Jonathon Moseley, 9/11 Bush Basher WND article analysis...

---Another blog I posted elsewhere (before was available)... and this analysis actually stemmed from a friend asking "what I thought" about the WorldNetDaily piece... enjoy---

WorldNetDaily is having to clean up Moseley's article NOTE: There is now an editor's note at the top stating that he asserted something that was false (obviously because he was called on it on the radio with Alex Jones. Here is the's write-up about the article and today's radio debated with the author.

Below is the article text and my comments...
***The original article text is in black and comments are red and blue***:

9/11 Bush bashers

By Jonathon Moseley

On this fifth September 11 anniversary, some who hate Bush will gather in New York to profane the memory of the 3,000 victims. They will try to convince the country that 9/11 was not an attack by Islamic terrorists, but criminal mass murder by the Bush administration. Amazingly, fully one-third of Americans now believe that the government is guilty of some conspiracy concerning 9/11. So admittedly at least one third (conservatively) of America need no convincing. Everything liberals believe about foreign policy was proven to be disastrously false on 9/11. Therefore, liberals must somehow deny that 9/11 actually happened. This is somehow a partisan issue?

After debating these characters extensively examples?, I believe people need to know who they really are. Organizations like "Scholars for Truth" do not ask any questions seeking truth not true - see their 14,000 signature petition to congress for release of information which is strictly questions, but announce absolute gross generalization conclusions that the Bush administration executed a criminal conspiracy to murder 3,000 Americans. Literally, they offer science fiction, not science specific examples from st911 missing of course. Remarkably, many 9/11 conspiracy peddlers resorting to name calling already spontaneously slander the Jews without rhyme or reason any examples? This is news to me as I have not heard any such slanders. It would be nice if he directed the reader to an example. What does Rush call this type of reporting, drive-by reporting?

At a national conference broadcast nationwide on C-SPAN, key conspiracy leader more slanderous labels Alex Jones a conservative by the way announced that the American government has already collapsed and a shadow government is now running our country this is at least partly true, and has been for as much as a hundred years or so, but subject too huge to get into here. This radio talk-show host next announced on tape that Osama bin Laden is now a paid agent of the CIA. UBL (bin Laden) was an asset for the CIA and the US since the Afghanistan war, this is admitted public information. We supported him against the Soviets to drive them out. The tale since then is a long and involved one including many peculiar links to the US. Again, too much to get into here.

***We now know from the radio interview yesterday and from WND editor's note that the author decided to invent much of the slander in his article, for all to see by the way.***

Professor Steven Jones of Brigham-Young University accused George Bush of being a dictator I watched this event personally and actually Jones, very soft spoken, "reluctantly concluded"... "that our constitution is literally hanging by a thread" this is not that drastic of a statement and actually is truer than most want to believe. , mimicking the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. When asked if violent revolution was necessary, this scientist declared in front of national TV cameras that there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals. I did not see this in the C SPAN airing either In the context of the question, professor Jones was calling for the violent overthrow of the government. What he actually said was "we're not done, we still have a constitution" and "we have remedies we can keep that, if we work together," and thats an exact quote.

James Fetzer, a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota who poses as a scientist? where has he "posed" as a scientist?, praised Venezuela President Hugo Chavez and promoted Chavez's proposal for an international criminal tribunal to put the Bush administration on trial. I am not able to verify this statement either. I believe he probably did call for an international criminal tribunal. Mysteriously the author fails to mention or refute any of the statements about 9/11 made by Fetzer. By e-mail, professor Fetzer accused me of being Jewish sadly, I am not because I disagree with his theories ? Is he willing to divulge actual verifiable quotes from the email? Its easy to talk about private conversations.

The goal is to convince Americans that there are no foreign enemies . We can all drop our guard. Stop defending America. Don't be ready to fight. ? where, when and who said this? Such agitprop helps America's enemies to more effectively attack the United States.

First, al-Qaida has repeatedly admitted planning and executing the 9/11 attacks. In a captured videotape recording of a private meeting in November 2001, bin Laden talks in detail about the 9/11 plot ? UBL's very first statement (suppressed) after 9/11 was that he had nothing to do with it. All subsequent videos have been suspect. , comparing his expectations in advance to what actually occurred.

End of discussion, right? Nope. The 9/11 conspiracy peddlers labels reply that bin Laden is today on the payroll of the CIA and the Israeli Mossad. To explain away al-Qaida's proud admission, they "out" bin Laden as a CIA agent. ? who has said this? He give no example. Most who doubt the official 9/11 speculate the UBL has been dead for a long time (Where is Joe Wilson when you need him?) Some also insist that Al Jazeera is a television network operated by Israel, because Qatar lacks technical skills. ? who has said this? He give no example. Most who doubt the official 9/11 speculate the UBL has been dead for a long time. Israel keeps being drug into his article to make anyone who questions 9/11 appear to be anti-Israel. Some examples would clarify who he really means.

Second, of the World Trade Center, professors Fetzer and Jones insist "there was not enough kinetic energy to cause one floor to bring about the collapse of the floor below it. Jones, a physics professor, actually has an extensive peer reviewed physics paper about the collapses. kinetic energy is but one very small part of the discussion " Yet about 29 floors tilted and fell onto the crumbling floor where the aircraft gouged out and removed support structure.? Why would a university professor talk about "one floor" falling when everyone knows that 29 floors, this is what's called a straw man argument plus 140 tons of aircraft and cargo, fell? Fetzer is intentionally deceiving the gullible. (But I am Jewish, he says, for disagreeing with him.? inside argument evidently that he feels is relevant - the reader is left out but swayed again to think this is anti Jewish, questioning 9/11)

What about WTC building 7????

Third, Fetzer and Jones argue that the Twin Towers could not have collapsed so neatly without a controlled demolition.

Actually this is obviously a distraction for surely a person so critical of Professor Jones would know in preparing for this article that Jones has recently announced the result of analysis done on samples of metal drippings from WTC steel obtained from multiple sources has shown to have thermite and sulfur on them. Thermite is used for cutting structural steel. The addition of sulfur means that thermate (a specifically designed type for cutting structural members) was present. This topic was talked about extensively by Professor Jones in the previously mentioned (by the author) symposium which aired on C SPAN but somehow did not merit the author's mentioning it at all. Architects clarify that any such building is designed to load-shift actually some of the original engineers of the WTC towers have said this specifically about the towers themselves. The failure of part of a floor causes other parts of that structure to compensate and take up the load True. This means that each floor must always fail symmetrically (emph. is mine...this is a concoction, inserted in the middle of the truth, by the author and he points to no specific quote to back it up).

As long as any part of the floor remains intact, it is designed to pick up the remaining load True. Thus, it was inevitable that the towers collapsed symmetrically and down the center Another concoction shrouded in true statements. Furthermore, controlled demolitions start from the bottom up traditional controlled demolitions. The WTC collapse bears no resemblance to that whatsoever I agree, it bore no resemblance to it in the sense that no buildings of this magnitude have ever been demolished before.

Fourth, many conspiracy peddlers can't let the reader forget that, what he doesn't realize is that he hurts any credibility may have doing this insist that no airplanes ever hit the World Trade Center or Pentagon Deceptive use of a straw man argument. Lumping what people say they believe about the planes that hit the towers and the Pentagon together is intended to make it sound like they are the same subject.

I have not read nor heard anyone saying that no plane hit the towers. What hit the Pentagon is questioned extensively because 1. No useful video or image in the public domain shows a 757 (if someone has it I would love to see, maybe its on the thousands of video and pictures that the Pentagon refuses to release why?) 2. There was very little debris left and whatever was left was quickly policed up. 3. Eyewitnesses stories of what they saw vary greatly from each other. Some say they saw a 757 and even some saw the people in the windows (at 500 mph?) and then some say they saw a small private jet, one very specific individual says he saw what appeared to be a Global Hawk UAV. We simply can not know for sure until real video (which is admitted to exist but is being kept) is released. Why this is being held from the public Im not sure, but it sure doesnt help end conspiracy theories.

The airplanes never existed The straw man goes on. This is where the author leaves the highway of his own topic and drives off on a dirt road into the distance. Does he cite any examples of someone who believes this? No, because no one credible does, especially none of the Scholars for 9/11 truth or most who doubt the official story. Although there are many different theories about 9/11 out there, one is hard pressed to find many that ascribe to this theory and the author is attempting to associate those he already mentioned with it. I have seen neither one of them state their adherence to a no plane theory, regarding the WTC.

They refuse to acknowledge that tens of thousands of eyewitnesses went outside and watched the WTC burn before the second airplane hit. News footage was faked, Straw man continued. Hes out there, but the reader is now supposed to have exited the subject with him, thinking that all who question 9/11 subscribe to such outrageous theories. This is a blatant but very ineffective tactic. However, the goal I think is to influence those who have not looked at 9/11 for themselves at all (or are to lazy to) so they will think that this is what most doubters think, when it absolutely is not. And he still does not give one good example of a person who believes no plane hit the towers (there may be a minority who believe that, but I havent found them), yet thats what he is contending.

but they do not explain how thousands of journalists and New Yorkers all watched the airplane hit or how dozens of cameras all show the same thing. They ignore how American Airlines crash investigators verified their airplanes from the wreckage in order to file insurance claims and prepare for lawsuits. They do not explain why hundreds hundreds huh? It sure would have been nice to see some sources for this statement of civilian air traffic controllers and airport radar operators confirm the official explanation (indeed, are the sources for much of it) actually, NORAD and FAA information released in the last month shows massive and debilitating confusion by at least their controllers - because various drills were going on in parallel to the actual attacks - of course the author would have no reason to mention that.

They assume that hundreds of local police and firefighters crawling over the wreckage covered up for the murderers of their fellow firefighters and cops. This statement is simply intended to input an emotional exit, it has nothing to do with the author's contention that "conspiracy peddlers insist that no airplanes ever hit the World Trade Center or Pentagon" Of course a reader could easily have forgotten the point by this time.

Fifth, conspiracy mongers oh a new label, the other one must have wore out - peddlers just doesn't get the point across any more claim that no steel building has ever collapsed which is a good circumstantial point from fire alone, so the Twin Towers couldn't, either. However, the heavy-steel-construction McCormick Place Exhibition Hall this was a roof, a very EXPANSIVE roof collapsed, not a tower or even a moderately comparable structure. It is a ridiculous comparison, but if that's the best he can come up with, ok collapsed after only 30 minutes of an ordinary fire in Chicago. No physical damage. No jet fuel. Just an ordinary fire softened the steel to the point of structural collapse. The real fact still remains, NO STEEL AND CONCRETE SKYSCRAPER HAS TOTALLY COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE, EVER UNTIL THREE DID ON 9/11 when three did (he somehow manages to NOT include WTC building 7 in the entire article which is of major concern to most people who question 9/11) And that steel was not carrying the load of 110 floors above it And neither was the steel floor joists of the towers, the 47 massive core columns, some measuring four feet wide, WERE. A dozen other fires in steel buildings have also collapsed floors because the steel softened and buckled. Guess it would be to much to list all dozen he is referring to? The Hotel Windsor oh heres one lost its entire upper half in a fire. Clearly, the temperature of an ordinary fire can make a steel structure fail.

This is very important to follow closely since he brought up the Windsor: Pay attention The Windsor Hotel was a different type of structure completely, steel reinforced concrete construction (that means concrete poured around re bar columns etc.) the WTC buildings were steel structures (wide flange beams and massive steel box columns, some as wide as four feet with steel as thick as five inches), the intense Windsor fire burned for almost an entire day and still only the top third, which was completely engulfed in intense flames, gradually and partially collapsed around it's core.

In steel structures, heat is conducted into the larger structure, so the steel remains lower than the fire temperature. In concrete fire causes spalling (flaking or crumbling). This is because concrete has a low percentage of latent moisture which fire converts to steam by the heat. Large fires eventually erode the concrete and a structure can collapse. The heat does not have to be nearly as high and extended as it does to weaken steel beams.


Of the Windsor "The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates. The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these were a fraction of the dimensions, and spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building"

Also, the Windsor building, only gradually and partially collapsed (top third outer portion) after many hours of the top 10 or so floors being totally engulfed in fire.

But, of course, the WTC towers did not collapse from fire alone, but from the severe physical damage of a 140-ton aircraft traveling at 540 mph shredding the support structures, shredding structures is extremely misleading... what did shred was the aircraft and a small portion of the exterior wall lattice not to mention the weight of the planes themselves. Incredible temperatures resulted from approximately 30,000 kilograms of jet fuel. most of which was observed burning off outside both buildings at the time of impact in the form of massive fireballs ejecting outside the buildings

But the fireball itself was an enormous, cataclysmic bomb (whatch out, the B word), shattering (complete assumption to state shattering) the building's interior. Very misleading statement and assumption as the reports admit, very little is actually known about the damage inflicted in the interior, particularly the core areas. How did the commission deal with this? By implying the towers cores were weak and flimsy which is completely false. As already mentioned, the 47 ( in each building) core columns were massive, as large as four feet (visualize steel box columns the size of a soda machine, times 47) and in between these massive columns were the many dense elevator shafts

They ignore how this fantastic bomb of jet fuel damaged the building. (Uh oh, the B word is used again, but since he keeps using it; the official theory actually implies that the planes basically disintegrated on impact, because speeding hollow aluminum tubes would not likely fare well against hardened structural steel (physics) and that, at best the jet fuel bomb blew the fireproofing off steel in the impact area).

Now how one is to believe that some of the jet fuel was exempted from the initial fireball and hung around to burn slowly is beyond me, one of the many things that do not make sense. It seems logical that if jet fuel is ignited, it all is going to explode or burn right then, not some now and some later. This is kerosene in the open (from an crashing, exploding fuel tank) not kerosene burning on a wick or controlled some way. How could jet fuel survive an exploding fuel tank, land in the building while a fireball is blasting through it and last to burn slowly? Some may have pooled, but it couldnt have been much. I contend that a good portion of the jet fuel was burned off in the explosion, at impact.

During the ensuing fire, the expansion of steel in 1,500 degree fires Misleading statement, first of all, the fires likely never reach much past 650 degrees based on test fires conducted for car parking garages (carbon based fire just doesnt burn that hot) Iron workers have to use acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, forced air, etc. to reach higher temperatures to weaken steel. Steel melts at 2800 degrees F, by the way. At 1022 degrees F structural steel retains 60% strength of normal temperatures. Since structural design engineers over design structures to be capable of bearing five times the maximum load for static loads, 60% reduction in strength would still support three times the rated load. distorted the building and sheared off bolts and connectors total speculation, as the steel expanded, buckled and warped ignoring the fact of the 47 core columns, of course the commission report ignored them as well. Later, a "fuel air bomb" gees from jet fuel leaking down the elevator shaft shook the entire structure So jet fuel leaking down an elevator shaft (very long elevator shafts, but few of which travel the entire height of the buildings) caused some sort of secondary explosion? Is that what he is implying? I suspect this is an attempt to explain the many reports, by firefighter and others, of multiple explosions within the towers during the attacks.

Something else the author fails to mention here (an appropriate place to bring it up) is how ignored testimony from 20 year WTC employee William Rodriguez states that there was a massive explosion in the sub-basement BEFORE the first plane struck. His testimony before the commission was behind closed doors and was not included in the 9/11 report, like many others. He was recognized and met the President for saving many people that day.

Sixth, conspiracy mongers let's use that on again engage in pure science fiction about whether the WTC buildings should have collapsed as they did. Such calculations are meaningless because we can never know the actual circumstances: What was the temperature inside? Did he not just state 1500 degrees? This would be almost laughable if it werent so serious We will never know. Was there substandard construction material? Well lets just see, Underwriters Laboratories (the organization that certifies such things, weve all seen the labels) employee Kevin Ryan was fired from UL for writing the following to the NIST investigating the cause of the collapses:

"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F Remember, he lost his job for making these points."

Was the construction perfect? What kind of question is this?

Was there corrosion from the salt air of the ocean during 35 years? In a totally enclosed structure? This is reaching.

Was the architectural design as good as the architects thought? Apparently. But why not speculate some more.

All such calculations are pure science fiction because there are a hundred variables we can never know. The mythmakers ignore the structural damage from the 1993 bombing. New label to add to the name calling

A bomb that could have been prevented because the US had agents handling the terrorists to the point that an FBI supervisor did not take the opportunity to substitute fake ingredients, a suggestion from the informant he was handling by the way. That informant recorded his conversations with his FBI handler and it came out at the trial. This is totally public information.

Islamic terrorists had calculated that their truck bomb in the basement garage would bring down the Twin Towers completely. The towers stood, but with what damage? At any rate, is the author privy to some information about substandard repair work after the 93 attack? He sites no source. The buildings were supposedly repaired to better than before condition. Whats he saying? Those in charge of insuring building safety are accomplices?

Similarly, the mythmakers He's determined claim that the towers fell at the same rate as objects in free fall. Actually, the towers fell in a span of between 12 and 20 seconds, Actually, you can time them yourself and see they were completely ("dissolved" is more like it) in a little more that 10 second each, inputting a number like 20 seconds is wishful thinking whereas free fall is 9.22 seconds. Dr. Frank Greening's exhaustive paper demonstrates brilliantly that the Twin Towers collapse is entirely explainable from gravity alone. Furthermore, how the government can make buildings fall faster (consistent with the news footage) is never well explained that would be the thermate cutter charge theory (isn't that what the whole discussion is about here? The author himself talks about Fetzer and Jones believing that controlled demolition was used), which in effect would have remove all resistance of 47 core columns and other important pieces... 110 floors of concrete, steel joists, re bar, office machines, furniture, ductwork, piping, wiring, people, etc. The towers did not fall through air or a vacuum .

Seventh, engineers at the Pentagon measured the hole from Flight 77 at 90 feet wide. Yet the fiction-peddlers big surprise claim that the hole was only 16 feet wide, based on a French author who apparently has never visited the United States. Conspiracy peddlers argue that a Boeing 757 would have made a hole wider than 16 feet. It did. Yet vast arguments, websites, books and careers are based on the hole being only 16 feet, instead of the actual 90 feet 90 feet would probably be accurate for the gap left AFTER the outer wall collapsed. However, I have looked at photos of the pentagon wall where firefighters first responded and honestly I even have a hard time finding any hole because of all the black soot, smoke, people fighting the fire etc. around and close to the impact area. The author of course fails to point this out, the fact that initially the pentagon outer wall was intact for sometime before the wall collapsed. The pictures you always see in the mainstream is after the collapse.

Regardless, with a little searching on the web, anyone can find the pictures of the attack before the outer wall collapsed and there is not much of a hole (any actual measurement given is a guess) but it is undenialbly not very big considering what was supposed to have hit it. Also worth noting is that the two giant engines from a 757 would have had the best chance of inflicting a great deal of noticeable damage on the façade of the Pentagon, but this type of damage or anything resembling a 757 engine is absent from the early, pre-collapse photos.

Eighth, other mythmakers Just to be clear, let's remember who was being questioned last week when some NORAD recordings were released - all of the sudden the Pentagon is being pointed at by the 9/11 commissioners for deception in there statements about 9/11???? I suspect there will likely be more of this happening in the future. point to lists of victims on each flight. They claim that the hijackers are missing from the passenger manifests, which proves that the government slipped the hijackers past security gates This statement is put at the end of a true statement. Who has said that "the government slipped the hijackers past security gates, I have never heard or read this". But lists of victims obviously do not include the murderers who killed them. They also do not show up on the one Autopsy list of bodies from the pentagon crash obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. This autopsy shows that nearly all remains from flight 77 were identified.

Ninth, the 9/11 conspiracy peddlers Oh boy, at what point does this give his intentions away? all contradict each other. Collectively, they will claim that there is "overwhelming evidence" against the official explanation of 9/11 generalization, but somewhat true. However, what is overwhelming is a mish-mash of contradictory and mutually exclusive scenarios. Each of the conspiracy peddlers proves the others wrong Not sure this would matter if it were true.. Moreover, the conspiracy theories keep changing Care to give any examples?. When confronted by the falsehoods and contradictions, they simply change their story examples?. This proves that they are not seeking the truth, but any excuse to bash Bush. Ok?

In general, conspiracy theorists point to elements of the official explanation they find hard to believe true but then adopt infinitely less believable, preposterous scenarios not true, in general . Their scenarios do not answer their own questions any better than the official explanation irrelevant but not necessarily true. Most truth seekers can point to the fact that there are so many questions left unanswered, this was the job of a not-so independent commission, remember, not that of the public. (or even as well). These activists are simply intent on bending the truth, not finding it, to bash George Bush. Has nothing to do with it for most. Some people will politicize anything and 9/11 is no different, as the author proves with his last four words. I voted for Bush both times.

Most people questioning the official story of 9/11 (a number that is getting too large to ignore now) do so because the story given doesn't add up to what has been seen and said (that includes liberal Bush haters as well as true conservatives). Add to that the sad fact of history; governments including our own have consistently proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Why this would surprise anyone is beyond me. This is a representative republic and the people are to hold their government accountable. Thats the point of our countrys original system. It is our responsibility to question. In the case of 9/11, the importance of being sure, 100% of what happened, who failed, who benefited, who had the means etc. is paramount. We began a war on terror that is likely to extend beyond our lifetime and we are now told to live according to a doctrine of fear from now on, all the while trusting an evermore powerful domestic government to oversee our safety at all costs, even essential liberties thus we are reminded daily that 9/11 changed everything. If we are going to operate like that we should have been 100% correct and sure before going down that road, but unfortunately the facts have pointed to the contrary.