Obsessions
Suspicious Minds
How a ragtag group of conspiracy nuts is changing public perception of 9/11
PAGE 1 / 3
This article is from the February issue of Radar Magazine. For a risk-free issue, click here
SPEAKING TRUTH TO TOWERS We Are Change, an organization that has engineered splashy public confrontations with the likes of Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, and Stephen Colbert (Photo: Henrik Olund)
On a sleepy Wednesday last April—the day he would unexpectedly make his debut as the scourge of the New World Order—Luke Rudkowski pulled on an old pair of sweatpants and shuffled up the basement stairs of his family's row house in the blue-collar Brooklyn neighborhood of Bensonhurst. As he plopped down in a chair and yelled for his mom—maybe she'd cook up a batch of her special chicken parm for dinner?—the 20-year-old conspiracy buff noticed a Polish-language newspaper his dad had left lying around. His eye was drawn to an item announcing that Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser and rival to Henry Kissinger as America's foremost voice on geopolitical strategy, would be giving a speech in Manhattan. "I was like, 'Holy crap!'" he says.
Rudkowski is not the only skeptic. According to polls by Scripps Howard, Radar, and others, nearly 40 percent of Americans believe that the government conspired in, or had precise foreknowledge of, the 9/11 attacks.
While few people his age can name the current national security adviser, much less the man who held the post during the Carter Administration, Rudkowski is able to run through Brzezinski's entire résumé. "This guy is CFR, Bilderberg, and Trilateral Commission," he recites breathlessly, using shorthand for the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group, elite policy organizations to which Brzezinski belongs. To Rudkowski, these affiliations prove that Brzezinski is one of the secret rulers of the world. And since those secret rulers were behind 9/11, it would have been unconscionable to let the man spew his lies unchallenged.
Rudkowski, who has a thick Brooklyn accent and an implacable, heavy-lidded stare reminiscent of Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront, was not directly affected by the attacks. On the morning of September 11, 2001, he was sitting in a ninth-grade Spanish class at a public high school eight miles south of the towers. None of his friends or family members died that day. But exposing the perpetrators of the plot—not the 19 patsies with box cutters, but the real criminals—had in recent years become the focus of his life. He spent Saturdays at Ground Zero with banners and pamphlets, proselytizing to passersby. He knew the material in Loose Change by heart. When he was free on weekday afternoons, which was often, he'd listen to streaming audio of the Alex Jones Show, an immensely popular conspiracy radio program out of Austin, Texas. Jones was his guru. "Seeing Alex Jones's documentaries made me realize that there are a lot of things people don't know," Rudkowski says, "that they should know."
To catch Brzezinski's speech, though, he'd have to hurry: It was scheduled to start in just over an hour, in the rarified atmosphere of the 92nd Street Y on New York's Upper East Side. Rudkowski scratched together $25 for a ticket (no small sum for a young man who'd recently been working construction for near minimum wage). "I threw on my suit that I got for $2 at the Salvation Army, and just started running," he recalls. Sitting alone in the affluent crowd, Rudkowski tried to psyche himself up during Brzezinski's formal remarks. "I was really, really scared," he says. When the floor was opened to questions, he flicked on the borrowed video camera he'd sneaked in, holding it next to his thigh, and rose to address the eminent statesman. His voice rang out hard and clear: "You gave a speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where you alluded to the fact that the Bush Administration may stage a terrorist attack to justify a military action against Iran. ... How are we to know how many other terrorist incidents have been state-sponsored 'false-flag' incidents, including the largest one—the attacks of 9/11?" Then, with rising emotion: "How do we know that you ... didn't plan the attacks of 9/11?"
An appalled hush gripped the auditorium. When Brzezinski didn't immediately respond, the young man became aggressive. "Answer my question!" he yelled, then unleashed a torrent of insults. "You are a criminal! You are scum! You are New World Order scum!" The 79-year-old seemed confused, blinking and looking around the darkened room. The crowd booed.
TRUTHER CONSEQUENCES (From left) Luke Rudowski, Sabrina Rivera, and Manny Badillo are founding members of We Are Change (Photo: Henrik Olund)
The next day—after staying up until 5 a.m. to edit the tape at a friend's house—he posted the footage on YouTube. Kudos began to pour in immediately. Among the impressed was Alex Jones, who saw the clip and invited Rudkowski on his show to recount the confrontation for his two million listeners. A reporter on Jones's heavily trafficked website dubbed Rudkowski a true American hero and opined that "if there is to be any hope of stopping [them], we must all confront the globalists like Brzezinski everywhere they go."
With that single incident, We Are Change, the 9/11 Truth activist group that Rudkowski had been struggling to build, took off. The day of the Brzezinski confrontation, it had one chapter, a handful of members, and no money. Within a few months, it had grown to 27 chapters, including ones in the UK, Canada, and Ireland, and was successfully orchestrating a media campaign that grabbed headlines week in and week out.
Rudkowski and his cohorts are not the only ones suspicious of the official story of 9/11. According to polls by Scripps Howard, Radar, and others, nearly 40 percent of Americans believe that the government conspired in, or had precise foreknowledge of, the 9/11 attacks. Despite the fact that they outnumber both registered Democrats and Republicans, they tend to be invisible in the mainstream media. But the activist fringe of this demographic, the so-called 9/11 Truth movement, has recently become restless in its status. Rudkowski and his group, with Alex Jones's guidance and encouragement, have spearheaded a high-profile publicity campaign that calls to mind tactics used by the savvy AIDS awareness organization Act Up in the 1980s. Following the Brzezinski confrontation, the group has scored a huge amount of major media exposure by cornering presidential candidates to demand answers about 9/11, playing elaborate pranks on Bill Clinton and others, and interrupting a live taping of the HBO series Real Time With Bill Maher. (They were kicked off the set by Maher himself.) Since Rudkowski and his cohorts consider the corporate media to be players in a vast whitewash, they are offering themselves as a ragtag and rowdy—but far more Truthful—competitor.
"The Brzezinski thing basically started We Are Change," Rudkowski says now, with several months' perspective and many other confrontations under his belt. "It started this whole mentality of taking a camera and demanding answers."
PAGE 2 / 3
MARCHING ORDERS Conspiracy kingpin Alex Jones leads a protest in New York (Photo: WeAreChange.org)
Colbert's smile is frozen on his face. "That smirk won't work much longer!" Matt yells at him
Joining him early on in the new group were Mike Knarr, a self-employed 41-year-old who looks a bit like Jesse Ventura; Matt Lepacek, 26, a laconic programmer whose passion, apart from exposing the 9/11 conspiracy, is finishing a play about 16th-century essayist Francis Bacon; Manny Badillo, 32, a corporate-logo salesman who lost an uncle in the World Trade Center; and Sabrina Rivera, a 22-year-old accounting student. Badillo explains the organization's mission like this: "The mainstream media refuses to take on the 9/11 cover-up or hold the people in power accountable. So we're taking over. We're the new fourth estate." The resulting brand of activist amateur journalism is based on direct confrontations—what the group calls "Truth Squads"—that are designed to become mini-media events in their own right.
The strategy seems to be that a constant low-grade presence of conspiracy claims about 9/11 will prove more powerful in shaping public opinion than the many academic and government investigations that have undercut the Truthers' claims. But even among die-hard activists, there is not much agreement about what really happened on that day more than six years ago; while some talk of energy beams from outer space, holographic jets, or mini-nuclear bombs, the most popular hypothesis in the movement is probably the one advanced by Jones on his radio show. He argues that the conspirators likely had remote control overrides installed in the planes that eventually crashed into the Twin Towers. (According to this theory, the hijackers were nobodies who thought they had signed on for a drill.) Long before 9/11, Jones believes the towers themselves had been secretly rigged with demolition charges, specifically one called thermate. The Pentagon may have been hit by a missile while American Airlines 77 landed safely in Ohio—where the passengers were either liquidated or are still being detained.
But nearly everybody in the Truth movement agrees that the fishiest element of the tragedy was the collapse of WTC 7, a 47-story office building adjacent to the Twin Towers, which was never struck by an airplane. At 5:20 on the evening of September 11, 2001, after burning for much of the day, WTC 7 suddenly fell straight to the ground. Truthers maintain that steel skyscrapers simply do not and cannot collapse in this manner, and that nowhere in the annals of structural engineering is there a case of one having done so. They believe that the building was rigged with demolition charges. Ask why, and you're likely to hear murky talk about CIA offices on the 25th floor or insurance money reaped by the site's developer, Larry Silverstein. (While a government team was expected to publish an official explanation for the structural failure shortly after Radar went to press, a Popular Mechanics investigation determined that fire and damage from debris fatally compromised key support columns.)
In the weeks that followed the Brzezinski clash, WAC looked for any opportunity to take on members of the "global elite." They confronted Al Gore, John Edwards, and David Rockefeller. Rudkowski and two friends heckled New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for 16 minutes straight on a subway car, while Bloomberg tried to stand out of view behind his security detail.
But their splashiest success was a face-off with Rudy Giuliani at a press event in the Bronx. While Rudkowski filmed, Rivera approached the candidate and introduced herself as a 9/11 family member (not entirely accurate, though an ex-boyfriend's father did die that day). As Giuliani leaned forward sympathetically, she went into Truth Squad mode: "You told Peter Jennings of ABC News [you knew] that the buildings were going to collapse—how come people in the buildings weren't notified? ... And how do you sleep at night?" The ex-mayor registered surprise, then replied that he'd known no such thing. Lepacek, also on hand, then stepped in and insisted Giuliani had said precisely that to Jennings. Giuliani backpedaled somewhat and said he'd thought any collapse would occur over the course of "seven or eight hours"—not minutes. New York media picked up the story. WNBC reported that Giuliani had been confronted by a "radical group" and showed a transcript from the Jennings broadcast, in which Giuliani does seem to suggest he had been warned. "That part was great," says Rudkowski. "Everyone could see that he was lying."
By last fall, the group was keeping an online calendar of appearances by major public figures, allowing members to sign up to Truth Squad them. Meanwhile, the confrontations became more audacious. When Bill Clinton was appearing at a Manhattan Barnes & Noble, the group went in beforehand and hid a wireless public-address speaker in the store. While the former president signed books, the room was suddenly filled with a mysterious booming voice, proclaiming that "9/11 was an inside job" and alleging that "Bill" had been complicit in CIA drug running. As the former president stoically carried on autographing cover pages for confused customers, security guards and secret service agents hunted frantically for several minutes until they found and turned off the device.
That prank became the prelude to a higher-profile confrontation with Clinton in late October, when a WAC member in Minneapolis heckled him at a large fund-raiser for Hillary. This time, the ex-president fired back. "'9/11 was an inside job?'" he said, angrily repeating the heckler's line. "How dare you! It was not an inside job." The footage immediately went up on Drudge and got heavy play on the cable news networks.
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS We Are Change's Manny Badillo spreads the Truth gospel to a local television reporter (Photo: WeAreChange.org)
This blitzkrieg by WAC also made Truther activists the enemy du jour on cable news shows. Maher complained some more about them. Bill O'Reilly delivered a meandering rant describing the "far left" provocateurs as "so out of control that someone is going to get hurt." (In fact, We Are Change is overwhelmingly made up of Ron Paul–supporting libertarian conservatives.) Glenn Beck of CNN declared that Truthers were "dangerous" and "the kind of group a Timothy McVeigh would join."
But strangely, despite all the attention, nobody in the mainstream media seemed to notice that one small organization—Rudkowski doesn't keep an exact membership tally, but estimates it's now about 500 in all—was behind all the stunts. We Are Change was never named in any of the news reports or editorial condemnations. No one from the group was ever asked to defend or explain their actions.
Kevin Smith, a talk show host on the online network We the People Radio, says the larger Truther community was impressed: "You had 20 kids with camcorders drawing more attention to their issue than 100,000 traditional activists would have done."
"Yeah, our actions get a lot of attention," says Badillo, sounding glum. "But they never name us. We've got to figure that one out."
The epicenter of the Truther movement is an unmarked, bunker-like storefront with buttermilk-colored vinyl siding and a no trespassing sign, in a residential section of Austin, Texas. It is the broadcast studio for the Alex Jones Show.
"Yeah, in the Truth movement I'm pretty much as big as it gets," says Jones, a compact former bodybuilder. The 33-year-old speaks in a gravelly baritone fit for the public address announcer at a monster truck rally—a voice so gruff it almost sounds like he's faking it. A Winston burns between the fingers of his right hand in the shag-carpeted front room of his facility, as his employees, five young white guys who could all stand to get some sun, putter around, primed to hop to if summoned by Jones. Though it's a bright day, the office is dim; the windows are all closed and the blinds drawn. The modest building has a highly advanced alarm system. Jones is pretty sure his enemies would like to see him dead. "I get death threats all time," he says.
Who are his enemies? The secret rulers of the world and their functionaries—a group that by his figuring includes, among others, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, Prince Charles, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands ("huge in the arms business," he says), the Bushes, the Clintons, and Zbigniew Brzezinski. These elite, he says, want to seize control of the whole planet and reduce everyone to microchipped, constantly surveilled, brainwashed drones. But even that dismal fate wouldn't satisfy them. The endgame—which just happens to be the subject of Jones's new documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement—is a plan to exterminate approximately 5 billion people. In a nutshell (so to speak) the elites want to steal our stuff and have more elbow room. (Apparently, our betters prefer plenty of pastoral Lebensraum to a bottomless supply of docile slave labor.) "These people are unbelievably evil," Jones says. "They want to enslave and kill my family. But, you know what? I'm not gonna let 'em!" He seems to be laboring to sound outraged, which is understandable, since he rants like this for three hours a day on his radio show. He also makes the point frequently on his network of conspiracy news websites (including prisonplanet.com), which draw more than a million unique visitors a week, he claims.
PAGE 3 / 3
THE CONSPIRACY KING Alex Jones has built a small media empire, spreading the word that 9/11 was an inside job—and that cancer researchers really just want to give you cancer (Photo: Eric McNatt)
While Clinton signs books, a mysterious voice rings through the store: "9/11 was an inside job!"
After an unfulfilling stint at Austin Community College, he decided what he really wanted to do was talk about his new concerns, and signed up for a cable access show. Black helicopters, UN plots to coerce abortions, and rumors of foreign troops on U.S. soil were his regular fare. He hung around on the fringes of the Patriot movement for a few years while honing his formula: old-fashioned John Birch Society paranoia dressed up with the stylings of shock-jock talk radio.
Predictably, Jones has a lot of critics who say he's deranged—for example, cosmopolitan folks who can't take discussions of black helicopters seriously. ("They're for real!" Jones insists. "You see 'em around here all the time!")
He is, indeed, given to making improbable assertions. Recently on the radio, he warned that most medical and genetic-engineering work is part of the grand plot to exterminate us—"they use cancer research to develop new cancers," he said, "and shelve the cures for the elites."
But Jones also offers compelling facts and arguments that really are too uncomfortable for most mainstream media to touch. Among those is the reality that throughout history governments have faked terror plots to advance their own interests and expand their powers. (There is ample evidence that a series of terrorist bombings around Moscow in 1999 that killed hundreds of innocents and ushered Vladimir Putin into power truly was an "inside job.")
The trick, of course, is teasing apart the good information from the paranoia. Just because Hitler may have been behind the Reichstag fire doesn't mean Cheney planned 9/11—though it can be easy to forget that while listening to Jones.
While the radio host proclaims he's fighting an all-encompassing battle to save America from the globalists and their myriad schemes, 9/11 has arguably been the primary focus of his show since the day of the attacks. Along the way, not surprisingly, he has been guilty of presenting bad information. In his documentary Martial Law, he insists that WTC 7 "had no damage to it" prior to its collapse. In fact, it was severely damaged. He also claims "[Silverstein] said they [intentionally] blew up Building 7." Silverstein did not.
Given how many minds, young and otherwise, he's shaped with his gospel—kids like Luke Rudkowski who've adopted this worldview and shaped their lives to answer its call to noble resistance—does Jones ever worry that maybe, just maybe, he's got it wrong? That maybe the buildings did fall because they were hit by planes? That maybe
it was Osama bin Laden who masterminded the attack? "Sure," he says, sounding deeply annoyed at the premise of the question. "But the evidence is just too strong." (Which calls to mind the famous Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.")
For Jones, the layers of conspiracy are so thick that they almost eclipse the possibility of any large-scale event occurring naturally. When the Cold War comes up in conversation, he interjects: "Yeah, and it turns out the whole thing was staged!" As were Pearl Harbor, the Russian Revolution, the Great Depression, the AIDS epidemic, the Civil War, global warming, and so on, and on—all have been orchestrated and preplanned by our secret rulers. Asked to name a major historical event that was not a conspiracy, Jones thinks for a long time, narrowing his eyes and pursing his lips. "Little Bighorn," he growls at last. "I don't think anyone was planning to see Custer get killed that day."
For a conspiracy theorist of Patriot-militia vintage and a radio host syndicated largely by Christian stations, Jones leads a rather glitzy life. He hangs out often with Hollywood buddies, especially Charlie Sheen. The actor, who began ordering Jones's documentaries on DVD a few years ago under a pseudonym, went public with his "doubts about the official 9/11 story" on Jones's show in early 2006, and is now a dyed-in-the-wool Truther. Sheen calls Jones "a genuine hero ... my friend ... my brother in arms" and has given him the varsity jacket he wore in Red Dawn. ("It's hanging in my closet," the host says. "I'm too fat to wear it.") Jones also kicks it with comedian Joe Rogan, is chummy with Keanu Reeves, and will apparently be played by Jack Black in a forthcoming feature film about the radical fringe. "He'll probably portray me as a jackass," Jones muses, not sounding entirely displeased.
Based on the book Them: Adventures With Extremists, by the British writer Jon Ronson, the movie will almost certainly include the stunt that lifted Jones out of obscurity in 2000 and was, in some ways, a precursor to WAC actions: Carrying a video camera, he infiltrated the highly exclusive Bohemian Grove compound in Northern California, where business leaders and politicians, including several presidents, hold secretive retreats. It's the kind of place where one might see Dick Cheney chatting up Henry Kissinger while a gaggle of sloppy drunk oil company CEOs put on a stage comedy in drag. The climax of the annual, invitation-only gathering is a strange ceremony that involves burning a human effigy under the gaze of a 40-foot-tall stone owl. Jones was the first journalist to film the ritual and show it to the outside world. (It's proof, he says, that our elites are Satanists.)
Greg Palast, a liberal commentator and an investigative journalist for the BBC and Harper's magazine, has also taken an interest in Jones. "To me, Alex is a thrilling phenomenon," he says. "Whether the topic is debt relief or intelligence about bin Laden, he'll bring on heavyweight people to speak in depth. He has a different view about the events of 9/11 than I do, but it's a very powerful concept to be thinking of an elite that acts in concert." What about the nutty stuff? "When the New York Times says something completely fucking stupid and utterly fabricated, we don't notice because it's within an accepted mainstream context. We tend to be more reactive to Jones because his opinions that are different are very different."
Richard Linklater, director of Dazed and Confused and Fast Food Nation, has given Jones a couple of cameos. He thinks even Jones's wilder notions can be useful. "If you go back in history, it's the cranks and the conspiracy people who are more accurately predicting the future," he tells me. "What is scary about Alex is the high percentage of his stuff that sounds hyperbolic in its day, but then somewhere in the near future it's a legitimate story." Jones, for instance, was railing against the erosion of civil liberties long before it was fashionable. Linklater has appeared on Jones's show, and expressed suspicion that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Kurt Vonnegut was also a fan. He mailed the radio host a signed drawing of a bird escaping a cage—it was inscribed to alex jones.
MAYOR, INTERRUPTED We Are Change confronts Giuliani at a press op in the Bronx
Comedy Central's Colbert is scheduled to sign books in the lavish Time Warner Center in midtown Manhattan, and the turnout is massive: A line of admirers holding copies of I Am America (And So Can You!) snakes through the mall. Rudkowski, Badillo, Knarr, and Lepacek are in attendance, and I join them on a small raised platform reserved for media. The latter three have homemade (but convincing) credentials around their necks from wearechange.org. Rudkowski, however, is now an official correspondent for Alex Jones Productions. He's also a regular commentator on Jones's show, and the two have become close. "He calls me his protégé," Rudkowski says bashfully. "I'm like, whatever."
Before Colbert arrives, the four talk in hushed tones, trying to decide how to confront him—should they be serious or tongue in cheek? "Let's just talk to him," Rudkowski says after awhile.
"If he doesn't answer, he implicates himself," Badillo says, only half joking. The duty of actually addressing the comedian has fallen to Lepacek. (He became a movement cause célèbre after being arrested for aggressively questioning Giuliani campaign aides at a presidential debate last summer.)
A round of applause rises up when Colbert enters the room, wearing a tux and a restrained but impish grin. When the event coordinator informs us that there will be no questions for the press, Lepacek starts yelling. "Stephen, do you have clever remarks about the collapse of World Trade Center 7?" The smile on Colbert's face tightens. "Do you know [it] collapsed at free-fall speed on September 11?" Lepacek continues as security quickly descends. "Are you for us or against us, Stephen? For us or against us?"
Colbert stares at his heckler. The smile is still frozen on his face. Then he says, "I don't know."
Whisked from the room, Lepacek continues his tirade at full volume, "You don't know? World Trade Center 7, Stephen! Your little smirk's not going to work for much longer!"
As the press gallery is cleared, a reporter from a large news organization turns to Badillo and says, "Who are all these 9/11 Truth guys showing up everywhere, ruining everything?"
"I don't know," Badillo replies, stifling a laugh, before quizzing the man about WTC 7.
When everyone gathers outside, it is quickly agreed that this Truth Squad has been a miserable failure. "It's going to look disruptive," says Knarr. "We shouldn't release this one." (That is, the video shouldn't go up on the website.)
Lepacek, looking glum, defends his conduct. "You've seen me flip out before. I didn't flip out this time."
"This is pathetic," mutters Rudkowski. "Don't write about this one," he says to me.
Knarr, a hulk of man, agrees. "In the next two weeks we're going to do something huge involving a presidential candidate," he says. "You should wait for that one."
"It'll be major news," says Badillo, looking intently at the oblivious masses pouring out of the Time Warner Center. "You'll probably be covering it anyway."
This article is from the February issue of Radar Magazine. For a risk-free issue, click here
Related: Obsessions
Posted by: Greg Creamean on January 8, 2008 10:26 AM
These people are using the tragedy of that day and the deaths of all the victims to make a name for themselves and get attention. It's a disgrace, and they should all hang there heads in shame, especially the celebrities who are helping to make these crazy people seem legitimate.
Posted by: Chad Sexington on January 8, 2008 10:38 AM
Michael Moore does the same type of ambush interviews, and since he's far, far to the left - he's a courageous hero. When a Jones or Rudkowski uses the same tactics outside of the main stream, they are cooks - on the basis of their tactics alone.
Or as liberal reporter Greg Palast says on page 3, ""When the New York Times says something completely fucking stupid and utterly fabricated, we don't notice because it's within an accepted mainstream context. We tend to be more reactive to Jones because his opinions that are different are very different."
As for the article itself, it's a very well written smear piece that executes the main-steam slant program. Kudos to Reed for trying to write something relevant, however.
Posted by: CentralScrutinizer on January 8, 2008 1:40 PM
The fact of the matter is that no other modern high-rise building has EVER collapsed totally from any combination of damage. Especially if they were built specifically to WITHSTAND a plane hit like the Towers were...they were designed to survivie a hit by a 707,which is close to the 757/67 (there was no 747 at the time).
Why do people readily accept the mountain of "coincidences" surrounding the 9/11 attacks purely AS coincidence? With any other crime, even ONE coincidence would be enough to start casting doubt on the story. Here's some that did not get wide attention:
- The normal commander of the National Military Command Center (NMCC) requested Sept.11 off, essentially leaving the "New Guy" in charge-but ONLY from just before the attacks started until after they ended.
- WTC owner Silverstein was supposed to be in one of the Towers on 9/11-but he said his wife INSISTED he not blow off his appointment with his dermatologist,like he normally would. Silverstein's son and daughter were also supposed to be in the Towers ; they were both "running late" that day.
- Donald Rumsfeld starts 9/11 off with a breakfast meeting at 8:00 - where he says that "Sometime in the next 2-4-6-8-10-12 months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy Defense Department that contributes to - that underpins peacce and stability in our world".
- Flight 77 begins its run into the Pentagon - perfoming a difficult (especially so for amateur pilots) descending spiral manuever to line up perfectly with the ONLY section of the Pentagon to have a sprinkler system , blast-resistant windows, and reinforced columns also to withstand blasts.Though the entire Pentagon is supposed to be rebuilt in this way, I have seen/heard no reports of this construction.
These are only four "coincidences". There are many more, along with contradictory statements by officials, discrepancies in timelines,etc. Even the 9/11 Commission has admitted that the CIA didn't tell them all they knew. It's time we had a REAL look at what happened....
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 8, 2008 6:54 PM
This is a discussion me and the writer of this article had through email.What a scumbag magazine.
Dear Jeb,
Thank you so much for letting me know which famous people support the 9/11 conspiracy theory.I now know who WON'T be getting a penny of my money for the rest of eternity.Anyone who believes that the greatest power in the world with impeccable intelligence could pull of such a sloppy job are absolutely beyond ignorant.Conspiracy theories are like the bible, a bunch of fairy tales made up for people to amuse themselves and gain power.Get a real job, quit trying to be famous off of other people's deaths. Steve Bates
"Just because we characterize their beliefs does not necessarily mean we endorse them. Thanks for sharing your thoughts nonetheless." JREED
Your welcome, but be careful of who you "characterize" .The average people are tired of the PC bullshit that media like yours produces. Your magazine seems like nothing but a soapbox for bullies to thousands of people now.. thanks to myspace :) Take Care!
"Not sure I understand quite what you're saying. Myspace? Bullies?"
Keep this in mind. These people (theorists) DEEPLY hurt the real sufferers of 9/11 which are the families who lost people.The theorists are doing nothing but trying to gather fame and make money off of the pain of others.You portrayed these people as "hero's". So, when a few well known bands from NY and NJ found out about it (including my own) we made sure to let thousands of people know how disgusted we are by your magazine.You are BULLIES who pick on the families of the 9/11 victims just as much as the theorists themselves. I was given a copy of your magazine by a friend a couple of days ago.I had never heard of it. I'll give you credit for the covers , nice artwork. I assure you though, I'll never buy a copy. As a writer do yourself a favor and stick to Non-fiction. We aren't attacking and/or threatening you in any way. We're simply doing the same thing you are. We are expressing our opinions. The difference is that our opinion doesn't hurt other people.
"I'm sorry the piece reads that way to you. I must say though, I think it in no way endorses the belief that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government. (Nor would it, because I don't believe that.) Nor is it intended to suggest that Luke or any of his compadres are "hero's". As a matter of general principle though, I think it's usually best to write about people on their own terms and not turn narrative non-fiction into a clash of worldviews."
The only view I have of you is the one you made WORLD VIEW, literally. I'm sorry . If I were to write a racist song would you not see me as a racist ???? . So, if you truly don't believe in it the theory why don't you write a story based on the real victims and the effect this kind of media has on them?. If you want to write about things that cause controversy hit me up. I'll make you famous..lol. And I have to say kudos for being a man and writing back.
Steve-
Well, we call them "conspiracy nuts" in the headline. That sets a pretty strong tone, I'd say. But I understand there are different sensitivities at play here as well.
Will you do me a favor and send me a link (or links) to these myspace pages you mention?
Thanks, Jebediah
Jeb,
Well,the picture the story and the headline are all definitely very contradictory. People like me are just sick of hearing their ignorant protests and seeing mourners cry because of them. I'm sorry but we all know what our country is capable of and 9/11 is definitely not fitting.With a government that has Billions of dollars at their disposal surely they can do better than a bunch of idiots with commercial jets.
I can't send the links unfortunately though because their is always the "slander factor" although there really wasn't as much towards you as there was against the theorists. But I assure you if you make an article worthy of a regress in animosity we'll back off some. It's rough in the media industry , you are always walking on eggshells. Trust me, I know very well. BUT!!, there's not such thing as bad publicity right?.
I'm actually going to create an anti-9/11 theorist group and show up to their families funerals, weddings etc. bullhorn and video camera in tow and denounce their religion and/or non religion. Would that make me a hypocrite?. Wait, being a hypocrite only matters if you believe in religion.Then I can make websites and radio shows and all kinds of goodies.
So, what shall we call it?. OH!, I got it!. www.richfromourners.com
Steve
Posted by: Moneyfrommourners on January 9, 2008 6:08 PM
"Moneyfrommourners" : there are a lot of people who lost family on 9/11 who ALSO question what they were told by the government. What about them? Ever heard of Ellenn Mariani?
The government doesn't have to do any more than what they think people will believe-and it looks lke it's working beautifully.
If this administration had nothing to do with the attacks,or didn't know they were coming,then WHY DID THEY ACT THAT WAY?
-The worst attack on America in its history-and they didn't want ANY investigation at all They told Tom Daschle to limit the Congressional investigation , and never wanted to 9/11 Commission at all-public outcry made them change their minds-but then they went right to work...
-They tried to put HENRY KISSINGER in as the Chairman of the Commission (that they never wanted).
-They stonewalled repeated requests for documents by the Commission.
- They gave the Commission a initial budget of only $3 million dollars - peanuts- then they didn't want to extend the deadline for the Commission,even though the reason they needed more time was because of the stonewalling . The budget was later increased to $14 million (monies allotted to investigate Shuttle disintegration : $50 million).
-They wanted "minders" present when Commission members interviewed someone,just like Saddam wanted "minders" present when the US interviewed Iraqi scientists.Of course, HE had something to hide,right?
-Condoleezza Rice perjured herself before the 9/11 Commission when she said that she (amended from "no one") ever imagined that terrorists would use planes as weapons.If she never thought that, then she should not have been National Security Advisor-especially after the infamous 8/6 PDB.
-Bush and Cheney went before the 9/11 Commission together,without being under oath, with no audio recording,no video recording, no transcript,no documentation WHATSOEVER of what they said.
What's going on here? Why are they acting as if they have something to hide? If you had nothing to hide,would you act in this manner? If I was President (and I in no way involved), I'd be the first President to use profanity on national TV. Heads would be rolling in every Alphabet Agency-mostly in the FAA and NORAD. I would not REST until I had gotten to the bottom of it all.
Instead,we got the Global War On Terror,and they didn't want an investigation because it would take money and personnel away from the GWOT. That's like saying I'm too busy avenging my brother's death to find out how he died.
It's time for a REAL 9/11 investigation.The idea that it's upsetting 9/11 families isn't enough. I think they'd feel better if they knew the truth.
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 9, 2008 8:32 PM
They should change the name of their group to We Are Losers...
Posted by: Verbalabuse on January 10, 2008 2:38 PM
These kiddies do the same things they complain the government does. They hide their failures and lack transparency:
"When everyone gathers outside, it is quickly agreed that this Truth Squad has been a miserable failure. "It's going to look disruptive," says Knarr. "We shouldn't release this one." (That is, the video shouldn't go up on the website.)
Lepacek, looking glum, defends his conduct. "You've seen me flip out before. I didn't flip out this time."
"This is pathetic," mutters Rudkowski. "Don't write about this one," he says to me."
A bunch of spoiled brats. (Who else has the time in the "developed world" to hound politicians and celebrities?)
And, may I remind everyone, a Radar poll isn't exactly an ideal scientific study, lest you decide to join Radar's bandwagon.
Posted by: comatozed on January 10, 2008 4:07 PM
- When Bush went to the G8 Summit in the summer of '00 (in Genoa, Italy), the airspace over the city was closed,and Italian jets patrolled the skies. Surface-to-air missiles were set up at the airport. The dignitaries did not sleep in a hotel,they were on a luxury ship.Bush? He slept on a US aircraft carrier.Why all the extraordinary security? Because they had intelligence that bin Laden was going to try to hijack a plane and crash it into buildings at the Summit, in an attempt to kill leaders-maybe even Bush himself.
- When the Bush administration obtained the infamous August 6 PDB, why did they consider it "historical", given all the security at the Summit?
- When Bush stayed in a Florida hotel (he was there to stay awhile before his infamous "My Pet Goat" reading) , there were surface-to-air missiles on the roof of the hotel. What for?
- His governor brother Jeb activated Florida's National Guard on September 7. what for? No other state felt the need to do so,nor is the NG activated whenever the President visits a state.
Given all of these events, how can it be said that they had no idea a 9/11-style attack was coming, or possible,or like Rice claimed, "never imagined"?
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 10, 2008 8:15 PM
It's peculiar how defenders of the government's conspiracy theory site the most mundane, tangential or disconnected reasons to disprove federal links to the crime of 9/11.
Bill Clinton - "You wanna know what I think?... My wife was the senator from New York when that happened. I was down at Ground Zero. I saw the victims' families. You're nuts."
That's solid reasoning there, Bill. I was eating a Philly cheese steak sandwich the morning of 9/11, so by your logic, that ought to rule out any Pennsylvanian involvement.
Moneyfrommourner (earlier post) - "These people (theorists) DEEPLY hurt the real sufferers of 9/11 which are the families who lost people."
I can tell from your caps that you DEEPLY feel what you're saying. If a member of your family is murdered, and the police don't bother to track down obvious leads, I'll be sure to stop any citizen's groups who step in to do the job that is being neglected because you DEEPLY hurt.
Posted by: viddiewell on January 11, 2008 8:24 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to respond to the information I keep posting. How about the author of the article ? Mr. Reed,hello? And notice that NONE of the information has anything to do with collapsing buildings.
The debunkers like to deal with the buildings because it's hard to prove (right now) , it's difficult to comprehend (that it could be done with explosives and that our own government would have a hand in it ) , and they can sound important with big numbers and tech talk. But it's mighty hard to try to rationalize why the Bush administration acted like they did, or why things did or didn't happen.
"Moneyfrommourners" thinks the US has "impeccable" intelligence. If that were the case, then how did the attacks go down in the first place? If that's true, it proves that it was an inside job,because the hiajckers should have never been allowed to board the planes;they should have been arrested (at least some of them) when they were allowed to to open bank accounts with phony Social Security numbers. Nothing says "patsy" like somehow getting away with something no ordinary citizen could.
If it's not true, then that still leaves the question (one of many) of why the FAA and NORAD,after intercepting dozens of planes before 9/11, turned into the Keystone Kops for a few hours-but then after the attacks,the FAA was flawlessly able to do something unprecedented in aviation history-get all aircraft in US airspace to land without incident. NORAD somehow found a way to launch fighters from Andrews AFB- about ten miles away from the Pentagon and had a couple of fighter wings and the DC Air National Guard stationed there before 9/11 (Andrews' website was changed to remove these details)- only AFTER the Pentagon was hit.
Governments and their agencies will gladly label themselves "incompetent" or say they "dropped the ball" or that "they got one by us"- to hide their real agenda.
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 12, 2008 5:13 PM
I was interested in the questions given by the '911 truth' movement, investigated them, and found them to be nonsense.
I suggest two sites:
9-11 myths
screwloosechange
These 'truthers' people are totally devious. They misquote, take things out of context and simply fail to recognise any other view but thier own.
Paul w (Australia)
Posted by: paul w on January 12, 2008 11:05 PM
Yes, I know: their, not 'thier'
Posted by: paul w on January 12, 2008 11:10 PM
You can see:
* The Guiliani incident
* The Bill Maher incident
* and listen to popular Mechanics talk about seeing secret pictures here:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/feeds/PiecesOfThePuzzleBox1.html
This podcast is also on the iTunes store (link above). Enjoy.
Posted by: freetruth on January 13, 2008 1:59 AM
You can see:
* The Guiliani incident mentioned in the article
* The Bill Maher incident mentioned in the article
* and listen to popular Mechanics talk about seeing secret pictures here:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/feeds/PiecesOfThePuzzleBox1.html
Enjoy.
Posted by: freetruth on January 13, 2008 10:58 AM
The Popular Mechanics - yellow journalism Hearst rag and 'screwlooschange' has been debunked so many times and so effectively I wonder that any thinking person still refers to them.
NIST's 10,000 page report has also been thoroughly studied and, interestingly, it's conclusions ignore the data derived from its own empirical studies as well as reams of testimony and data from other sources that did not fit into the official government conspiracy theory.... and not only does NIST not make the case for collapse initiation, it purposefully ignores (avoids discussing) the collapse itself.
Further, focusing on the WTC demolitions ignores the huge mass of other data, other events on that date that all point to complicity of some elements of the government and perhaps forces from other nations as well.
9/11 was simply another in that long long list of false flag -- 'psyop' operations (see Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio, the Gulf of Tonkin deception, FDR and Pearl Harbor, the Reichstag fire, etc., etc. )that governments have used to terrorize their own populations into supporting increased militarization, wars against other nations and, in most cases, increased fascism within their own borders. That last, for example, has certainly been the case in the U.S. with the destruction of Constitutional rights via the obscene Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Warner Defense Authorization Act, Presidential Directives (esp. #51), creation of FEMA detention camps and now the new 'thought crimes' bill sitting in the senate.
Remember, as well, that the military and logistical forces had already been put in place to invade Afghanistan -prior - to 9/11. The plans for the invasion were on Bush's desk - prior - to 9/11, other countries were aware (such as Australia) months - prior - to 9/11 that the U.S. intended to invade Afghanistan in Oct. '01. U.S. interests met with the Taliban several times before 9/11. The Taliban refused to allow Cheney Enron and the oil companies to build the pipeline across Afghanistan to carry the recently discovered 500 billion barrels of oil and natural gas out of the Caspian Sea basin... too bad for them, eh?
Oh, and while peaking oil (and other natural) resources were certainly driving the desire to fabricate an excuse for invasion and war, it must be noted as that the CIA certainly did not like the Taliban's curtailing the opium crops... profits from which had supported CIA black ops for years (also well-documented).
Oh, and by the way, the Patriot Act was written before 9/11 as well. And the 2 senators' offices to receive mail containing U.S. military grade anthrax were those of Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.... both objecting to the Patriot Act and standing in the way of its passage. Go Figure.
All of this information is well referenced and available for perusal. You might begin with Paul Thompson's timeline and/or many other journals (e.g. journalof911studies dot com, ae911truth dot org (architects and engineers for 911 truth, Jim Hoffman's excellent site, 911research dot com, etc.) There is so much well-documented information available that only the rubes ignore it (and the faux UberPatriots). But there will always be those who hesitate to look because they are afraid to see. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful psychological force supporting denial. But interestingly, millions upon millions of people in the U.S. and even more world wide are beginning to open their eyes and actually look around themselves.... and what they are seeing about the U.S. and it's allied transnational corporate and financial powers and the military industrial media complex ain't a pretty sight.
Mostly Mockingbirds (remember the CIA's Operation Mockingbird - it hasn't gone away you know) and Pentagon operatives (see Mike Whitney's and BBC FOIA obtained data in - 'The Pentagon's War on the Internet') argue in support of the government's 'official' conspiracy theory any more. Oh, and perhaps some rubes.
Always ask, cui bono? And there is only one answer.
The folks who get so upset when anybody upsets their pleasant little consensus trance worlds just strike me as terribly naive and woefully uninformed.
dr. r.w., forensic neuropsychologist
Posted by: medicis on January 13, 2008 7:43 PM
You have to laugh at the ignorance of some....re dr. r.w., forensic neuropsychologist
"The Popular Mechanics - yellow journalism Hearst rag and 'screwlooschange' has been debunked so many times and so effectively I wonder that any thinking person still refers to them."
By whom? The truthers?????
And name the 'debunkers' please.
"NIST not make the case for collapse initiation, it purposefully ignores (avoids discussing) the collapse itself."
Are you totally ignorant? They did investigate it, and found nothing to suggest 'controlled demolition'. hence, no investigation.
"Further, focusing on the WTC demolitions ignores the huge mass of other data, other events on that date that all point to complicity of some elements of the government and perhaps forces from other nations as well."
Oh dear...it gets worse. You means the 'huge mass' of truther nonsense? Explain, please.
Re other 'False Flag' operations...even if some of them were, that doesn't mean 911 was. Stick to the issue, please.
Same goes for Afhganistan, Chaney, peak oil, CIA, etc. Just because the US govt is full of oil men itching to invade countries for oil, or sections of the CIA is corrupt, or peak oil is a problem, DOEs NOT equate to '9-11 was an inside job'. Again, stick to the point.
Dear readers, let me explain myself. 9-11 was murder and a 'crime against humanity'.
I also believe the murderous US govt support of Saddam for 30 years, and the invasion, is also a crime against humanity. Make no mistake, I am not a supporter of the Bush regime (or the Clinton one, for that matter).
But do as this person says and check out the sites he suggests, then have a look at 9-11 Myths and Screw Loose Change.
The rest is up to you...
Posted by: paul w on January 13, 2008 11:33 PM
And in relation to "dr. r.w., forensic neuropsychologist', the site:
Confessions of an Ex-Truther
Posted by: paul w on January 13, 2008 11:44 PM
Paul W. - please read the posts by Passenger57. That's some of that huge mass of nonsense . Popular Mechanics: who actually believes that NORAD's radar is like a donut with the USA in the 'hole'? What? NORAD can track s--- all over the world, but if it breaches US airspace, NORAD grabs its dark shades, white cane, and tin cup? There are satellites that can see that I have dandruff,but none of them belong to NORAD?
At the very least explain why the Bush administration had something to hide. That's also explained in one of the posts by Passenger57. Please read, and I look forward to your response.
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 14, 2008 12:35 AM
paul w, I provided a link above that shows that Popular Mechanics is covering up.
For anyone who wants to know the truth about Popular Mechanics and 9/11 go here...
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/feeds/PiecesOfThePuzzleBox1.html
... and scroll down to "Popular Mechanics in full retreat on Charles Goyette Show"
See for yourself.
Posted by: freetruth on January 14, 2008 1:48 AM
Paul W. is only capable of feeble attempts at derision and ad hominem. Two of the cardinal signs of disinfo.
When you start attempting to make rational, fact-based arguments, Paul. perhaps you will then achieve some credibility. Oh, but I wouldn't look for 'rational, fact-based arguments' in the Pop Mech rag. Maybe you can get some from Marky Roberts...... ;-)
Posted by: medicis on January 14, 2008 12:55 PM
9/11 Commission Report Cover-up of Norman Mineta's Sworn Testimony on May 23, 2003
Check out what I posted at http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=4831
Who's telling the truth? What did the "orders" mean? I provide a step-by-step, link-by-link analysis, and I used the official 9/11 Commission site to prove there was indeed a cover-up. No one ever said officially or in the news media that Mineta lied or had his times wrong. Why not? To do so, would have brought attention to what Mineta said and required either the 9/11 Commission members or the news media to do some investigating and report on it? Apparently no one wanted to contradict Cheney's 'official' time of arrival into the PEOC - 9:58 AM on Sept 11, 2001 - AFTER THE PENTAGON ATTACK. Mineta claimed Cheney was already in the PEOC at around 9:20 AM and the Pentagon attack OCCURRED AT AROUND 9:37 AM! Mineta indicated that Cheney was in the PEOC during the attack yet the 9/11 Commission Report implied he wasn't! No details of Mineta's SWORN TESTIMONY EVER MADE IT INTO THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT YET YOU CAN READ ALL OF IT ON THE OFFICIAL 9/11 COMMISSION SITE! THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS TESTIMONY CONTRADICTS THE REPORT! I cover all of this at the above noted link and I also mention page 41 of the report in some detail which is similar to Mineta's testimony yet the initial distance (80 miles vs 50 in Mineta's testimony) and time (around 10:15 AM vs 9:25 or so in Mineta's testimony) are off for whatever aircraft that Cheney gives the approval to attack yet all the aircraft (Flights 11, 175, 93 and 77) had already terminated before 10:15AM! The paragraph on page 41 of the report alludes to a vague aircraft and finishes without any resolution as to what happened to the aircraft that Cheney's been given the approval to shoot down!
Posted by: truthsearcher on January 14, 2008 2:05 PM
Did Fox News ever buy into the report below? I doubt the Taliban leader should have been trusted, but Fox News may not have ever issued a retraction or follow-up report. Apparently Fox News didn't buy into it since it's shown those suspicious (faked or real) videos that bin Laden supposedly several times since 9/11. Apparently the U.S. Govt. didn't buy into what the unnamed Taliban leader said either.
Dec 26, 2001, Fox News Report: Bin Laden Already Dead
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html
Wednesday, December 26, 2001
Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.
"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.
Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.
About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."
The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."
Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.
When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."
Posted by: truthsearcher on January 14, 2008 2:30 PM
I just got finished watching the Naudet Brothers' "9/11" (the two French guys who were making a documentary about the NYFD when the attacks started) ...while the firemen were in the tower,there was a message over the radio that there was another plane (this was after both towers were hit,so this would be Plane #3). Of course,there was no third plane. Later,after both towers had come down, there was a moment when one of the firemen said that the FBI was at the firehouse and told him that THE THIRD PLANE is what caused the collapse of the first tower.
I know this is ridiculous, but I just wondered why the FBI would tell this guy that...to add to the confusion?
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 14, 2008 4:27 PM
Hey Steve,
I can't agree with you on your comment:
"Keep this in mind. These people (theorists) DEEPLY hurt the real sufferers of 9/11 which are the families who lost people.The theorists are doing nothing but trying to gather fame and make money off of the pain of others."
I take it you haven't read the unanswered questions the 9/11 victims' families had of various government officials as listed at http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html.
Posted by: truthsearcher on January 14, 2008 4:39 PM
"please read the posts by Passenger57. That's some of that huge mass of nonsense ."
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 14, 2008 12:35 AM
Yes, it IS some of the 'huge mass of nonsense, thank you for highlighting this!
I did read it, and will pick out a typical, totally ignorant comment that will highlight the profound stupidity I suffered with many Truthers when researching the 9-11 facts.
Actually, it's one of the 'main' questions I wanted answering when I heard it.
"The fact of the matter is that no other modern high-rise building has EVER collapsed totally from any combination of damage. Especially if they were built specifically to WITHSTAND a plane hit like the Towers were...they were designed to survivie a hit by a 707,which is close to the 757/67 (there was no 747 at the time)"
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 14, 2008 12:35 AM
Hmmm. First of all, the Towers DID collapse due to damage, so it's sort of a bizarre comment. I think what he's trying to say is no STEEL FRAMED building has collapsed due to fire, etc. That's what the rest of the Truthers are bleating, so I'll stick to that one.
In fact, it IS true, no steel frame building has collappsed. But then, no steel frame building suffered the impact damage of planes slamming into them at 450-500mph, nor the intense fire that followed.
So far, the only high-rise fires are buildings of concrete or concrete/steel combinations, like the Madrid Windsor. With this building, the core was concrete, and remained standing, the floors made of steel structure, collapsed.
See: 9-11 myths website, and click the bar marked (WTC other).
Nor did the Madrid Windsor suffer structural impact damage from an aircraft.
As for the garbage about the towers being built the withstand the impact of the planes, again, Passanger57 has no idea.
According to Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer of the WTC, the towers were NOT designed that way but a study was made on the impact of a relatively slow-moving 707, lost in fog.
"Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow."
9-11 Myths
Also, what about the resulting fire?
"Leslie Robertson says the towers were not designed to handle it"
9-11 Myths
Sorry, but this is taking long enough, and I have a life.
All I can say is to those readers questioning the attacks, do as I did, check out 9-11 Myths and Screw Loose Change, and see how they answer the Truthers. Its up to you.
PS freetruth. I tried to download the audio about Popular mechanics, but could not. I'll do some more searching.
Posted by: paul w on January 14, 2008 10:06 PM
Hey Paul, have you checked out http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html for their points of view regarding the WTC collapses? The professional engineers and architects noted there question the collapses based on their respective backgrounds. Why don't you challenge them instead of easily finding fault in Passenger57's comments?
Posted by: truthsearcher on January 15, 2008 9:26 AM
Ha,ha,ha.You're right, Paul W., boy did I slip up. I included a comment about the collapsing buildings for you to cling to like a drowning man clings to a life preserver. Of all the tidbits of information that I posted, the ONE that you , uh, "randomly" picked out is the one about the collapsing buildings.
Out of the five or six of my postings ,you,uh,"randomly" chose the VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF THE VERY FIRST POST. I'm sure this was only a "coincidence",right? Does that mean that you didn't read the rest of the posts-especially the FOURTH one,where I wrote that the debunkers like to deal with the collapsing buildings because it's hard to prove, no one wants to believe that our own gov't. would have a hand in it, and they can sound important with tech talk? Musta missed that one, eh, PaulW.?
Frankly, I find it hard to believe that a building would be designed to withstand the impact of an airplane-at any speed-and not account for the plane possibly dumping its fuel in the building on impact and that fuel ignite. Secondly,even if the plane were "lost in the fog" and going only half as fast (I don't know how slow a 757/67 can go)-wouldn't it have STILL went completely in the building like it did? Your post also says that the buildings were MORE than strong enough to handle such a blow. Is Robertson the ONLY engineer to say these things? Are there others that disagree?
Also, the Meridian Plaza Building in Philadelphia-NOT designed by to survive a plane impact- caught fire and burned for about 18 hours. When they went up to look after it was put out, they actually saw steel columns that had been BENT and girders that were SAGGING-but they were STILL supporting their loads.
By the way-have you seen any video or photos of the Towers under construction? It appears to me that there is way more to those floors than "angle clips".
Yes, the Meridian Plaza Building and the WTC Towers were constructed differently-but when one burns for EIGHTEEN HOURS and stays up, but the other burns for an HOUR and comes down- it's time for a closer look. Also-Did the Windsor Buildiing's ENTIRE STEEL STRUCTURE collapse?
Please-feel free to comment on the TEN THOUSAND OTHER PIECES OF INFORMATION that I posted...they're like potato chips, PaulW. - you can't pick just one!
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 15, 2008 12:36 PM
As usual for government representative's behavior, paulw misleads and deceives by misdirection. And he only presents a straw men arguments with respect to the Madrid fire... and the airplane impacts. In using deceptive data and straw man attacks, he is very like Pop Mech.... his favorite rag.
yeh, Paul is dishonest.
Here is the actual data and analysis (from Hoffman's 911Research.com)
Regarding fires in steel framed buildings:
Other Skyscraper Fires
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. 1 2 3 It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. 5
A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans. 6 The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.
Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.
Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured. 8
The Windsor Building Fire
The most recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the other fires described on this page, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires.
Regarding the impacts:
Towers' Design Parameters
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.
Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.
1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s
Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.
Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.
property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mphGiven the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3 A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners traveling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707--DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4 The Richard Roth Telegram
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 7 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8
Posted by: medicis on January 15, 2008 12:39 PM
I forgot...the Towers did not collapse due to damage ; they allegedly collapsed because of the "raging infernos". If the damage was the culprit,wouldn't they have come down immediately after they were hit by the planes?
The other thing The Debunkers do is tell everyone to look at what other Debunkers have cooked up to answer "Truthers". You can look at that stuff (from both sides) if you want to,of course - but I and others want you to LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED. What does one make of articles that report how the military bombs all ways out of Pakistan except ONE,so that Ol'Binny can escape? Or how the FBI was blocking its own agents from investigating Z.Moussaoui? This crap just keeps going on. Just read old newspapers,or as it was suggested,Paul Thompson's book/site,which collects all the news articles for you to refer to .
Paul W. wrote that [taking time to respond to this site] was "taking long enough" and that "he has a life" - and that's exactly how they want us to think. Stay busy doing other things rather than taking an hour out of your day to check out what they've done. Hey, I heard Britney Spears is going to do something looney; don't we want to read about that instead?
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 15, 2008 12:49 PM
You guys are an absolute scream...it HAS to be parody, surely. Is this the Radar staff having fun?
Sorry, but I'm busy but I'll do a quick reply...
"Out of the five or six of my postings ,you,uh,"randomly" chose the VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF THE VERY FIRST POST. I'm sure this was only a "coincidence",right? "
Gee, Passenger57, the conspiratorial mind can find a conspiracy in anything, I'm amazed, I didn;t even expect that response!!! You're worse than I thought!
I also note the use of capital letters, yes, you're on to me! The VERY FIRST SENTENCE...obviously, that's gotta be something, I mean, the FIRST one, not the second, not the third, but the FIRST (cue eerie music)
Actually, the truth is rather boring: 'designed to withstand plane crash' is something I could answer straight away. And it's so easy to debunk (did you check out the 9-11 Myths page I suggested about that, or couldn't you read it trhough the bong smoke?)
The farce continues....
"Does that mean that you didn't read the rest of the posts-especially the FOURTH one,where I wrote that the debunkers like to deal with the collapsing buildings because it's hard to prove, no one wants to believe that our own gov't. would have a hand in it, and they can sound important with tech talk? Musta missed that one, eh, PaulW.?"
No, I didn't miss it you idiot, I just couldn't be bothered answering!
And, dear reader, did you note the capital letters again...the FOURTH one Gee, I'd hoped he wouldn't notice but he keeps catching me out!
And don't ya love the comment about doing something 'cause it's hard....oh man, these guys are tough, no-nonsense, straight-down-the-line dudes ready to battle good against evil...
Alas, Passenger57, it is not only hard to prove, it's impossible, and if you don't believe me, go ask the hundreds of engineers involved in the report...oh no, I just remembered, theyre all paid off, or living in fear, hiding the truth!!! Bummer, they would know!
"Please-feel free to comment on the TEN THOUSAND OTHER PIECES OF INFORMATION that I posted...they're like potato chips, PaulW. - you can't pick just one"
Not when you're bonging on...the things are IMPOSSIBLE to put down!
Anyway, back to the argument, your comments are not not potato chips, Passenger57, they are arguments that 9-11 was an inside job. There is a difference...
But, I take your point, and yes I can actually pick just one because, as I said in the post, it's typical of the gargabe your nincompoops repeat.
And if you think I'm gonna answer all of your comments...er, no...
(by the way, you forgot to add dis and false before the word 'information' ...)
"Why don't you challenge them instead of easily finding fault in Passenger57's comments?"
Posted by: truthsearcher on January 15, 2008 9:26 AM
Er, because they're easy to fault?
Gee, isn't this the point I'm trying to make? I should not be able to 'easily find fault' in his ravings, but I did, and it WAS easy! I just clicked on 9-11 Myths or Screw Loose Change and bingo, an answer with just a few minutes of searching. How easy is that!
But the best was the last from medicis...and I'll answer it but not now.
Sorry, sorry, sorrry, I KNOW you are ALL dissapointed, I can hear the groan of dissapointment from the...oh, I reckon about five of us, including me, still here, still ferreting away down the bottom of this ancient news item.
But gee, it's kinda nice really isn't it? Away from the sunlight of reality above, dis info this, dis info that, prove this, prove that...it is a bit of fun. I'll soon get bored, but not yet.
Anyway, gotta go, I'm off to meet a beautiful young woman...so, keep at it alll you Truthers, have another bong, hit those keypads and munch those chips...damn, they ARE impossible to pick just one!
Paul W
PS. medicis, I AM a gummint rep, how'da know???? Man, you're good!!!!
PPS. medicis, you don't know anything about the Greys in my basement, do you?
PPPS. or that Elvis is down there too?
Posted by: paul w on January 16, 2008 12:46 AM
Gee whiz, PaulW.,talking loud and saying nothing! You still didn't challenge any of the other things I wrote about - oh , wait you did...you clicked on "9/11 Myths" or "Screw Loose Change" and...you satisfied yourself. If you're busy "satisfying yourself "about what happened on 9/11, then why do you bother posting here? You just keep on an on about the buildings collapsing-and nothing else. Way to stay on message!
You read all of the other info in my other posts...aaaaand then scrolled back up to the first one and said, "Ha! The ONLY ONE (note CAPS) I can "answer"! The rest? "Ooh,I'm too busy for those...none of those are on my script!" What a steaming pile of an excuse.
So-called Debunkers take ONE aspect of something someone said/wrote, "disprove " it *cough*, and that automatically means that EVERYTHING else the person was talking about is "conspiracy". And when faced with something they don't have an answer to , well, suddenly they "can't bother answering!" That's a nice Bush-type answer,Paul.If it's so impossible to pick just one, then PICK ANOTHER ONE. Any answer for ANY of the other information I or anyone else posted? Any "sunlight" to scrub the other stuff clean,hm? Eh?Ah,you're too busy "meeting a beautiful young woman"...Now we KNOW you're in a basement apartment ,with bars on the tiny windows, in your bathrobe and boxers, keyed up on Doritos and Red Bull, shuffling round and round, churning up clouds of Cheeto dust with every foot drag ,checking this site every half-hour for responses to your "quick" reply (you must be a faaaast typer for all that to be a "quick" reply) and checking your phone to see which "beautiful young woman" called you today: "-BEEEEP- "you-have-NO-messages". You'd be believed more if you said you were off to find Osama.
The time you spent writing your last post , you could have been responding to some of the other information on this site, not just mine.Here's another nugget: Clue us all in on why the Secret Service allowed Bush to stay at the school for so long after he was told the country was under attack. Unknown persons or groups hijacking an unknown number of planes from an unknown number of airports and crashing them in to unknown targets-and Bush stays there, blabbing on an on even after the press had left. His visit at the school was publicized. Terrorists could have hijacked a plane from the same airport where Air Force One was parked-about five miles from the school-and plowed it into the school,likely killing everyone in it.
Then,when he boards AF1, they take off without fighter escort-even when AF1 itself was allegedly threatened (it turned out ot be a lie). Meanwhile, Cheney and Rice ARE being whisked away by the SS to a secure location. What went on there? Who overruled the SS? When the POTUS' life is in danger, I though NO ONE could .Why are Cheney and Rice being dragged away and not the POTUS?
Then , a year later, the White House claimed that Bush left the school "in a matter of seconds" and in another version, "not that many seconds later" after being told the country was under attack. Total lies, and the media didn't even challenge this new, easily proven false version of events. Care to shed some sunlight?
I have a suggestion : do us all a favor and get busier meeting increasingly beautiful, younger women , and make it just four of us ferreting away over here,hm? 'Preciate it....and Good Luck.
PS: Who would be MORE of an "idiot": The purported "idiot" or the one who RESPONDS to what the "idiot" wrote? Name-calling: another Debunker tactic.
PPS: I know when you'll get "bored": when the information that has nothing to do with the collapses piles up until you can't ignore it anymore. Then you'll go back to being an International Man of Mystery...or are you Double-Oh Zero? Or are you Maverick's wingman today? A Deep Sea Researcher. You've crash-landed on Saturn,and you're hanging off one of the rings. You're a bullfighter. Jet-setting Playboy ! I can't keep track...
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 16, 2008 2:06 PM
"These people are using the tragedy of that day and the deaths of all the victims to make a name for themselves and get attention."
Chad, you sound like you're describing Rudy Giuliani and many in the Bush administration.
Posted by: garibald on January 16, 2008 4:50 PM
Hello everyone.
I'm writing this in case anyone other than myself and the handful of others writing this post are actually reading it. I'm guessing not, but I could be wrong.
I got into the 9-11 questions because some were interesting: why did the towers fall as they did? Was it controlled demolition? Were the pilots too inexperienced to fly the planes? Why did WTC7 fall? Why didn't the fighter planes intercept? Were there other war games going on to confuse the issue?
Interesting questions. so I investigated.
So, to repeat, try 9-11 Myths and Screw Loose Change to answer these, any many, many more questions asked by those interested like me.
So, my latest post!
Don't ya love the Truthers. You discredit one of their main beliefs (the buildings were designed to take the aircraft impact and therefore should not have fallen), and rather than admit maybe they are wrong they scream 'you've only discredited one!"
Passanger57, How many do you want me to discredit? All of them? every single one? You really want me to trawl through your paranoid ramblings, like why Bush hung around the school?
Look, I DON'T know why Bush hung around. No idea. But I DO know why the towers fell, and I DO know why the planes crashed into them. and I DO know who was flying them, and i know this because of the work by, and calm down for this answer, the THOUSANDS of experts who studied it.
Where are your experts. Hoffman? Alex Jones? Steven Jones? Loose Change?
Are you serious?
And by the way, I HAVE spent countless nights trawling the net looking into this, including reports by engineers, pilots, fireman etc, and it seems to be, regardless of how much I dislike Bush and his warmonger government, the final report was correct.
I don't give a shit you disagree with that. And yes, 9-11 Myths and Screw Loose Change IS all you need to debunk the so-called 'truth movement' because your arguments are wafer-thin.
I agree, there are still questions - I'm waiting for the WTC7 report (one of the initital things that got me interested), but I have to say, considering the reports from the fireman and everyone at the building, I'd be surprised if it suddenly came up with evidence of controlled demolitian. The out-of-control raging fires, the massive damage, the realisation that the bloody thing could collapse...yes, indicates to me that it probably came down due to those things.
Note the 'probably'. I'm still open to hear other opinions, but I'm not open to paranoid, uninformed guesswork by a bunch of Incompetent amateurs. Sorry, but that's what you are.
Unless, of course, all those thousands of engineers, cops, fire personnel, airport personnel, etc are lying, have been paid off, or are living in fear.
Sorry Truthers, but you're full of crap.
PS I'll try and answer one more example of your idiotic ramblings...that comment about the movie in which fire fighters in the towers thought a second plane was coming...and were told by the FBI.
You suggest was it on purpose to confuse the fire fighters?
Oh dear. Is this really worth answering...no, plough on Paul, keep going, just a few more minutes...
Okay...I watched the same video the other night, the desire brought on by this post actually. Yeah, i remember that comment about the FBI telling them another plane was coming.
Passenger57, does it ever occur to you, somewhere in that dim, low-wattage mind of yours, that maybe.....the fire fighters....were....in....an...already.....confusing.....situation?
But no, you reckon they had two 110 story buildings on fire, one lift working, jumpers crashing down around them, poor, if any communication between the fighters in the buildings, no water available on the floors, no idea why it had occured, no idea if more planes were coming, no idea if they were going to get out alive...and you reckon an FBI dude then calls up about another plane to confuse them?
Oh dear.
Maybe, just maybe, the FBI people were as confused as everyone else.
Passenger5, you are an idiot.
PPS garibald (January 16, 2008 4:50 PM) I agree totally. Always remember the one rule these polititians live by, regardless of Democrat or Republican...spin ANYTHING to your advantage, including 9-11.
I saw FOX news using clips of the planes flying into the buildings to promote its news service. Two days after the attack, while people were still looking for survivors, a business show opened with how to make money from defence-related industry shares as government money was going to be ploughed into them. Sickening.
Posted by: paul w on January 16, 2008 8:40 PM
Sigh. Sigh again. I already wrote that it was ridiculous , so why are you even bothering with that? But why WOULD the FBI guy tell him that-this was AFTER the buildings were down, and AFTER the firemen came back. The whole world knew there was no third plane. The only person at that point in time who would believe-even for a split second-that there was a third plane was a fireman who was actually in the building while the attacks were happening.So what gives?
No one outside or watching TV was so "confused" as to think there was a third plane. Were you watching it as it happened (I wasn't , but I ran home and taped it). Did you see a third plane? Did you ever think there was a third plane? No one actually AT the site thought there was a third plane. There were no interviews of any confused,scared person that said there was a third plane. Because there WAS no third plane, so why did this "confused" FBI guy even think there was? But in the end,I dismissed it all as being ridiculous and not important.
Paul,99.5% of my posts deal with things other than the collapses. They don't need "answers"(I'm thinking many have not heard a lot of it) and they don't need "experts". Your "experts" haven't told you why Bush stuck around the school like a kid who knows the Bully is outside waiting for him,have they?What you are doing is "answering" the .5% and admitting that you don't know about the rest. You are the one who turned this into a Q&A. (FYI - the "why" is rhetorical). I'm not the only one posting about the collapsing buildings-again only .5% of all my posts-but somehow I'm the only "idiot". Is this because I'm not ignoring you? Maybe this is what I'll do from here on in.
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 17, 2008 8:26 AM
Passenger57. Re Bush at the school. H
Have you ever considered he might have been told to stay put or maybe, just maybe, he reached his level of incompitence? By that, I mean he REALLY didn't know what to do? He is human, after all.
No, to you, it's all a conspiracy.
And as to your suggestion I drag my sorry ass through the rest of of your posts, I repeat what I said before. Why?
That .5% I did answer, which you fail to not only aknowledge but now seem to think is trivial, is an oh-so-easy answer to a major argument of the Truthers, that it was all controlled demolotion.
As always, you fail to answer my comments. None of them. Have you looked at 9-11 myths or the Screw Loose Change arguments and replied? No.
The best medicis gave was a lovely but untimately useless post about plane data and buildings that burnt but didnt fall down...and totally missed the point.
The final official report made it quite clear that had the fire-proofing stayed on the beams, the buildings probably (note 'probably') wouldn't had fallen. But it didn't, some was removed by the plane impact . Why is that so hard to believe?
That, combined with the damage and fire, caused the top section to eventually come down, and once that thing started, game over.
Yet the Truthers laugh at this but then postulate crack-pot theories about pods on planes, lazer beams from space, fireman being 'confused' about third planes by the FBI, molten steel, the buildings should have stood...etc. etc.
None of the so-called Truther 'experts' have ever had ONE of the engineers of the report support them. Not one. Why?
Do you really believe, Passenger57, that they are all lying?
So, I want an answer to these questions, not some rant about NORAD or Henry Kissinger...
(Jeez, I know Kissinger's a prick, you probably know that too, but what does Bush and Co care about that? Nothing. They just wabt to make sure a. they don't get blamed. b. they gain politically c. they get re-elected.)
Passenger57, you're right to be paranoid. So am I. I KNOW the bastards are always up to something, whether supporting brutal dictators so they have control of the country's resorces, or spending taxpayers money on god knows what.
But 9-11 wasn't one of them. They certainly used it to their advantage, but they didn't organise it.
I'm afraid it was a simple, brilliant plan, and it worked.
Posted by: paul w on January 17, 2008 7:17 PM
Passenger57, just re-read your last post about the fireman, and you have it totally wrong (as usual)
It's best not to get involved in the Truthers ability to go into paranoid ramblings about even the smallest of details, but I will with this...
I saw the film. The fireman were told about the POSSIBILITY of a third plane while they were in the building, not after the things came down. Wrong again.
"No one outside or watching TV was so "confused" as to think there was a third plane"
Are you serious? Man, I didn't know what the fuck was happening. Third plane coming? I had no idea. Could've been ten more as far as I knew. But my TV was on CNN, maybe yours was linked to NORAD?
Watch the film again but this time leave the bong alone. You can eat the potato chips....
Posted by: paul w on January 17, 2008 7:31 PM
Sorry about the spelling
Posted by: paul w on January 17, 2008 7:31 PM
Another site and another total debunking of the 'truth' movement.
AE911Truth.info
Posted by: paul w on January 17, 2008 7:40 PM
Re: medicis
The One Meridian Plaza Fire
The fire was eventually stopped when it reached the fully sprinklered 30th floor. Ten sprinkler heads activated at different points of fire penetration
http://www.iklimnet.com/service.html
*Note* not hit by plane at 500mph, no structural damageand fire eventually put out. Was not used for years due to 'structural instability'
The First Interstate Bank Building
"The fire destroyed five floors of the First Interstate Bank Building, which some experts say could mean the loss of the entire structure"
"The fire was officially declared "knocked down" at 0219 hours"
LAFIRE.COM Los Angeles Fire Department Historical Archive
*Note* not hit by plane at 500mph, no structural damage and fire eventually put out.
Caracas Tower Fire
'he couldn't rule out that the building might collapse because of the heavy structural damage. '
Bloomberg.com
"You have to have [and maintain] sprinklers, and you have to have fireproofing,"
Jaime A. Moncada, director of International Fire Safety Consulting, Bogota, Colombia.
*Note* not hit by plane at 500mph, no structural damageand fire fire with miliraty helicopters.
.
The Windsor Building Fire
You answered that one yourself. Concrete. The steel levels all collapsed. Funny, that.
There have been many large fires in high-rise buildings. How many were hit by planes? How many suffered the structural damage of such an impact? How many had fires burnging out of control?
The rest? Sure, the towers were strong. Naturally. But to survive 500mph plane impacts and uncontrolled fires? Why is it so absurb to suggest they might fall under those situations? And note the offficial report said the fire-damaged sections gave way - and this is the crux - not the entire building. When the fire-damaged sections gave way, the top section fell onto the lower and that was that. How is that difficult to understand? Why could not that be possible? And to suggest there is MORE evidence for controlled demolition?
Unfortunately, Frank A. Demartini died in one of the towers and cannot reply.
I'm getting tired of this. Unfortunately, 9-11 happened just like they said it did. get over it.
Posted by: paul w on January 17, 2008 11:58 PM
Boy oh booy is it hard ignoring you, Paul W. ! Although I'm still wondering why you keep posting here. Your last post says that you are getting tired of this...does that mean you're not going to post any more?
Anyway, I'm still going through the 9/11 Myths site. So far, it's AMAZING! It turns out that nearly every single item the "Truthers" talk about either never happened, or the newspapers took quotes out of context to make it appear as if there was something shady going on. Wow!
I've also found a few other things :
For one, the whole "What's under that blue tarp" section ,concerning what was thought to be people hustling away parts of Flight 77 had been determined to be bogus a loong time ago-in fact, I had forgotten all about it.
The section of Jeb Bush imposing martial law? I never heard about that. What I did hear was that he activated the National Guard-quite another thing from martial law.
It left out some of my questions, too, like the report of surface-to-air missiles on the roof of the resort Bush stayed in before he gave his Goat Book Review. Or the extraordinary security at the summer 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, that made no sense to people at the time.I'm still slogging through it all...
Is it possible that the Towers came down just as the Official Story said they did? Sure. Now try likely....not bloody. Many people maintain that the bottom part of the Towers should have survived. If that had happened-say, 15-25 stories-I would have been more likely to believe the Story. The top part hit the bottom part-and turned into dust. It started billowing out and away, lightening the loads the lower,undamaged floors had to support. The bases of the towers were made of huge, heavy , thick steel,buried in the ground. They're gone, too? How about a lower portion of ONE of the towers still up? The last one to fall.(I don't know which was which). It was hit higher up, so there was less above the impact levels.How 'bout just the massive columns sticking up out of the ground, and not just the outer shell of the buildings?
You write as if there are maybe 100 people on the planet that don't believe the Official Story-there are people all over the world, who've held prominent positions (I'm not talking about celebrities), former military, etc. that think something's amiss with many parts of it. Since the Bush administration has done nothing but lie, lie about lying, act suspiciously, and try to stop 9/11 investigations, I don't believe anything they say. Couple that with previous administrations' histories of being up to no good, and you've got your so-called "conspiracy" at full boil.
You're tired of this, so I guess that was your last post. I ,for one, enjoyed our dialougue. Fare thee well, PaulW. fare thee well...
PS: haven't had time to verify exactly where the FBI/fireman/Plane 3 came in; I'll nail it down for you.
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 18, 2008 1:25 PM
Aw, if ya say it like that Passenger57, how can I resist?
It's been raining here for a week and I currently have time on my hands, hence the posts. And the fact that I'm starting to enjoy it, which is a great worry for me.
Anyway, here goes...
"Many people maintain that the bottom part of the Towers should have survived".
I don't disgaree, many people probably do. But who? But does that 'many' include the thousands of engineers and experts on the official report? No.
And even if they did, what one 'expects' to happen is not always the case.
"Or the extraordinary security at the summer 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, that made no sense to people at the time."
Here's the conspiracy mind-set at work, the link between this and 9-11.
I have another take. we had a summit here in Australia last year, in Sydney, and many experts - security experts - were suggesting rather than block off huge parts of the city and inconvenience the public, do it on one of the Great Barrier Reef islands.
But here's what I think: it was done especially in Sydney to promote the then Prime Minister as a tough man standing up against terrorism - remember, elections were looming and the anti-terrorism thing worked last time.
It was simple PR.
Passenger57, be very wary of reading government actions. I believe most are advertisement to promote themselves. The 'real' business goes on behind locked doors, in new laws and regulations that do not make front page headlines but should.
Many people (!) still think the government is about representing them. I prefer the observation: 'government is the shadow business casts over society'.
"The top part hit the bottom part-and turned into dust. It started billowing out and away, lightening the loads the lower,undamaged floors had to support. The bases of the towers were made of huge, heavy , thick steel,buried in the ground. They're gone, too? How about a lower portion of ONE of the towers still up? The last one to fall.(I don't know which was which). It was hit higher up, so there was less above the impact levels.How 'bout just the massive columns sticking up out of the ground, and not just the outer shell of the buildings?"
Oh, come on! Let's not either of us pretend to be experts here. The dust, if I remember correctly, was mostly the material from room dividers and walls...much of it was carboard or similar.
Nor was the concrete 'pulverised' From my reading, it broke into many different sizes fragments.
And no, once the top part fell onto the bottom, that was it. A few of the truthers have tried to argue this with physics and such but came out red-faced. Sorry, Passenger57, the numbers for that one simply don't add up.
As for the lower columns...I don't know. I remember reading something about it and so will search a little more.
"You write as if there are maybe 100 people on the planet that don't believe the Official Story-there are people all over the world"
No, I don't write as if only a 100 people don't believe the report, I write that many, like me, questioned the report when I first heared the arguments of the 9-11 'truth' movement.
But then I started researching the questions and found many, if not all (especially the major ones like controlled demolition) were simply wrong. I also found that those asking the questions simply refused to see any argument but their own and also distorted, lied, mis-quoted and took things out of context.
Now, I'm not saying you've done that. But the Hoffmans, Alex Jones, Stephens Jones etc have and do. It's a constant theme.
"the Bush administration has done nothing but lie, lie about lying, act suspiciously, and try to stop 9/11 investigations, I don't believe anything they say. Couple that with previous administrations' histories of being up to no good, and you've got your so-called "conspiracy" at full boil"
Here, I believe is the crux of the 9-11 'truth'.
You're totally right. The Bush adminstration, like Clinton, like Blair and like Howard (former Australian prime minister) lie . And cheat. And I don't believe anything they say either. And yes, history is replete with govts being up to no good.
But 9-11 wan't one of them. The evidence points to just as the official report concludes: planes slammed into the buildings causing structural damage and fires. The impact dislodged the fire-proofing, the beams heated up, sagged and when the top part fell onto the bottom, there was nothing going to stop it going all the way to the ground.
I understand your paranoia, just don't let it get in the way of facts.
Posted by: paul w on January 18, 2008 9:02 PM
Paul W. , I'm going back. Waaaay back. Back to my original argument that there is much more to 9/11 than the buildings coming down. Why? Because we have both been sucked into talking about it. None of us are experts , you got it right-and not only that, but what usually happens is you have your opinion, I have mine, You quote a source , I'll quote a source.
(Damn, I'm going to be late)
No matter how the buildings came down,there still is the behavior of the Bush administration that needs to be aired out. Let's say that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything that happened on 9/11...why would they block investigations? If I were the President, there would be a new head stuck on the White House fence every day. I'd have announced an investigation MYSELF, given them whatever budget they thought they needed,welcomed other investigations, and went on TV periodically to update the world on the progress.Instead, we got what we got.What's happening is that you,me, and everyone else firing at each other,back and forth,and while this is going on,they're busy planning the next Big Thing.
I still haven't gotten through all of 9/11 Myths, but all of this is getting to be a drag. The FBI/fireman thing in the Naudet Bros. documentary? I haven't had the time to find what I was talking about-but I may not even bother, because since I know there was no third plane, it's kinda ridiculous to go back and forth about something that WE BOTH KNOW FOR CERTAIN never existed.
I don't go for the idea that all the extra security at the G8 Summit was just a exercise in chest -puffing, because at that time, we'd already had enough of Bush in the short time he was in office . If it was a charade, it was lost on its American audience; it wasn't treated as a bg story. I don't know how it fared anywhere else. Of course, all the "intelligence" that they (either France or Italy, I think) had could have been a load of poo.
It looks we're going to have to agree to disagree about some things concerning the 9/11 attacks. Is this my last post? Looking back at the previous posts, IT APPEARS THAT WE ARE THE LAST TWO HAMHEADS LEFT.
Posted by: Passenger57 on January 20, 2008 9:21 AM
Passenger57.
Your're right. We are the only two left.
And yes, I agree, it's taking up time.
OK, let's forget the towers. That leaves the behaviour of the Bush administration blocking investigations...well, I have to point out that in many cases the last thing MOST, if not all, of the leaders in a western democracy want is an investigaton into anything...
Why? because they cannot control it.
Whether it be an investigation into housing, finance or whatever, you can image how much corruption and dirty dealing would be uncovered. I think this applies just as much, if not more, to 9-11.
I don't believe it was because they knew, or it was an inside job, I just figure they did not want it (the investigation) to get get out of control.
Remember, in Australia, when one party is elected out of office they immediately start shredding documents.
Think about that. Shredding documents. I'm sure many of it is stuff no longer applicable, but I'd hazard a guess to say much of it is stuff they don't want anyone to find.
And these people are supposed to be representing the public, using taxpayers money!
Again, I must refer you back to my own belief of govt: it's the public face of business.
I just think the behaviour and blocking stuff was just the Bush administration desperately trying to save it's own skin from any fall-out.
But...I could be wrong.
"I were the President, there would be a new head stuck on the White House fence every day. I'd have announced an investigation MYSELF, given them whatever budget they thought they needed,welcomed other investigations, and went on TV periodically to update the world on the progress."
That's exactly WHY you are not president, or anyone else with that belief, whether Republican, Democrat, Green, or whatever. An open government? Man, no way. Australian politics is replete with the govt ignoring the wishes of the people, regardless of left or right.
It's business as usual.
Don't bother with the fireman, third plane thing. I just think it was confusion. You believe not, fair enough.
As for the extra security at the G8, same deal: it's PR.
Not completely, of course, there are nutters everywhere who love to blow people up, but I still think you underestimate the PR aspect of many public things govts do.
Anyway, I'm getting a bit tired too.
Good luck, Passenger57.
Posted by: paul w on January 20, 2008 9:11 PM
Dick Cheney's legacy will survive as one of supreme courage and sacrifice, as a man who (perhaps blindly) acted from a position ideological automation, as a bathroom break in the American Theater, and while everyone was away from their seats a new sprinkler system was installed. What most intuit, and naive conspiaracy activists refuse to understand, is that without that bathroom break, and the new sprinkler system (a mild inconvenience, it detracts from the purity of the old architecture) the American Theater was about to burn down. And everyone would have been trapped inside. Some will always lament and p
What a bunch of looser assholes. They need to get a life and get laid.