grocery bad. Their is no second picture, much less "dozens and dozens."


As for the other claims: he's mostly right, they are bogus. A lot of what is written on the internet is really crazy: missiles fired into the buildings, pods on the planes, the planes were CGI, etc. Just because there's a lot of garbage out there doesn't make the official story any more credible. This reflects on the amazing Popular Mechanics article: They cherry-picked just the most absurd and stupid theories, and in debunking them claimed to have verified the official story beyond a doubt.


He claims that there is "There is not one shred of evidence of a conspiracy." I would dispute this, there is a MOUNTAIN of direct and logical evidence. However..what is the evidence of the "official story"? 1) A video tape, supposedly found in an Afghani house, showing Bin Laden confessing. However (and this is one of the first things that clued me in to the fraud)...the guy DOESN'T LOOK LIKE BIN LADEN! All these wars, this massive restructing of society..all based on a video of some fat arab with a beard. news flash: Bin Laden is not fat!...2) A passport that somehow escaped the massive explosion in NYC that incinerated the planes and fluttered to the ground, unharmed...okay, and 3) a bag that one of the hijackers forgot and left in their car in boston with a koran and a flight training manual. Also, some sketchy video of guys with beards walking through Logan airport. I may be wrong, but I believe that is ALL the evidence that was presented for years.

What there is little evidence of are the assertations he makes in this article. It is tabloid sensationalism, and any who believe it deserve the reality they live in.

said I Would Love To Be Wrong on August 8, 2008 10:50 AM.

My eyes bleed: SEVENTY-FOUR comments. Obviously, it not being noon yet I've only skimmed msot of these.

Okay, I had a well written comment and then lost it because I wasn't automatically saved into the site, so this will be brief:

Truthers: Bullshit. Even David's version. Its BS. You are claiming to be skeptical, but you are not. As a scientist and skeptic I uphold Occam's razor at the crux of logic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor ). Behold, and set it as the center of your worship, and forsake the demon conspiracy. 99.9% of the time the simplest explanation is ineptitude and not a massive government conspiracy. For me to believe this is in the .1%, the burden of proof is on YOU and not anyone else. You must provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

JW: well done on stirring up the crazy pot on this one, and happy to be here.
EW: thanks for the support.

said kbk on August 8, 2008 11:04 AM.

i do believe that the government is not telling the whole story. do i think they did it? not at all. after all the shit, scandals, and lack of intelligence in this administration i really doubt they could have planned it and kept it under wraps.

perhaps it's as simple as what happened in Pearl Harbor that different agencies had bits and pieces of information and they were never put together in time, if they had, the attack could have been prevented.

where i do have problems is with the Pentagon and Pennsylvania planes account which i think could be better explained, but that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.

this is all interesting as hell and makes for a good read and good documentaries but it all depends on the person that proposes the ideas and that goes for both sides. if its a intelligent, fact and science based argument then it makes you think. if on the other hand its just a rant with name calling then its a waste of time that can't get us anywhere. sadly and unexpectedly the good Reverend Wright is on the last group this time.


also all the sources that said some hijackers were alive and fine later took that back and said it was mistake on their part because those hijackers had fairly common Islamic names.

said etantao on August 8, 2008 11:13 AM.

To I would love to be wrong:

Direct evidence: Thousands upon Thousands of eye witnesses in NYC and Washington.

I fail to see the relevance of the average person's ignorance on Iran-Contra. All of the above incidents were born out by the press in a timely manner.

Different explosions: Different fuel quantities and different base matter in the actual contact make for a simpler explanation.

On military testimonials: Citations, names? Concrete evidence?

Videos on Pentagon crash being seized: It's the pentagon. What'd you expect, them to hand out the blueprints?

Falling buildings: Simple physics. It's a run away domino effect. The downward force was greater than the remaining support due to weakened steel. Gravity handled the rest.

You have NOT provided any evidence that does not supplant the simplest theory: The US intelligence system was inept.

said kbk on August 8, 2008 11:16 AM.

That Occam's razor article is good reading.

said Johnny Wright on August 8, 2008 11:16 AM.

Yes, notice the scientific and proper citations to the article? I'm not saying Wikipedia is great (in fact they often get a lot of facts wrong), but they cite their stuff.

I never see any proper citations from conspiracy nuts. Its always "this person said" or "these people saw it" or "this guy who can't give his name."

Interesting.

said kbk on August 8, 2008 11:26 AM.

The only thing I find out-of-the-ordinary in the 9/11 scenerio has nothing to do with the towers, but with the plane that went down in PA. I remember hearing (and I wish I knew his name) The anchor from CNN telling the nation about the 'renegade' plane that wasn't responding to the radio and was continuing on course. He then reported that the army had deployed a fighter plane to intercept it.. Even further he reported that if the plane did not respond to the army plane that it would probably be shot down.... he then went back to the Pentagon and Trade Centre story... 15 minutes later, the plane was down in the field, there was no mention of the army plane, and they knew immeadiately thatthey was an uprising on board and the passengers themselves grounded the plane...
a little hard to believe...
wow that just rambled right along there

said Andrew on August 8, 2008 12:27 PM.

Just a little Andrew. Only a little.

said Johnny Wright on August 8, 2008 12:32 PM.

Any ideas why 24 members of the Bin Laden family were flewn out of the country, while no other air traffic whatsoever was allowed? Wouldn't that spell "conspiracy"?

said Micowoco on August 8, 2008 12:34 PM.

Dave-
I have got to hand it to you you read me like a book.
Please put yourself in my shoes. Mid-40's, never having been with a woman, too poor to afford a hooker, only to find that I am attracted to 65+ year fat men with goatees.
My mother drives me to work at Taco Bell (Not Taco Monkey, wrong on that one ass!)
How can I not be angry? I'm sorry Johnny for taking it out on you. I hate monkeys and you were my only exitier.
Dave, how you knew about the Girls Gone Wild info-mercial, I will never know.
I worship you. Please help me be a man.
Humbled,

Chad

said Chad on August 8, 2008 12:36 PM.

Chad being a man is more than just muscles, good looks, and a good personality. Being a man is taking resposibility for our weakness. Being a man is apologising to those who we may have hurt.
Chad, Today you made a giant leap in becoming a man and you did that all on your own.

I'm proud of you son.

Love,
Dave

said Dave on August 8, 2008 1:03 PM.

Here's a link for ya, kbk:

Although its collapse potentially made architectural history, all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.

The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack.

The destruction of the third tower was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The first official inquiry into Tower Seven by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was unable to be definitive about what caused its collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm

The article is in the context of reporting the NIST report (based on a computer model presumably seeking that conclusion) that WTC7 was destroyed by fire. Whether this is credible or not, I will make no claim on.

But this article does provide evidence for a few important arguments: 1) there was some sort of "headquarters" in wtc7; 2) wtc7 was NOT in any way mentioned in the "authoritative" 9/11 report; 3) all the steel was immediately taken away and melted; in the only steel frame building in history ever to have collapsed solely due to fire, nothing was saved for forensic investigators to search through. This last fact alone is highly suspect.

To quote the wiki article: "Simpler theories are preferable other things being equal." If a husband dies in his sleep, and the wife had just taken out a large life insurance policy, Occam's Razor would lead one to assume he had died naturally. A police detective would look into the possibility that he had been given some sort of poison. That is why Occam's Razor is more applicable in the natural sciences than in criminal investigations.

Which reinforces one of the most important aspects of 9/11: It was never treated as a criminal investigation. Instead, even before the towers fell, news announcers assumed it was Bin Laden, and all investigation was not done to find out what happened, but rather to confirm that hypothesis.

To your post at 11:16AM:


"Direct evidence: Thousands upon Thousands of eye witnesses in NYC and Washington." Noone with their head screwed on straight could possibly claim that 2 jumbo jets did not hit the WTC. They certainly did, there were indeed 1,000s of witnesses. As for the pentagon..well, if you go to your local library, pull up the microfiche, and go read the 9/12/2001 "Washington Times"...you will see, in one of the smaller, front page articles, eyewitness accounts referring to the plane as a "small plane" or or something like that. I read it a few years ago, I don't remember the exact wording. Here's another direct piece of evidence, flushed down the memory hole. The evidence of a jet hitting the pentagon is shaky. There are certainly not "thousands" of eyewitness accounts at the pentagon. And again, there are dozens of pictures taken of the pentagon that day - none of them show the fuselage, the tail, engines, seats, wings, baggage, anything. Just that one lousy shred of aluminum on the lawn.

"All of the above incidents were born out by the press in a timely manner." No, most of what the CIA did in the 1950s and 1960s was was outed in 1968 by a "fringe", "conspiracy" book penned by an ex-agent philip agee (who just died), called "inside the company" ...but were not revealed to the public until the Church hearings in the 1970s, a good 20 years later...hardly a timely revelation.

"Falling buildings:" They fell at free fall speed. As far as I'm concerned, (and I am not, off course, a phycisist) that is one of the strongest pieces of evidence which is hard to explain. A chain reaction I can understand, but how could it happen at free fall speed? How could the intact lower floors have given no impediment to slow the process? watch the video in that BBC link above...even if the building was heavily damaged, and burning, how did all three buildings fall at free fall speeds?

Yes, the "9/11 truth movement" would be well served by providing as much evidence as possible. However, it goes both ways. The official story is a conspiracy theory as well-19 arabs conspired to hijack the planes. I would argue that this has less evidence than the alternate explanations. The evidence supporting the official story is about as solid as the case against this Ivins fellow being the sole anthrax attacker. Remember, Occam's Razor is only in effect "all else being equal." In this case, all is not equal.

said I Would Love To Be Wrong on August 8, 2008 1:10 PM.

Your move, John.

said Jellio on August 8, 2008 1:19 PM.

Regarding the Bin Laden family's air travel - an interesting point I agree. Heres one view: http://www.factcheck.org/article294.html

said E on August 8, 2008 1:46 PM.

If it was a small airplane that hit the pentagon, what is supposed to have happned to American Airlines Flight 77?

said E on August 8, 2008 1:57 PM.

If it was a small plane that hit the pentagon, what happened to American Airlines Flight 77?

said E on August 8, 2008 1:58 PM.

(Sorry about the double post. Got some sort of error first time around. )

said E on August 8, 2008 2:07 PM.

Dude, I think the truthers were invented by the Bushitler to make himself seem credible.

said Canute on August 8, 2008 2:56 PM.

You are a retard. Go die now, your blog blows & so do you.

said Dude on August 8, 2008 4:42 PM.

Yeah Johnny, GO DIE NOW!!!!
What if after reading that you actually did "go die now"?

To "Dude".
What if after reading that, Johnny actually just went and died?
I think that you would probably feel pretty bad that you suggested that. I think sometimes in these blogs we say things that we don't mean. I think "Dude" that you may owe Johnny an apology.
Plus, lets keep things a little politically correct. I don't like the word "Retard" Perhaps Down Syndrome, Autistic,or Mentally Challenged would have been a better way to say it.
Lets keep it all about love here my young Dude.
As they say on the Jenny Jones show.
Don't Hate.


said Dave on August 8, 2008 5:12 PM.

This will be my last comment, because this is getting pretty lengthy, and I don't really think there's much point in arguing with the insane (again, a great quote posted by E).

To I would love to be wrong:

I read the BBC article you linked. Thank you for the citation. Now, the article does say that dozens of archeticts and engineers say a normal fire couldn't cause a collapse of building 7. Then it goes on to describe the computer modeling done to simulate how the collapse of nearby buildings could result in building 7 going down. I don't see how this supports a conspiracy.

A smaller plane? I don't really follow this line of logic at all. If you stand a mile away and watch a plane crash into a building, do you really think unless you are an airplane design engineer that you can properly describe the size? The debris in the pictures certainly doesn't look like an jumbo jetliner. But then, when you blow something up by running it into a building at 600 mph, I'm not sure what it would look like, but I would be suspcious if I saw a jetliner. Here is a wonderful article about simulations that describe the crash. http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

Again, failure of buildings: As each layer collapses and hits the layer below, more and more mass is being accelerated by gravity creating the run away domino effect. Just like you reach terminal velocity when you jump out of an airplane, you reach a point where a few steel girders are not going to visually slow a building collapsing.

Let me take a different logical argument: You've decided to fly jumbo jets into the World Trade Center. Collapsing or not, don't you think that's enough of an outrage, that you don't actually need to put thousands of pounds of explosives in a building that would be easily noticed by anyone with a brain? Let alone, why would you need to drop another plane on the Pentagon?

The official explanation has plenty of evidence and ably explains what happened, hence there is no need to rely on a massive conspiracy. Its the same way people deny scientific consensus in other fields, like say, global warming.

said kbk on August 8, 2008 6:25 PM.

why are all of you attacking the people that question the official story? a guy cites all the things he found and all you do is name call and "i can't believe something like that would ever happen." the largest crime in the history of our country was WTC and all the evidence is destroyed before a complete investigation is done. conspiracy - an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. is destroying evidence an illegal, wrongful, or submersive act?

said geez on August 8, 2008 8:40 PM.

the way i see it is this... the Bush Administration
1) was incompetant and ignored evidence that was thrown at them pre 9/11, suggesting that there was to be a terrorist attack
2) was prepared to capitalize on a terrorist attack thanks to conservative think tanks whose job was to come up with solutions to disasters that best benefited neocons' agendas

So they made the best of a bad situation by dumping on us the Patriot Act, which had been written many years prior, and preying on our fears to start wars they'd been wanting to start, and cracking down on liberties most of us would like to still have.

The Bush administration wasn't responsible for 9/11... but it served their goals perfectly, in a really sick way.

said helix on August 8, 2008 8:43 PM.

Dave, let me get this straight.
You actually took the time to compose a fake post from myself so you could then reply with a ridiculous response. You spent time contriving a persona for me so you could then undress it?
Dude, that's messed up.
It's not even funny. It's just sad.
And then Johnny Write approves it knowing full well it isn't me. What a couple of retards!

said chad on August 8, 2008 9:06 PM.

Yeah, that's what happened.

said Johnny Wright on August 8, 2008 9:15 PM.

I knew it! Its a conspiracy.

Seriously, you roll around with pigs don't be suprised if you get covered in shit.

said chad on August 8, 2008 9:40 PM.

Hey Johnny, there's another 50 or so comments on this post over at Neatorama.

said Miss Cellania on August 9, 2008 2:12 AM.

I saw them Miss C. They're hilarious. The best ones are those that say I am biased. How they deduced that I don't know.

said Johnny Wright on August 9, 2008 2:43 AM.

Congrats John, now readers on TWO sites know you're a dick.

said Jellio on August 9, 2008 7:39 AM.

Jellio, isn't it about time you stopped making snide, offhand comments criticizing Johnny's piece (which I thought was pretty on the mark myself) and offered a sensible, well thought out rebuttal free of hyperbole and insult? All you're doing right now is reinforcing the stereotype of a 9/11 conspiracy nut job that deserves to be pissed on.

said Scaramouch on August 9, 2008 9:39 AM.

Don't worry about it, Boss. Me continuing to engage on Jellio just makes me look like a bully on the playground.

said Johnny Wright on August 9, 2008 10:07 AM.

Dear Scara, I'm not being critical of the side he's taking. I do happen to think there is more to the 9/11 story then we know (just because of the current administration's track record) , but I actually don't agree with most of what the truthers believe. WHAT I AM CRITICIZING is the tone in which he made his argument. which I've noticed is the tone he takes in alot of posts with people he doesn't agree with) ie:

"Taking a piss on the 9/11 conspiracy nut jobs"
"As with most of the nutty conspiracy theorists"
"I'd like to smack those dopes upside the head." (violence..nice )
"A line these loons left miles behind"
"the favorite questions the nuts will ask"
...and on...and on..and on.

Understand now, Scara? If he wanted a conversation free from insult, don't you think it would've made sense to start out with one. AND THEN THE HYPOCRISY of saying he wasn't going to lower humself to name calling...well, I repeat a line from a previous comment - Jesus, what an asshole.

And I'm surpirsed at you, dude. I would've thought you'd understand where I was going with the comments (giving the child a taste of his own medicine), but I guess since you turned the blog over to the JV team, some of your sense of irony must've been misplaced.

And don't worry. I won't be too hard on any of the children from now on.

-Jellio

said Jellio on August 9, 2008 10:13 AM.

Good one, John. Be sure to hi-five your mom at breakfast.

said Jellio on August 9, 2008 10:24 AM.

Really? This guy really offends your sensibilities more than Johhny Chicago used to? That surprises me.

said Scaramouch on August 9, 2008 11:11 AM.

wow, a lot of comments.

what a great article, i totally agree. I also feel this way about the moon landing. not quite so much collateral damage, but what a huge progressive step for man with countless innovations in science and plenty of lives lost.

any considerate person who thinks a bit before spouting the "truth about [insert stupid conspiracy here]" can appreciate while they may have no connections, there are people who lost loved ones and who actually have a reason to feel strongly.

my typical reaction to these kind of people is to laugh and tell them off like children asking for ciggarettes, or a stray dog.

said roger dodger on August 9, 2008 12:59 PM.

A very well-thought-out response to the fringer lunatics and their absurd "arguments". This is precisely the sort of thing we need to hear more of - a logical response to the half-baked theories of people who have jumped on a bandwagon and don't have any idea what they're talking about.

I think it's worth pointing out, though, the larger social causes that nutjobs like this exist in the first place. After 9/11, and to this day, the country is emotionally charged. Americans want answers to what feels like an overwhelmingly unanswerable tragedy. There is a government in place that many, if not most, people feel are not doing their job properly. There's a great deal of mistrust and dislike going around. And although I'm not about to go claiming that the media is in the hands of the government, they are doing a very subpar job themselves in an information-saturated culture that demands entertainment more than hard facts. The institutions we turn to for answers in a time of catastrophe have let us down. Now I know, and you know, and any clear-headed thinking person can put two-and-two together and see the situation for what it really was: an extremist Muslim sect who organised a terrorist attack on American soil. But think about the people who are addled and confused and a product of our National Inquirer and Fox News western world, who were never properly taught to logically reason things out: where do they turn? What do theydo with the anger and frustration they feel? They turn to crackpot theories that encapsulate, in a nice, neat package, all organisations they feel ire towards. Misdirected ire, perhaps. But not unreasonable ire.

In no way am I diminishing what happened, or the genuine emotions that those who lost loved ones in the attack have had to suffer through. And while I myself am disgusted at the people who have exploited 9/11, or who have attached themselves to foolhardy theories, I think there's a larger factor at work here. Engaging people like this in a genuine debate is the best and most effective way of eliminating absurd ideas and I applaud you for taking a stand.

said julianmaven on August 9, 2008 2:00 PM.

It's a good point, Julian. Unfortunately, the cynical, extreme mistrust of the government from the early 70's has returned.

What's also unfortunate, is the suspicion and distrust is easily justified.

Cheers.

JW

said Johnny Wright on August 9, 2008 2:21 PM.

Wow. You're on the wrong side of this argument. Embarrassing. Please visit www.ae911truth.org and look at the science as presented by licensed professionals. Millions of droplets of molten iron permeate the dust from all directions. All with thermate signatures. All pissing on your attempt to sooth the masses for validation. Too bad.

said liesoftimes on August 9, 2008 8:05 PM.

unfortunately? do you understand history? do you know the constitution was created to keep the government in check....its the job of the citizens to mistrust the government. to avoid the things that are happening right now (patriot act, warrentless wiretaps and no-knock search warrants) just to name a few....

also way to ignore my post. so again, the biggest crime scene in the history of our country and all the evidence is shipped away and destroyed. THAT IS A CONSPIRACY!!!! so where do u get off talking about "conspiracy nuts" when you cant see that it is a conspiracy by definition....

just look at who has gained from all this for gods sake. like mr. gravel says, "follow the money." looks like bush and all his boys are doin just fine while reg. joes like myself are struggling mightily. if your too blind to see how much big oil and the M.I.C. are making now then you shouldn't even have a blog. healthcare, education, science, housing, every kind of funding you can name is shrinking while we spend more and more on defense instead of investing in our infrastructure. so please remove your head from your ass and see that maybe the gov. didnt have anything to do with 9/11 (although they did know before hand, there are declassified docs.) but they sure as hell have no problem taking all the money thats coming out of it...

said geez on August 9, 2008 11:04 PM.

Today I ran into a new crazy one to prove that Building number 7. Basically, they are trying to prove that building 7 shouldn't have collapsed because building 5 didn't. I walked by that thing twice a day the first month or two that it happened and building 5 was a 4 story burnt out shell.

said Isaac Moore on August 11, 2008 1:47 PM.

your hubris about this event is a sign of the direction of country's general population - there is a struggle between good and evil going on all around us...look at this event through the eyes of that struggle

said me on August 12, 2008 12:15 AM.

America stands... just as Russia stands... and as Rome stood... and Egypt... and Babylon... and all the greatest superpowers before... and just as with all superpowers before her, this whore that is the United States of (yawn) Consumerism, sorry, America, will fall to her knees... long live the Anti-Consumerist. Long live the struggle and long live the revolution. May the children of the so-called "Lady of Peace" learn the truth. Pity I will probably not be here to witness it's glorious demise.

said America? Hahaha on August 12, 2008 10:33 AM.

For the record, I was good friends with Korey Rowe's roomate while in college. Korey is a hippie/hipster hybrid. As you could probably guess by that last sentence he is a total douche bag as well.

Anyway, I hung out (read: got high) at their place a lot during the time prior to them making the movie Loose Change. Intitially they were writing a generic script to make a movie about some rogue FBI agent or some junk. Maybe it was a crooked cop and not a fed (but I do recall that they had several roles for FBI agents).

Long story short... They found it too dificult to write a movie so they came out with Loose Change. The saddest part of all is that they actually made enough money to start their own production company. I havent spoken to any of them in several years now so I have no idea how (if) that is still going.

Take from that what you will. I am not here to spread more "possible truths". Just giving the facts.

said Radie on August 12, 2008 2:25 PM.

Actually I misspoke...

Korey was the roomate that I never met. He was in Iraq (or deployed elsewhere at the time) during the time that I huing out with his other roommates.

The douchebag that I was referring to is Dylan Avery. The "author" of Loose Change.

The rest of the story is accurate.

Sorry for the mistake, like I said, I was getting high a lot while over there and hated everyoen in the house but my one friend who lived with them. I couldnt care what half their names were.

said Radie on August 12, 2008 2:39 PM.

Thanks for your input, Radie. We'll let readers make of that what they will.

JW

said Johnny Wright on August 12, 2008 2:46 PM.

There are two possible groups that had both the motive, the prior history, and the motive to commit the WTC attacks. One group is islamic extremists, the other group is quasi-governmental "black ops" types. Certainly, there was a "conspiracy" on 9/11-it wasn't done by one person. The question is, who is more likely to have done it? I will grant, it is possible that Al-Qaeda did it. They may well have. However, as a son of a prosecutor, considering it from the viewpoint of a criminal investigation, it seems much less likely than the other possibility.

One side seems to have taken extraordinary steps to destroy evidence. The videos taken from nearby hotels and gas stations that showed the hit against the pentagon were immediately confiscated by FBI agents, and never released. I can't possibly see what national security purpose this serves. The debris from the WTC wreckage was cordoned off and then every last bit was quickly shipped off to China to be melted down, infuriating local fire fighters and meriting an angry editorial in the fire fighters journal asking why there was not sufficient time for forensic investigation. The fire fighters themselves were upset by the fact that none of them were allowed into the wreckage to search for their fallen comrades. According to the 9/11 commission report, the flight data recorders were never found, the first time this happened in any recent major airline disaster: "The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found." This at the same time a passport survived the inferno, which became a key piece of evidence linking it to Al Qaeda.

Even members of the 9/11 commission are aggravated by the stonewalling they received from all sides trying to conduct their investigation. 9/11 Commission member Sen. Mark Dayton stated "They [NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission." The final report is full of holes-for instance, the "authoritative" report on what happened that day does not even mention WTC7 once.

Not one single member of the entire multi billion dollar U.S. defense services are so much as given a letter of reprimand for what happened that day. Nor has one single person been prosecuted or charged with lying to the 9/11 commission, even when a major of the members on that commission have said on the record they were lied to.

And then, this group of people started a sustained campaign of lies to bring America into a series of disastrous wars. Why is it so difficult to believe that our country is ruled by a ruthless and amoral criminal syndicate that will stop at nothing to achieve their ends? Haven't they made it abundantly clear that that's who they are? It may well have been Al-Qaeda. But if I were a police detective, that's not whose door I would be knocking on first.

The important thing to remember is this: If we were indeed attacked by Islamists, well, we can survive that, we can beat them, we are a strong country, and we can repel any foreign invader or threat. If it was indeed conducted by internal elements, then we must realize that this level of infestation by traitorous, criminal elements into our government, military, "intelligence" services, and media represents a direct existential danger to the core values of our Republic. It is not wise to dismiss the latter scenario when it has not been properly discussed in the popular consciousness, when there does seem to be evidence of its credibility, and when the repercussions of it are so dire. I urge the proprietor of this web site to think twice before using the platform to parrot the "official" line on any news story. However, I would like to thank him for allowing me this venue.

================================


Just to rebut the idea that the only people who support "9/11 conspiracy theories" are a bunch of punk pothead 20 year olds, like the "Loose Change" guys, I again urge everyone to visit this web site. There are many 9/11 web sites, 90% of them are rubbish, but this one demonstrates the broad range of professional, credible, well thought people - from military, intelligence, government, foreign dignitaries, and also media figures, engineers, 9/11 survivors, etc - who are on the record with comments ranging from "the 9/11 commission report is fatally flawed" to "9/11 was an inside job, a coup". (most of them are towards the latter view). Intereresting to note are those comments in red on the front page, which are from 9/11 commission report members who say in various ways that their work was impeded and compromised.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

said I Would Love To Be Wrong on August 18, 2008 10:47 AM.

Dear Mr. Wright,
I attend a high school, no name mentioned, in which there are certain teachers that teach the CIA was behind the attacks. We even have a club called covert politics that deal with certain American conspiracies. Just recently I was intrigued about this club and I attended one meeting in which they showed footage of all the conspiracy theories you just refuted. Being an extreme supporter of America, I was deeply offended yet a part of me started to believe these claims. I started reading articles about the theories and they started to make more sense. But after reading your article, I was once again brought back to reality and I see the light. It is extremely easy to claim conspiracy but the evidence is in favor of reality or the true story in which terrorists indeed hijacked the planes and crashed them into a field, Pentagon, and the Twin Towers. Thanks for the read. I was truly moved and helped out by it

said Tim on August 31, 2008 2:49 PM.

My name is Tim and I approve the previous message.

said Tim on August 31, 2008 3:08 PM.

You are welcome Tim. I appreciate you reading. Check your email later and I'll write you where everyone can't read it.

Thanks,

JW

said Johnny Wright on August 31, 2008 3:24 PM.

Sorry Tim, my young friend, I did email the address that was registered on your comment but it was bounced back to me. Apologies.

Best of luck with the coming school year.

JW

said Johnny Wright on August 31, 2008 7:15 PM.

You have to ask yourself, did his email REALLY just bounce? Or did the CIA intercept it and decide to covertly destroy the chain of communication? What's more likely?

said Scaramouch on August 31, 2008 8:34 PM.

Uh oh. I popped up on the radar again? I better have Echowood taste my food for a few days.

said Johnny Wright on August 31, 2008 8:59 PM.

No sense doing that, JW. He'll report back that everything tastes like fish!

said Tim on August 31, 2008 10:13 PM.

Dammit, you may be right Tim. Where's the intern? Raoul! Taste my steak!

said Johnny Wright on August 31, 2008 10:17 PM.

I just stumbled across this post and have now finished reading all the comments on here. Like most of us on here I don't want to believe there was any sort of conspiracy or arterial motive behind the 911 attacks. I really don't want to believe that some sort of group could plan this despicable and outright cowardly attack. So here are the two groups: The terrorists or a small covert group in the government, and here are the acts:

1. Kill thousands of civilians.
A. Crazy religious zealots.
B. Government.
Both groups have proven over the years and around the world that they are capable of these acts. Whether it be at the Holocaust, Abortion Clinics, or every freakin war ever fought, civilians have been a target. We've killed 10 times the Iraqi civilians in a war where we're trying to liberate them.

2. Plan and carry out a plan that requires precision and fearlessness.
A. A bunch of guys hiding in caves.
B. Government
Both could be capable, but I'm guessing the second group would be better at it.

Again, I DON'T want to believe anyone but these nutjobs from Saudi Arabia (who are Dubya's best friends-had to throw that one in there) were responsible, but when you're given limited evidence and told "just trust us" I can't help but be skeptical. I've heard it before. You can see so many instances where we were told to just believe it, without any information to back it. WMD...sure thing

Just a few questions I would like answered:

1. The freefall building. Sure the upper floors will gain momentum when falling to the ground...but it fell straight down on top of itself. With all of those floors I find it very hard to believe that there wasn't a bit of a statistical anomaly causing one side of the building to start tipping over to one side. You're telling me that every floor was built exactly the same without any variance in the metal composition or assembly methods? When you add up all the tolerances in the structure over all the floors you come up with a whole lot of room for it to move one way or the other.

2. WTC 7 contained a large amount of information involved with the Enron scandal. Why wasn't there any backup of this information? You're telling me that it wasn't saved on a server? Come on...

I agree that arguments such as the planes being CGI footage are stupid. However the commission's report was pretty pathetic. Instead of saying "just trust us", the government should step up and just present this information they're hoarding and unwilling to share.

said Greg on September 1, 2008 12:20 AM.

The one thing that remains true is that conspiracy wackos will, in the face of a superior argument resort to name calling. A thoughtful and well-written article, Johnny, who's sentiment and opinion I agree with almost entirely.

Whilst people like ryan (near the top) and his ilk do unfortunately exist in the world, the rest of you restore a little of my faith that the human race has not entirely taken leave of its senses.

My thanks to you, Johnny Wright, and to all those commenters who present a sensible option for discussion, whether they agree with you or not.

said Slippy Lane on September 6, 2008 9:57 AM.

we're all like jury, being presented evidence of one kind or another. its impossible to 'know' the truth from this perspective.

i have a question, about the theory of explosive demolition....

all these thousands of charges....with the building on fire.....would that not have set off prepositioned explosives? or damaged the radio triggers?

i have to be honest and state my disbelief that all columns gave way at the same time to allow the top to pancake to the bottom with no resistance from the rest of the building, so it came to earth at about freefall speed. if the floors pancaked, they would have done so inside the frame. but who knows, not i.

said mike on September 6, 2008 11:11 AM.

The ad hominem attacks across this hatchet-job of an "article" leave me no recourse but to tell you, JW, that you're an idiotic shill.
Reap it up, hotshot.
And someone actually called your piece "eloquent". Let me give you an opposing viewpoint--it's a pandering, baiting, disingenuous prop, and you are just a pawn in the War on Terror.

Congratulations.

said "Falser" on September 9, 2008 5:09 PM.

Mum? Is that you?

said Johnny Wright on September 9, 2008 5:24 PM.

Not impressed. You compare the 9/11 Conspiracy with something like the Chupacabra. This is exactly what the government does, they make the Conspiracy Theorists (CT's) look like crackpots when you relate the 9/11 Conspiracy with something along the lines of a "Vampire Animal". Im surprised you didnt use the "Reptiles rule the world" instead.

And by comparing the 9/11 conspiracy to others such as "Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky"...What did these result in, some government officials being slandered. You cannot compare the 9/11 Conspiracy to others when their not even on the same level. And the reason why conspiracies such as you mentioned with "Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky" were mentioned and brought to the publics attention was because back then the media was owned by 100 different people/corps. Now its down to less than 10.

And how come you didnt do the Claim/Reality thing for the important facts such as; Why NATO was told to stand down and Chenney decided to take charge of it THAT day, why all the buildings that fell pancaked ever so nicely, why Bush claimed he saw the footage of the planes hitting the towers on TV the same day when it was first aired the day after, why all the building debris was taken away and shipped off before any of it could be examined (It was a crime scene for crying out loud, you dont go to a murder scene and start tossing away the body and gun shell casings).

And as for the Claim/Reality thing about "Never before has steel structured buildings collapsed due to fire"....then you relate it to 2 planes crashing into towers, having never happened before as well. LAME ! ! ! You set fire to a steel structured building before, it wont collapse. Meanwhile, its not a given or known fact what people are going to do, people are unpredictable, not the structure and dynamics of steel. (Also, If you did your research you'd find steel structured buildings have survived fires for much longer than the twin towers did and still were standing afterwards).

Also, there are creditable people looking into this. Try some Asian government officials looking into it (their were Asian people on the plane from China or somewhere, so they are allowed to investigate it since it involves people from their country). Try the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"...Architects and Engineers from around the world working together for the TRUTH ! .........Then theirs also the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice". Then theirs the "NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative " (Go look it up if you dont know what it is, Im not going to do all your research), Then theirs the whole problem with the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST Report.

I can continue to go on and on, but its obvious you havnt put much thought into your little rant here, so why should I continue. I cant believe you received any sort of praise for this. Well written, but thats about it. Terrible job trying to convince people.

said Rob on September 9, 2008 11:31 PM.

Not impressed. You compare the 9/11 Conspiracy with something like the Chupacabra. This is exactly what the government does, they make the Conspiracy Theorists (CT's) look like crackpots when you relate the 9/11 Conspiracy with something along the lines of a "Vampire Animal". Im surprised you didnt use the "Reptiles rule the world" instead.

And by comparing the 9/11 conspiracy to others such as "Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky"...What did these result in, some government officials being slandered. You cannot compare the 9/11 Conspiracy to others when their not even on the same level. And the reason why conspiracies such as you mentioned with "Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky" were mentioned and brought to the publics attention was because back then the media was owned by 100 different people/corps. Now its down to less than 10.

And how come you didnt do the Claim/Reality thing for the important facts such as; Why NATO was told to stand down and Chenney decided to take charge of it THAT day, why all the buildings that fell pancaked ever so nicely, why Bush claimed he saw the footage of the planes hitting the towers on TV the same day when it was first aired the day after, why all the building debris was taken away and shipped off before any of it could be examined (It was a crime scene for crying out loud, you dont go to a murder scene and start tossing away the body and gun shell casings).

And as for the Claim/Reality thing about "Never before has steel structured buildings collapsed due to fire"....then you relate it to 2 planes crashing into towers, having never happened before as well. LAME ! ! ! You set fire to a steel structured building before, it wont collapse. Meanwhile, its not a given or known fact what people are going to do, people are unpredictable, not the structure and dynamics of steel. (Also, If you did your research you'd find steel structured buildings have survived fires for much longer than the twin towers did and still were standing afterwards).

Also, there are creditable people looking into this. Try some Asian government officials looking into it (their were Asian people on the plane from China or somewhere, so they are allowed to investigate it since it involves people from their country). Try the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"...Architects and Engineers from around the world working together for the TRUTH ! .........Then theirs also the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice". Then theirs the "NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative " (Go look it up if you dont know what it is, Im not going to do all your research), Then theirs the whole problem with the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST Report.

I can continue to go on and on, but its obvious you havnt put much thought into your little rant here, so why should I continue. I cant believe you received any sort of praise for this. Well written, but thats about it. Terrible job trying to convince people.

said Rob on September 9, 2008 11:34 PM.

Rob, you and all the other irrational 'truthers' at sites like ATS suffer from the same affliction. Any psychology 101 student can recognize your condition as delusional paranoia. Look it up. Maybe you will learn something about yourself and save yourself from the ridicule that you and your fellow 'truthers' invite upon yourselves by the rational.

said Jeff Haley on September 10, 2008 2:38 PM.

The conspiracy nutjobs love to point out how the towers fell in freefall time and that is proof of a controlled demolition, forgetting a few things:
1> NO controlled demolition has squibs popping during the fall. It's always before.
2> It takes months to properly set up a building as big as the WTC for CD. And we're supposed to believe it was accomplished when there were bomb sniffing dogs in the building.
3> The fall does not resemble any CD fall. The debris hits the ground before the building does and it's a really messy affair.

Conspiracy nuts love to point out what they perceive as loopholes in the official story and relate this to a conspiracy without once giving details about: 1> Who planned it. 2> Why.

The US government couldn't even fucking out a CIA agent without screwing it up, and we're supposed to believe they can pull an operation of this magnitude with military precision. Damn, the guys at loose change must have some good weed.

said Balaji on September 15, 2008 9:37 PM.

Well done, Balaji. Well done.

said Johnny Wright on September 15, 2008 10:02 PM.

plz vote for obama, cuz if mccain and "pitbull" get into office im leaving the country, i cant take much more of this, and also to everyone saying 9/11 is fake, you need go find a fmaily who lost someone in the event and talk to them about it ok?

said bob on September 18, 2008 2:24 PM.

Hmmm. This article smacks of self-congratulatory hysteria. First of all, we're being LIED TO about 9/11. Until there is COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY you will ALL have to deal with theory upon theory upon theory. If you actually TOOK THE TIME TO READ THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT you will see that it's FULL OF HOLES AND INCONSISTENCIES and is a CONSPIRACY THEORY ITSELF. But who cares, right? I mean, geez, that's in the past. That is so seven years ago. We have an election to pay attention to!

said Yeah on October 9, 2008 6:32 PM.

Note to all nutjobs like Yeah. If you want to fool people into thinking you're rational thinkers and not nutjobs, then DON'T type SPURIOUS words in CAPITAL letters.

said Scaramouch on October 9, 2008 9:22 PM.

you are going to believe a guy who answers things half ass...you have quick answers...nothing logic or even close to anything that happened...for example where is the plane at the penagon? planes dont just vanish...where is the plane in shanksville? GONE! today there are more evidence than ever to prove you and anyone who thinks box cutters and with less than 1000 hours flying time did this...the real reason why the towers went down was to hide any evidence from the accident...for christ sakes three people above the plane crash four floors above walked down to safty...
common sense question for you sir
black smoke means fire is less of oxygen...white smoke means its feeding off it...what smoke when coming from the towers...? the pentagon would of had 1 million btus of gasoline on there lawn and nothing even shows that...man i could go on and on...
you need to look at the facts and not come up with random answers like bugs bunny man

said Joe on December 16, 2008 11:35 PM.

Awe shit, here we go again!

said Baierman on December 17, 2008 12:54 PM.

Nut job? That's the best you can do? Hurl junior high insults at people who don't agree with your point of view? And yes sir, it is just that, a point of view. And yes, it is a flawed point of you view you have Scaramouch. You obviously have not read the 9/11 Commission report, which is nothing more than the Warren Commission whitewash 2.0 updated and upgraded for the 21st century. You need to read that along side of Dr. David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbor and then some real serious questions will emerge. Do that, then try and discredit the truth movement. A good debunker knows boths sides of the argument.

said Yeah on January 14, 2009 10:32 AM.
The
greatest
pop culture
blog on the
planet.
 
Or
maybe not.


rss feed Breakfast Links Feed

Recent Comments

What we can learn from Donna "Treasure Bombshell" Simpson?
Dear Treasure Bombshell If you don’t’ love yourself think of your daughter. W
teresacristinacunha

What we can learn from Donna "Treasure Bombshell" Simpson?
Dear Treasure Bombshell If you don’t’ love yourself think of your daughter. W
teresacristinacunha

Where the Streets have Sexual Names
Lets not leave out Climax, Saskatchewan :)
Heather

Where are they now? Serial Killers
another true fact on Jeffry Dahlmer, sick puppy he is ..one book at library sai
Marylou

Where Are They Now - The Griswold Kids
dana hill passed away now
Mike

Where Are They Now - The Griswold Kids
dana hill passed away now
Mike

Comments Feed

Special Features

Archives by Writer

New to YesButNoButYes?

YesButMailbag