"The towering infernos were said to burn with the heat of nuclear power plants, despite sooty black smoke and few flames."

>>"Nuclear power plants aren't that hot."

The author of the site is not saying he thinks that nuc power plants are hot, only that they were described that way.

>>"These people are just loopy!"

What's really loopy is that the WTC towers fell almost as fast through their own structure as the dust did through the air.

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm

The author of the site is not saying he thinks that nuc power plants are hot, only that they were described that way.

No, the author is employing a deceptive term, which the audience thinks means extraordinarily high heat, to make the reader wonder why no visible flames were seen, and thus suggest a special effect instead of a genuine fire.

What's really loopy is that the WTC towers fell almost as fast through their own structure as the dust did through the air.

Yes, they were pulled down by giant magnets surreptitiously planted beneath the towers in previous years by TeamEvilChimp, a secret Bush-supporting organization of neocons.

Look, silly, dust falls very slowly. A small piece of paper will fall to the ground much slower than a chunk of steel because of something called "friction". When one floor of a pancaking structure drops onto another, there's almost no slowdown before the next level collapses. A little something else called "momentum" comes into play in that case. Given this, I would be suprised if the floors didn't collapse faster than some of the lighter bits of debris fell.

What's really loopy is that some people are still going on about this without addressing the rather thorough debunking in Popular Mechanics cited above.

Forgone conclusions in search of supporting data.

There is a lot of evidence that sways me either way. The so called 'paper trail' could have been ignored due to the fact that people have said they would do this exact thing before. A lot of stuff has a simple explanation. Like the 1000 bodies disapearing. It stated that to cremate a body, it takes two hours at 1400 - 1800 degrees F to cremate it. Jet fuel burns at about 2400 degrees, which would make the time exposed to the flame a lot less. A lot of the bodies would be cremated.

I tend believe that once a certain level of power is attained, a religious belief kicks in. The questions is... how twisted does a person become when they have the power to change the world?

Ah yes, religion is eeevil. "majestx" can look at the history of the 20th century, with it's hundred million needless government-produced corpses and conclude that religion -- not an atheistic belief that we are unaccountable to no higher authority -- is the greatest danger we face in a leader.

So we can see what kind of illogical, unhistorical prejudice we're facing here.

I just find it hard to believe that the most powerful nation on the planet chalks up 9/11 as an oversight in national security.

Not less than a generation ago the USSR was perhaps the most powerful nation on earth. One of the two, undoubtedly. This is a country which couldn't even produce a loaf of bread reliably. The KGB, though feared and sometimes effective, were also notoriously bungling and ineffective at other times.

Why? Governments are ineffective and fail frequently. This idea is common sense to a conservative, and utterly incomprehensible to many a liberal.

And, to a sufficiently dedicated conspiracy theorist, everything is grist for the mill. When F15's show up late, it's proof the whole thing was planned by the government. Yet others claim the final flight was shot down, rather than crashed. Evidence the government did the right thing finally? No, more nefariousness. Unanswered questions prove the gov't (read "Bush administration") acted to kill thousands of Americans. Yet answered questions prove the exact same thing:

I was quite certain that the "no-Boeing" theory was designed to set up people who were asking "whodunnit" so that when the "proof of the Boeing" hitting the Pentagon was finally unveiled, everyone who suspected an "inside job" would look completely stupid and all such conspiracy theories would be thoroughly squashed thereby.

Yes, of course. The left comes up with disprovable theories, and even fakes footage (which the above-provided link apparently still believes to be true) and all that is simply more evidence for their rightness.

I have a far more mundane theory which explains why (a) F15's weren't scambled quickly enough, and (b) why the alleged missles which guard the pentagon weren't launched, (c) conflicting stories afterwards. (a) Incompetance, and (b) they don't work, or aren't really switched on normally, and (c) government agencies are often confused about what happened even inside and/or will lie to protect their butts and/or national security.

I mean, good heavens, we all learned the Patriot missles never shot down Scuds, either, during the first Gulf War. Now it's supposed to be utterly incomprensible to think the "missle shield" around the pentagon might be less than billed?

As I said above, the only other alternative is to state, categorically, that accidental failures in the government could never occur. Call me a skeptic, but I find that idea truly fantastic.

And, of course, missing completely is the alleged motive. Apparently, it's supposed to be self-evident that "corporate interests" would benefit from damage to the economy, thousands dead, and a costly, unpopular war. Halliburton's stock is down -- way down -- so there goes that culprit. We're obviously not swimming in cheap oil today. Bush never pursued drilling ANWR when he realized the public generally opposed that idea -- so there goes that motive.

So we have two pieces of evidence -- slow intercept, and unfired missles -- with many a mundane explanation possible (but rejected) -- put forth by people who wrote "The Truth About Hyperdimensional Beings and Alien Abudctions" -- with no explanation of motive -- and this is supposed to be a "smoking gun", as discussed by a credible source?

I belive there was a US gov't conspiracy to plant demolition explosives in key structural points that would bring about the structural failure of the buildings after being weakend from the hijacked planes- for two reasons

1. the weekend before 9/11, a power down took place from the 50th floor and up to update the cabling to the offices to increase bandwidth. This power down unlocked all locked doors and cut off all security cameras above the 50th floor. According to Scott Forbes, an employee at Feduciary Trust, "engineers" went in, out, and about the building. He also said some elevators were reported out of service constantly. If explosives were placed, this would be the time to do it. Feduciary Trust had offices on the 90th floor and from the 94th through the 97th floors on the South Tower. Most employess died, but Forbes was off on the eleventh.

2. Many firemen walking up the steps heard explosions below and above them. Veteran firefighters knew this fire from the aircraft could be contained. When firefighters got to where the fires first started on the north tower- ( where the right wing entered the wall) they reported they would only need two hose lines to contain the fire. It was even reported that minutes before the first tower collapsed, some stranded office workers were peering out of the slit in the exterior wall of the north tower where the airplane plowed through.

There is also seismic evidence of some explosions right before the towers came down. Columbia University's Earth Observatory in palasaides, new York, picked up the small tremors associated with the tower's collapse. Right before the largets spike on the grid (the 2.0 tremor`that was felt when the towers came down) the are a few smaller spikes recorded. These could be from demolitions explosions. Many witnesses also felt ground-shaking explosions right before the towers began to collapse. Steve Evans, a reporter for the BBC stated:
"I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit. There was an explosion- I didn't think it was an explosion, but the base of the building shook-I felt it shake....then we were outside. There was a second explosion, and then a series of explosions...We can only wonder at the kind of damage- the kind of human damage- which was caused by these explosions...this series of explosions. "
Fox 5 News in New York City caught on tape one of these explosions.- "a large white cloud billowing out near the base of the south tower"
the newsman commented "there is an explosion at the base of the building..white smoke at the bottom...then another explosion..."

There is also evidence from un-edited video of the tower collapse from NBC of several small explosions and red fireballs that can be seen right before being engulfed by the dust mushroom cloud following the building's collapse. Any demolitions technician could tell you those puffs of smoke from the walls right below the dust cloud were explosives. That same demolitions technician would also tell you the collapse of the towers looks remarkably similar to a controlled demolition.

As far as motives for motives for this conspiracy..i can only guess- and get flamed for it on this conservative forum

source: http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf
check this article out- it has has evidence that really cannot be argued.

-ryan
don't blame me- I voted for Kerry

the weekend before 9/11, a power down took place from the 50th floor and up to update the cabling to the offices to increase bandwidth.

Just a crazy theory, but perhaps the point of this exercise was to ... you know, to update the cabling. I know, I'm nuts to suggest such a weird, outlandish idea, but I actually try to consider all the possibilities.

Further, you know, two towers went down. Shouldn't there have been a similar exercise in the other tower as well?

On the other hand, if it could have been done to the other tower more secretly, then why not do it the same way to both? This line of argument seems to make no sense whatsoever.

According to Scott Forbes, an employee at Feduciary Trust, "engineers" went in, out, and about the building.

Another wild idea: Perhaps these were actual engineers. You know, it's easy enough to get the company name in question and attempt to track down the employees who did the upgrade. That effort should resolve to some weird tale if they weren't actual engineers -- a tale the conspiracy theorists should be reporting among their evidence. Yet the notable absence of such evidence implies a rather more mundane explanation.

Yet another problem.

If explosives were placed, this would be the time to do it.

Again, how would they have placed them in both towers this way?

Further, I'm not sure if you understand this, but the structural supports on the WTC were on the outside of the building, not the inside. And demolition experts usually place charges on those key points on every floor, not just one particular floor. And even if they were placed on just one floor, how could they have been assured of perfect aim?

Look, this is stupid stuff. It's far from irrefutable: it has loose ends and basic errors all over, not to mention obvious alternative explanations which aren't even been considered in the argument, much less refuted.

Many firemen walking up the steps heard explosions below and above them.

I would not be suprised if something -- perhaps the floors buckling -- did indeed produce a sound like explosions. But where is the footage of the blown-out windows on a given floor? Where are the videos synchronized puffs of smoke all along the structure supports along the outside, or windows being blown out in synchronization?

Instead, I've heard that footage shows the buildings twisting and windows popping under the stress before the collapse. This would certainly, it seems to be, produce such explosive noises. This would seem relatively easy to check. As I'm not hearing such claims, I strongly suspect no footage exists which contradicts this. But I'm certainly open to evidence to the contrary, if you'd like to point it out.

Veteran firefighters knew this fire from the aircraft could be contained.

From what I'd seen, once the insulation on the support beams was knocked off, and the heat weakened the steel, and the towers had not a hope in heck of continuing to stand.

Now if you have some evidence that (a) the impact of a passenger jet could not have possibly knocked off the insulation, or (b) jet fuel and other debris doesn't burn hot enough to weaken unprotected steel, then we've got something worth discussing.

Otherwise, unless you get rid of that obvious mechanism for the towers' collapse, which would undoubtedly produce buckling, cracking noises, and explosive releases of structural force, there's no need to envision a bomb to explain the collapse.

And even if so, what does it matter that the fire was "contained"? The question wasn't one of "containment" -- it was one of stopping the building from collapsing. The WTC didn't burn down, it collapsed -- so this seems the issue of merely "containing" the fire is a complete non-sequitor even if it were 100% true.

It was even reported that minutes before the first tower collapsed, some stranded office workers were peering out of the slit in the exterior wall of the north tower where the airplane plowed through.

This would be interesting. Solid evidence for this claim is, of course, welcomed.

There is also seismic evidence of some explosions right before the towers came down.

Love to see more of this data. How "right before"? Minutes? Seconds? How do they know it came from the WTC? Would buckling be sufficient to explain it? Let's see the data.

Fox 5 News in New York City caught on tape one of these explosions.- "a large white cloud billowing out near the base of the south tower"

This is supposed to be suspicious? Okay: try to understand what WTC was constructed like -- this is not hard stuff, but I guess if you're not interested, everything is...

WTC, like every other skyscraper, has something called elevator shafts running down the length of it. In fact, moreso than most buildings, since its construction allowed it to have a hollow core. A violent explosion or displacement of hot gasses on higher floors would naturally travel down through the elevator shafts until the shaft terminated.... at the ground floor, where it would blow the doors off, and blow out into the lobby and through the glass.

As indeed reportedly happened.

This is not difficult stuff, folks, this is basic physics. I'm amazed that someone didn't think: Duh, WTC had an elevator shaft when they read this.

Now, if "WTC had elevator shafts" theory is somehow wrong or impossible, then you're welcomed to explain how. But simply pretending that this obvious explanation doesn't even exist (nor adequately explain why you would see an explosion on the first floor seconds after the impact), is hardly some kind of irrefutable form of argument.

As far as motives for motives for this conspiracy..i can only guess- and get flamed for it on this conservative forum

Flame you??? Well, if your theory was lame or weak, I'd probably feel free to point that out and ask you to explain inconsistent details, as I have at other points. Would that be such a horrifying, traumatic experience for you? Are you that afraid of having your allegedly "unarguable" theories subjected to even mild, civil questioning???

You certainly have no problem producing other kinds of arguments -- why are you suddenly so afraid of addressing the all-important (and completely missing, IMO) aspect of motive?

I have a theory: Perhaps you're afraid to suggest a motive simply because you can't come up with one with makes any sense.

check this article out- it has has evidence that really cannot be argued.

I am endlessly tired of long articles which recycle the same stuff over and over. And, far from from "cannot be argued", it's often stuff that's either incredibly obvious to anyone with basic knowledge, or has already been addressed.

This article, for example, pages 1 through 4 are people giving accounts of "explosions." But the "explosions" they refer to are all different things -- some people describe one, some describe three, some happen seconds after the impact, other clearly talking about the collapse of the building itself. Certainly each of these events would be "explosive" -- but there is no evidence presented that any of this was due to a bomb.

Then, on page 5, we read what might be the "hard evidence" I'm asking for above: Footage allegedly showing controlled explosions...

On the NBC tape, we see the two towers burning and emitting clouds of black smoke. Then, at about frame 131 of the tape, there emerges a cloud of white-grey smoke along about two thirds of the 79th floor of the South Tower. Two thirds of the southeast façade correspond to the dimensions of the central core column complex, which would be where controlled demolition charges would have to be placed. This line of white-grey smoke billows up, contrasting sharply with the black smoke from the fire. At about frame 203, another line of white-grey smoke emerges several floors below the first, and billows up in its turn...

I don't know how many frames per second we're talking here, but even at 20fps, this represents several seconds delay -- yet "controlled demolitions" use simulataneous explosions, not a series of delayed charges.

What we're seeing in the footage is a phenomena called "pancaking". Again, you don't need a degree in engineering to figure this out: If a particular floor had been weakened badly -- say, by fire -- what would happen?

That's right, it would collapse.

And what would that look like?

The collapse would push debris out on several or all sides. You would see stuff shooting out of the floor all around the building.

And once that happened, what would happen?

The shockwave would be transmitted down to the next floor, or next group of floors, again producing the same effect.

And the process would repeat.

ANY collapse involving a weakened floor would look like this, so seeing such a process occured hardly proves it could only have been due to "controlled demolition."

Again, if anyone has an argument saying pancaking couldn't possibly happened, they're welcomed to post it. But pretending an obvious mundane explanation doesn't even exist is not even responsible argumentation -- much less "unarguable".

Another section on this same page repeats the argument above -- that the firemen felt confident they could probably eventually put out the blaze. Again, this might make sense as being fishy as some kind if the WTC had burned down despite that confidence, but since the WTC instead collapsed shortly afterwards, long before a fire could reasonably have been extinguished, it is a rather moot point.

I'm not sure how anybody could think that's even relevant, much less irrefutable. I guess partisanship can do odd things to your brain.

Next, on page 6, much is made of the argument that "no modern, steel-framed, fireproof building had ever collapsed as a result of fire". Yet, to my knowledge, no other modern, steel-framed fireproof building had a jumbo jet fly into it.

Again, for those not paying attention, the common response is that the jet knocked the fireproofing off the girders and thus the fire was able to weaken the beams.

Now, perhaps this isn't possible or true. Great. But then address that issue! Don't keep pretending the counter-argument doesn't even exist and apparently hoping your audience is similarly stupid or uninformed.

Until then, it seems like you're just grossly ignorant of the debate, and/or exploiting the same ignorance in your readers to generate paranoia -- possibly to win votes for your political party. (Which would be despicable, but probably effective.)

This explanation continues until page 7, where they cite a mining expert who claimed the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition. Mining experts don't demolish buildings. Why cite a mining expert, who works exclusively underground? Why not a cite the many building demolition experts available, who would be much more familliar with what that look slike?

Hint: Perhaps they couldn't, because maybe, just maybe, no such "expert testimony" could be found. Perhaps the demolition experts said: "No, that's nothing like it."

After all, if they did identify it as such, why is their testimony missing? Why go with someone else who would be less convincing?

Next, on page 8, the cite a "Danish news anchor" as a "foreign expert" to bolster the "demolition" theory. As if simply being a foreign journalist made you some kind of expert. Well gosh, we weren't already impressed with the idea a miner would know everything about destroying skyscrapers, we'll certainly now be impressed with a Danish news anchor!

Please! Stop it already. This is nuts! A Danish news anchor -- or an American one, for that matter -- knows less about physics than your average sophmore engineering student -- or probably many high school students.

This is "unarguable" evidence?

Then we get a "Danish military officer" testifying to the same. Again, as if "military officers" (in what, the navy? the air force?) knew something in particular about controlled demolition of skyscrapers.

Then, on page 9, we meet a swiss "building dynamics" engineer who suggests it would be possible to rent out the entire floor of a building blow it out. Yet even according to the authors he doesn't, however, apparently have any opinion as to whether this happened or not in this case.

And this needs to be refuted how???

And even if it were true, it makes mincemeat out of the rest of the this document: The floor below would have been blown at collapse time, not a measurable time before. No bomb would need to have been placed on the first floor; there would have been no need to set off the many other planned "explosions" alleged, such as those one or two firefighters reportedly thought they heard when first arriving.

I mean, sorry, but this "unargable" evidence isn't even internally consistant: each argument contradicts the next. If one is true, the other is false -- it even argues against itself.

Or it could be that the obvious really occurred -- a plane hit the building, the heat weakened the now-unprotected steel, pipes burst, the structure slowly twisted and distorted and broke, and then a final dramatic collapse occured, floor by floor.

To me, that seems to explain what was heard, measured, and observed much better than these mutually contradictory "bombs were placed!" theories.

Okay, there's 16 more pages I haven't looked at. Why should I waste my time, given how ridiculously stupid the first several pages are? Underground miners and news anchors testifying as "experts" about blowing buildings up? "Experts" who apparently don't know the WTC had elevator shafts? Arguments which ignore obvious counter-arguments such as the ability of a jet plane to scrape off fireproof insulation? Arguments about whether the fire might have eventually been controlled -- while ignoring the fact the building collapsed?

Look, get me some real evidence here, okay?

This is laughable, and you should be embarassed to stand behind it.

Question 0: how many things must be found wrong, amiss, bogus, false regarding the government's official conspiracy theory of 9/11 before we decide that the whole damn thing is one huge lie?

Harkin back to the crash of United Airlines Flt 262 that crashed onto the runway at Sioux City Iowa at a speed exceeding 200 mph. The plane left a debris and wreckage field that took weeks to clean up. As for the Pentagon, someone please identify at least a rudder or a seat from the crash? Make sense please, that is what most people are asking for, not a goofy conspiracy.

Tim,

The conspiracy posts in here are hilarious. Booga, Booga! LOL.

The conspiracy nuts proclaim that they are 'just asking questions'. Of course, those 'questions' all lean to one side and are a backhanded attempt to make a statement without committing to a position.

So, when you answer their questions...you get:

"Gosh, I never SAID we didn't land on the moon. I was just asking questions."

"Gosh, I never SAID a missile/drone/bomb hit the Pentagon. I was just asking questions."

I love the 'you didn't answer THESE issues/questions' reply. An encyclopedia set couldn't answer ALL of the questions regarding a conspiracy and the many variations found in the cottage industry of books and videos concerning 9/11. Asking new questions DOES NOT answer the rebuttals ALREADY given to previous shoddy statements and dodgy questions.

Throwing fertilizer at the wall and waiting to see what sticks is the method of a con artist.

A new variation on an old theory is that there was no plane at Shanksville. The same plane that was shot down is now a plane that was never there! You can't have it both ways.

Gregg, 'most people' asking these ridiculous questions are not wanting someone to 'make sense'. They are either blindly repeating the same 'bullarkey' they heard on their favorite radio show or are promoters of the garbage themselves.

Small point: The Pentagon plane was travelling much faster than 200 mph. One estimate places it at 350 mph.

HUGE point: The crash you cite happened OUTSIDE. The Pentagon plane crashed INTO a building.

"As for the Pentagon, someone please identify at least a rudder or a seat from the crash?"

Have you bothered to see if anyone already did?

Tim, great site. I stumbled here after doing a web search. I hope you don't pull your hair out dealing with the buffoons.

While most of it is obviously bull, there's something you didn't deal with sufficently ...

[i]Flight 93 was confidently portrayed as a crash due to a struggle, despite strong evidence it was shot down.[/i]

[b]Ummm... and so? If true, it would be a rather minor cover-up ("Ah, just let them believe Todd Beamer and others overcame the hijackers...") but it would make no sense at all as part of the larger cover up being alleged here:[/b]

Forgetting about all the other insane plots ... how would this be a "minor cover-up"? Terrorists make the biggest attack in recent history, and then when the people are turning to the government for protection and guidance, they're told that they started shooting down [i]their own people[/i]? It would be devestating for the government.

That part could very well be true, though I haven't seen the evidence yet either way.

Huh? You are arguing the people of the US would be shocked and angry if we had decided to shoot down the later hijacked flights on 9/11? On what basis? I would have agreed completely with the decision. Are you saying you wouldn't have?

In fact, would have loved for the flights to have been shot down. I wish all of them would have been shot out of the air: then many of the people who died at the Pentagon and WTC would be alive today. I'm sure many of the passageners of these flights would have wanted the same done, had they been given the chance.

But to you, apparently, this would have been a wrong, shocking decisions. Again, please explain how you can think in such a way.

blimp captain,

Question 0: how many things must be found wrong, amiss, bogus, false regarding the government's official conspiracy theory of 9/11 before we decide that the whole damn thing is one huge lie?

Are you, yourself, interested in the evidence in the slightest? How many things must be found wrong with your case before you show an interest in changing your mind?

Which is more revealing, this statement(s), or the fact that NOBODY's ever questioned it (them): Bush Implicates Bush!

The page asserts Bush said he saw the first airplane hit, but asserts that's impossible because the footage of the first collision wasn't available until much later.

Taking this at face value, the obvious conclusion to draw is that Bush is mistaken, and remembering the second impact as though it were the first. A classic kind of mistake people will make in such circumstances, sadly.

Oh, unless I'm a conspiracy theorist. In that case, it is suddenly impossible for President Bush -- who is called an idiot and moron the rest of the time -- to have made such an ordinary mistake. No, in that case, it is absolute, irrefutable proof that:

1. Before the strike, the Evil Government Agents(TM) who planned it set up a television camera, pointed at the correct part of the WTC, or, better yet, a whole array of them to make sure the footage was caught no matter where the pilot eventually hit.

2. Likewise, agents set up satellite receiver and video display hardware at Emma E. Booker Elementary in Sarasota, Florida, knowing Bush would be there tomorrow, and knowing how much he would hate to miss the firsthand images of bloodshed.

3. Filmed and transmitted said imagine, by satellite, to Florida, where...

4. Der Evil BushHitler, on his way to class to read about a pet goat, stops and takes in the video, before lecturing children on the importance of literacy. And then later...

5. Thoughlessly reveals the entire plot! Repeatedly!

Okay, you've got me. I admit it. I can see no other possible explanation for this gaffe.

Which is more revealing, this obviously bogus video, or the fact that NOBODY's ever noticed it: U.S. Government's Fake Osama Phony Confession Video

Here's an interesting page that has the recorded sounds of the explosives going off:

http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html

More evidence:

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/march2005/100305strategicexplosives.htm

Good article by Morgan Reynolds, Professor Emeritus at Texas A & M:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Anyone who believes the government's "official" account of what happened on 9-11 is completely spellbound to the power of suggestion even in the face of visual and audio proof that explosives went off causing the twin towers and WTC7 to fall down just as they would in a preplanned and preset demolition of other non 9-11 buildings. The evidence of explosions preceding and during the collapses of the 3 world trade center structures is there for people to see and hear if they will just take the time to look and listen. This is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of the stern hard logic of facts.

Michael,

This is not a matter of faith...

If it's not a matter of faith, then why do you offer no hard facts whatsoever?

I went to the page you indicated, and watched both clips. The one of the WTC falling features two loud *ssshchngh* sounds, in quick succession, AFTER the building is already falling.

The one of the building demolition featured a lot of short, staccato pops -- BEFORE the building starts collapsing, like a string of fireworks going off. In the controlled demolition, as usual in such things, you see bright flashes of the charges going off simulateously on all the floors of the building. Nothing even remotely similar appears on the WTC collapse footage.

And the sounds don't even sound similar to me.

This is supposed to be convincing?

What noise was the WTC supposed to have made, while collapsing, if no bomb was involved? Was it supposed to have fluttered lightly to the ground with narry a cracking noise or boom? What were you expecting otherwise? Silence? A gentle chime sound? An oboe solo???

And the "Professor Emeritus" you have referred us to is an expert in "Labor Economics" -- and wouldn't know the first thing about Newton's laws of physics, must less in distinguishing a controlled demolition from the loud noises made by snapping steel girders. Sheesh, I have more engineering training than he does.

And his argument isn't anything based on his own expertise or experience, anyway: It's just more links to other people's arguments, most of which I've already answered here already, if you'd bother to read.

Until you respond to my refutations of those aguments, I see no reason to be impressed by the original arguments, repeated all over again.

So this is your "stern hard logic of facts"? Showing the towers made noise when they fell (duh!), and a bunch of links, put together by an economist, rehashing arguments that have already been answered numerous times???

Well, one of us isn't paying attention here, and is only listening to the evidence offered by one side. And I'll give you a little hint as to which one of us it is:

It's not me.

box, stop posting this garbage and do some actual research.

"...then the sound of explosion..."

The above comment from you ONLY works if you first ASSUME that explosives were used. Your 'evidence' is merely CIRCULAR REASONING.

"...building standing, then the sound of explosion, then the building is coming down."

Of course, you'd expect to hear the sounds of a building collapsing followed by the actual collapse of a building.

Go play as an incompetent, fringe conspiracy theorist elsewhere.

--------------------

Michael,

The Prison Planet link is worthless. It is simply more circular reasoning. Also, it contains video clips of UNKNOWN origin. With no chain of evidence and an unknown cameraman...well, you figure it out.

The 'analysis' is made by an unqualified individual.

................
I showed this film to a person who couldn't care less about the whole topic and asked him if he noticed anything strange. After the third time orso he noticed the flashes and smoke blowouts: "Ah, those...hmmm...looks like explosives...yeah...guess they are explosives...and those white plumes up there also seem a bit strange" which, as I aspected, was followed by: "but I don't really care". But I guess that other people besides 'nutballs' can see seemingly unexplainable things too.
................

Ambush investigation? He shoved a video clip at the face of a person that wasn't interested in the topic. Notice that the UNNAMED individual had to be shown the clip THREE times and TOLD what to see before saying that maybe something odd was captured.

box,

"that's fine but please keep in mind that fact that you and everyone else were repeatedly shown footage of the days events and told quite specifically what happened by the 'voice of god'."

A key difference is that you are blindly believing what the conspiracy sites, books, and videos advocate. Tim actually did some, God forbid, real research. I checked the sources and logic used by the conspiracy material. The "voice of God" comes from your imagination. It is actually a form of projection. You are a blind believer so everyone else must be as well.

....................

blimp,

"...successfully demonstrated in-cabin voice communications using commercially available CDMA mobile phones on a commercial American Airlines aircraft."

CDMA...

"The information gathered during this proof-of-concept demonstration flight will be used to further research into the quality, convenience and safety of communications with personal CDMA mobile phones carried by passengers on a commercial aircraft."

personal CDMA phones...

"...demonstration for the in-flight use of 3G CDMA technology..."

The press release does not support what you claim. The press release concerns personal CDMA phones. It does not say that cell phones were impossible to use on 9/11. This is the sort of kindergarten-esque 'research' conducted by slob 'investigators'. Gawd, this is when words like "stupid" should be used.

www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

*SIGH*

This would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. I'm a high school graduate with a bit of military experience. If I can take a few minutes and spot gross errors in the supposed 'hard proof' cited by yourself and other incompetent pseudo-researchers, what will happen if the 9/11 truth movement gains a JFK HSCA-type investigation? Appallingly bad videos such as In Plane Site, Pentagon Strike, Loose Change, and similar choice examples of bovine excrement will be paraded before the public and exposed as shoddy works created by overzealous amateurs. That or scam artists. Whatever good information might exist will be overshadowed by the crap promoted by people such as yourself.

"Here's some video which strongly suggests, if not proves, that the North Tower was pre-wired with explosives."

Actually, the video does nothing of the sort. You are employing circular reasoning. It only 'strongly suggests' or 'proves' explosives if you assume it does to begin with. Smoke escaping from windows does not equal 'pre-wired explosives'. Your atrocious web page contains another gross error in logic:

"The soundtrack then corroborates the fact that the collapses were subsequent to explosions..."

Again, what would a building almost ready to collapse sound like? This is another 'fact' that has been twisted to support your conspiracy agenda.

"...example evidence..."

This was even worse than the other examples cited. The smoke is EXPANDING. This is what happens when you have a vehicle laden with fuel that crashes into a building. Of course, there are no references for the claims made on the page.

It is typical for conspiracy theorists to throw multiple theories on different subjects into the discussion when the initial theory has been disproven or shown to be unlikely. By your own admission, your goal is to 'get' the government. 9/11 is simply a vehicle for you to carry your obsession.

I was watching cnn and it said at the bottom of the screen that 2 f15 were within minutes of visual sight of the plane . Never heard another thing about them then we hear the plane went down. Why were they there, you cant talk down a plane that is hijacked. What is he going to promise to land the plane and not change his mind at the last second and take out the airport. The plane was flying at what 550miles per hour and was 50 miles from major city , what choice did they have those people were never going to survive. And the government will never admit it , what gets me are the people who say no way the government would never do anything like that. Im not saying they enjoyed it but look at the big picture , there was no way to guarentee no other lives would be lost, letting that plane continue would be possably adding to the death toll. Also they talk about the passengers screaming before the plane went down when the pilot nosed the plane down. They screamed when they saw the wing of the plane get shot apart. People think all those planes are armed with are missles that would blow it plane into little peaces. They also shoot rather large bullets too.

I was watching cnn and it said at the bottom of the screen that 2 f15 were within minutes of visual sight of the plane . Never heard another thing about them then we hear the plane went down. Why were they there, you cant talk down a plane that is hijacked. What is he going to promise to land the plane and not change his mind at the last second and take out the airport. The plane was flying at what 550miles per hour and was 50 miles from major city , what choice did they have those people were never going to survive. And the government will never admit it , what gets me are the people who say no way the government would never do anything like that. Im not saying they enjoyed it but look at the big picture , there was no way to guarentee no other lives would be lost, letting that plane continue would be possably adding to the death toll. Also they talk about the passengers screaming before the plane went down when the pilot nosed the plane down. They screamed when they saw the wing of the plane get shot apart. People think all those planes are armed with are missles that would blow it plane into little peaces. They also shoot rather large bullets too.

WATCH OUT FOR MAD CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!
(reposted from internet sources)

PARANOID FANTASIES ABOUT SEPT 11

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will be at least one, usually several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it.

"Mahatma Ghandi’s ghost throttled Hendrix"

"Saddam Hussein was breeding an army of genetically modified Yeti".

"Hitler was half Werewolf"

"Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone" etc,etc.

The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.

So it's hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales.

And as always, there is - sadly - a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unaware by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able to.

Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - which remains uninvestigated, the complicit behaviour of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours , crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more stupid stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus it has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed.

Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (il)logical conclusions.

According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives ,box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist.

For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes.

If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists.

But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist.

With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID ( but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious.

However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched ? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

"Excuse me sir, why do you have a box cutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"

"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."

"Very strange", thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or box cutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."

Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane?

But by this time, the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will point to the fact that the hijackers passports were allegedly found at the crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.

Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated, and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently "Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts again.

"Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?"

"You numbskull ! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And so on…

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unravelling of this marvellously stupid story.

"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? "

The answer of course is that its just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen...

This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The "improbability drive", in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to suggest it, and then speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to try to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world).

There is a principle called "Occam's razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.

Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.

Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the crew being able to alert Air Traffic Control (ATC ) is almost impossible. The crew needs only to punch in a four digit code to alert ATC to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the crude method of threatening people with box cutters and knives, shooting and stabbing passengers to try to lure the crew out of the cockpit and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously). And yet, miraculously they were able to take control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code.

Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.

So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of "our freedoms", it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will for this dreadful deed.

Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -really impeccable Islamic behaviour - and then got up at 5am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.

It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skilfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi- believable.

Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that for a plane to instantly blow itself up into nothing like that, it would have to be packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.

But lets humour the conspiracy theorists and suppose that this crude cartoon designed to hide whatever really hit the building was actually a real plane.

Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vaporising the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.

There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load!

Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosene, and usually burns at about 400c has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vaporizing 70 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 23 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about four times that of the normal combustion temperature of kerosene. And forget about the boiling point of these metals, which is what would be required to vaporize a plane. And then there's about 47 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosene.

For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as "mumbo jumbo". This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosene, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute.

Determinedly ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vaporised into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.

"Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact!" they state with pompous certainty. "Watch any Bruce Willis movie!"

"Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation - other than Bruce Willis movies ?"

At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner into which they have backed themselves and plan their escape by means of another stunning back flip.

"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin.

“Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vaporised into nothing.”

"But not big planes, with that much fuel ! ", they shriek in hysterical denial.

“Or that much metal to vaporise. “

"Yes, but not hijacked planes !"

"Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?"

"Now you're just being silly".

Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vaporise into nothing. What's so special about hitting a building?

But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "Its a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."

Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves (if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vaporisation of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit loop…

But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even creative more uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosene. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers as well as building 7, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosene.

This makes it necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vaporising a 70 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Their insane eyes glinting madly, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosene is enough to

: completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft

: have enough left over to burn so ferociously for over an hour at the impact point that it melted massive steel construction beams ( melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel ).

: still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.

Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vaporised. And never again will I take kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp - the next - kapow! Vaporised into nothing - along with the rest of the camp site - with still enough of the deadly stuff left to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the mythical raging inferno allegedly created by this miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel girders softened they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.

Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of kerosene, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-invented the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

All three buildings fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11.

It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knows no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the towers at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures, originally designed to withstand many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a large passenger jet straying off course.

Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why.

"Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir"

"No miss, the kerosene heater blew up and vaporised everything in the street, except for my passport."

"You see sir, the school bus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."

Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.

The ferocious heat generated by the ghastly kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by such heat. This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city. That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft.

You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vaporised by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.

So there you have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.

This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space in between of lower building height. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar depth of lower level space between the rings.

The missile which the Bush regime fired into it, went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat hole less than 20 ft wide, less than 20 ft high through three rings-about 250 ft into the building

A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft , and a tail height of 40 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.

But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of kerosene, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity, the second law of thermodynamics, and invented imaginary properties for building materials, so what the hell - why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well ?

I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy nut, this is "mumbo jumbo". It conflicts with their mad delusion, so it must be wrong although trying to get then to explain the specifics of how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.

Conspiracy nuts fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They shriek that the plane was vaporised by it's exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behaviour.

(Fruit loop warning !! )

Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly back flip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage).

As for what happened to the wings - here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

When it suits them they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly, (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from above. How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and prevent his endless war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery which was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in "retaliation" are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

It's time to stop the loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11

Ken,

Do you realize that the creator of that psychotic, rambling piece believes that the aircraft that hit the WTC were really holograms and/or digitally created images inserted into news footage in real-time?

This is another case of projection. The nutjob version of the official story consists of dozens and sometimes hundreds of 'facts' that are loosely connected at best. Usually, the 'facts' are based on Internet rumors and bear little relation to reality. The conspiracy version is almost never nailed down and consists of questions designed to plant doubt in the minds of the gullible.

Is there a technical term for people that construct bizarre, unfounded arguments in order to win one-man debates in their heads?

Forget who the creator of that "conspiracy theory" was, Tom S. See the message, not the messanger.

It never sit well with me that 19 Arab Hijackers, that were

- So religios that they're giving their lifes.

- And ...uh...taking lives of innocent ppl. Against the book they're carrying, Quran.

- Womanizing in bars, drinking....Dude, try drinking and womanizing in some arab fundamnetalist country. And they carried Quran their, priceless.

- Whole bin laden family, was allowed to fly from US after 9/11 without asking any questions, where every one seems so desperate to pin Bin Laden for that?

- Those 19 Arabs, genius enough to somehow carry a lot of explosives didn't know english......And need manuals in....Arabic! This is 21st century, even animals can read english.

- In first few videos if Bin Laden, there was his double. He catch on later. He was too busy in Afghanistan earlier.

Whatever man, doesn't sit well eith me that a Camel jockey can engineer something as timely as 9/11, without a LOT of internal support. Not just some airport officials, but within Air Security.

Still, were airplanes evaporated? or they had explosives? And....pantagon. What happened there?

Imran,

As far as the cut-and-paste job posted earlier goes, it is fair to consider the author's other positions. Jim Fetzer was a Marine Corps officer and did some excellent research on basic matters relating to President Kennedy's assassination. However, he wandered into kook territory with claims that the Zapruder film was little more than a cartoon with frames taken out and details painted into the film.

Gerard Holmgren authored the abominable piece posted earlier. He is a musician. You can examine a sample of his excellent reasoning abilities by reading what follows.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221&mode=thread&tid=25

CHIP BERLET: Well, that's an example, and not to mention, there are a number of internet researchers have done internet searches and said they cannot find actually any witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, who weren't government employees. But if you go to searches on local newspapers for when people talked to their magazines, there were hundreds of witnesses who saw a jet commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. You cannot find them on the internet because they're not there. One of the people that Griffin relies on is this -- is a researcher named Holmgren, who goes into great lengths say that he can’t find this witness, Dave Winslow. He went on to say that Dave Winslow probably doesn't exist and if he does, he should come forward. Dave Winslow is an A.P. Radio reporter. If you pick up the "Washingtonian magazine" for September, 2002, there's a picture of Dave Winslow and an interview of what he saw. That's the substandard research being relied on here.

The conspiracy questions often concern popular versions of the official story that don't square with reality. CT 's often wail and moan about the fires in the WTC not being hot enough to melt steel. This sounds impressive until you realize that no government report has ever claimed that the WTC steel melted. It's a straw man argument.

Yes Tom, I'm agreeing that a friend, ex class fellow of mine, not some one I don't know, saw the plan hitting WTC. He works in the building near it.

But just like you can't stomach the kooky stuff, I can't stomach the "They hate our freedom" and other stuff from the official story.

Huh? You are arguing the people of the US would be shocked and angry if we had decided to shoot down the later hijacked flights on 9/11? On what basis?

There's decent evidence that flight 93 was shot down by US jets.

And yes, I think some people would have reacted badly to that kind of thing. At the very least, it would expose the government to liability and political fallout that they could avoid by just blaming the hijackers. Considering the emotions at the time of 9-11 I could see the administration not wanting to waste energy on people asking if shooting down the plane was the right thing to do.

Debris from flight 93 was scattered across 8 miles which is unusal for plane crashes (as I understand it.) I know the official story is that the plane broke up in the air, however flight 93 being shot down seems at least plausible.