Publishes Series 'Debunking the Myths of 9/11'

CounterPunch Special Report: Debunking the Myths of 9/11

Alexander Cockburn here assembles his two prime commentaries in a final, expanded essay, "The 9/11 Conspiracists and the Decline of the Left."

Manuel Garcia Jr, physicist and engineer, presents his three separate reports, undertaken for CounterPunch.

Part One is his report on the Physics of 9/11.

Part Two (published here for the first time) is his report on the Thermodynamics of 9/11.

Part Three, "Dark Fire", is his report on the collapse of the World Trade Center's Building 7.

JoAnn Wypijewski wrote her essay "Conversations at Ground Zero" after a day spent with people at the site on 9/11/2006.

Thanks Carol for the heads up.


When they start off with a huge gaping fallacy in their title, it doesn't do them any favors.

9/11 is not a left/right issue. As much as they'd love to make it out to be, it is not and never will be. The left has used it to some effect, and the right has used to even greater effect.

don't be afraid

y'all really want to know what happened? well, all roads lead to israel

Show " Physics and 9/11 Truth" by Anonymous (not verified)

Two sources of highly asymmetrical damage...

Three [near] perfectly symmetrical collapses.

What are the odds, Jack\ass?

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Hmm, how about Mr. Garcia has his paper peer-reviewed?

No way it will be peer-reviewed, of course, as it is a bunch of assumptions none of which was confirmed.

This could only be taken as a voice to another investigation - look! even Garcia speaks about thermite reactions!
Let them release all the (left) evidence! What could be wrong in that!

My answer to Owl, the author

Owl, what does terminal velocity have to do with the question of why the lower part of the buildings did not offer much more resistance than air? The argument is that the towers fell at close to free -fall-in-vacuum speed, not that they fell at exactly that speed. If that argument was made, it is wrong, but you still beg the question of how the towers fell so fast. This has not been explained.

Garcia's assumption that the impact floor and all floors under that fell at free-fall speed, with only slight delay by the mass of each floor, is obviously spurious. Is he saying that the columns offered no resistance at all? That's what he seems to be saying, since he talks of 3-meter free-fall increments between the floors, delayed only by the floors. He also has the stress waves going up into the upper block and disintegrating the upper block, in an attempt to explain the videos. This means that the lower block was offering resistance, and also contradicts his argument that the upper block was an ever-growing hammer . Garcia does not even attempt to explain the steel beams and other debris thrown far out to the sides, which if not caused by explosives, must have been caused by resistance.

You should stop being such a pedant and teach. Words like "asinine" and "intellectual bankruptcy" suggest lack of sound argument. Why are you so angry about people's questions?

About Chomsky, who I generally like:

What are the real and ongoing crimes of state that would be worse than blowing up the towers and murdering thousands of people? If it is the Iraq war, that would not have happened without 9/11. This is how I choose to address the problem, though I of course marched against the war and have written my congressman against it. What else should I do? What are you doing? What is Chomsky doing? Keep doing it, and ask me to join, but quit being such an ass about my questions. If you can answer them, great. You have not.

OOPs. It's own weight collapsed it!

These are the forces that break things when they fall, contrasted with static conditions where the same objects happily remain intact under the reletively mellow forces due to their own weights

This guy teaches Physics? (Luckily it's not English!)

What is he trying to say here?

I guess his unconscious knowledge of the truth gets him to allude to how "object[s] [] remain intact [] under their own weight."

Then why did the Towers disintegrate to dust.
I guess he's just too "educated" - meaning he's been told what to think and accepted it.

(Isn't that the latest argument as to how the Towers came down? Each fell down of their own weight?)

Luckily that didn't happen sooner! Just needed a little trigger. Like would a house of cards.

Maybe they're all on Xanex?

here's the truth

Totally deceptive “jounalism.”

Yet another junk article that deliberately misstates & misrepresents our 9/11 truth facts & evidence as straw-men, and then knocks the straw men-down.


To be completely honest I am so worn out from studying the details from our side that I really don't have the energy and/or desire to read through the Pop Mechanics article and now these. I start them, but they just don't make sense. It feels like they are taking you on a whirlwind and if you get to the end there is just confusion. That's why I get off so quickly. It's too bad, but I hope someone with the energy can break down their arguments and debunk them if they are wrong. If they by chance do prove to be correct then I'd be glad because we could all go back home and work on other issues like Net Neutrality and Election Reform. We need a public debate, or someone with the time to summarize their arguments and prove them wrong.

You are falling for their trap, Orangutan.

They want to obfuscate & bury us in endless bullshit so that we give up. Don't fall for that!

Blah, Blah, Blah

It is common for freshman in college to write papers using word-iness and sophisticated vocabulary in order to sound intelligent and/or authoritative. The result is the contrary, it ends up sounding convoluted. As well, many use this tactic in everyday speak. Ulitmately we all figure out that the person, whether writing or speaking, simply is full of hot air. Famous wordsmith Jacque Barzun clears the air for all intellects with his famous book on language titled "Simple and Direct," which states the best way to get your point across is to do it simply and directly. So when NIST releases a 10,000 page report we all should know that it is full of hot air purporting to be authoritative. I like to respond to the monstrous report by asking the question simply and directly, how did the collapse of the WTC 1,2, & 7 defy the laws of physics by collapsing at freefall speed? They can release a 100,000 page paper and they still couldn't answer that one.

Simple & Direct.


You are right on the money with that point. Thank you for making it again for me. I should know that stuff intinctually by now, but you do fall for the "what if I'm wrong" mentality from time to time. Especially when you are a thinking and conscious human being. I like your clarity though. If someone is talking like that in the future, I'm going to realize they are covering up for a lack of true, clear, and direct knowledge. Peace bro. Thanks.


They are getting desperate with CIA disinformation pieces like these. The CIA is controlling the media—I found this stunning piece of information from an official 1991 CIA document:

"[The CIA's public affairs office] has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation... in many instances we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests…”

I guess reporters must have alot of information that is damaging to "national security".

taken from:

page 6

We should take the opposite approach to the disinfo agents--Speak simply, clearly and present the most powerful facts.

The fact that the towers fell at freefall speed is the most devastating evidence. It's conclusive proof that can't be refuted. Even NIST admits this fact in their FAQ.

It's so devastating that we practically don't even need more evidence.

They can create their own "scientific reality" all they want, it's not going to convince people with an open mind.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "So far" by Anonymous (not verified)


Dear So Far-You must enjoy the freak show because you read on with the ticket still in hand. Please find another carnival to pester

NIST admits freefall speed

You can deny it all you want, it's in their faq.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "So far" by Anonymous (not verified)


What I am trying to figure out is how you continue to hit the backslash\\\\\
Are you special?
Are you prone to seizures?
Do you stutter when you have to speak to defend your governments story?

You still seem to think that somehow the upper floors momentum simply drove through the rest of this structure despite it's massive overbuilt structure?

If you watch the video you will see the upper floors disentigrate... which shouldn't have happened.... but yes all this weight came tumbling down.... momentum which was crerated most likely by demolition of those upper floors.

Do you understand what would have happened to cause this symmetrical collapse. Each of these structural members... would have either been severed... or each column would have had to have been heated equally... on all four sides EQUALLY.... if not heated on all sides the steel would have acted like a heat sink... the steel would have conducted that heat and diffused it away from the source of the heat.

So lets just suppose that your people are correct and the steel was heated on all four sides of every column...EQUALLY... to temps equalling 1000 degrees F... causing the steel to weaken to 40 to 50% strength..... this remaining structural steel which has been weakened to half its structural capability still maintains resistance.... the building if it were to collapse from these elements would still fall towards a path of least resistance. Toward the damaged area.... Tipping and sliding off the side of the undamaged structure.

Thye fall of this structure was near perfect.... a 110 story building.... over 1100 ft tall.... nearly twice as tall as the surrounding structures.... fell as perfect as any demolitions person could hope to do.... two buildings which were hit in two absolutely unique ways... causing their distinctly different damage.... two unique patterns of fire... these structures fell in the exact same manner!!!.... and don't tell me that Osama was an engineer....

You are being dissmissive of reality because some high school physics teacher is regurgitating the "facts" put foward by the government arm NIST.

and if you really look at building 7..... which exhibit so many characteristics of controlled demolition.... you if living in reality must conclude that there is a distint possibility that the same would be true with WTC 1 & 2.

I mean get real MAN!!!

your little article claims that all this weight crashing down would have snapped the bolts at the structural connections.... structural connections which are designed to be the strongest part of structural members.... not buying it.... Structural steel which is affected by heat or not does not snap.... it anything it would bend... and the way these structural members were constructed.... they would be far less likely to be affected by heat.... less likely to bend... and highly improbable that they would buckle or snap.

This entire argument is rediculous.... this has never happened before and it will never happen again.... especially not to a structure built like the WTC Towers.
With the eyewitness accounts of bombs going off and the characteristics of controlled demolition.... there is absolutely no reason to not investigate this possibility... there is no reason to remove all the evidence without an investigation.


come on Anonymous..... JUST TELL US YOU HATE ARABS!! ....let's get this over with.

Disinformation agents are

Disinformation agents are either foreigners (perhaps some of them are Arabs, like family members of dictator King Saud) or anti-American citizens. Anyone defeneding the official story and attempting to block an independent investigation cannot have American interest in mind for the most obvious reason: America has nothing to lose by having an independent investigation because it will only prove the Truth. I ask all disinformation agents if they are so certain about the official conspiracy theory they should encourage an investigation so that the 911 matter can be settled. Unless, of course, if they feel their conspiracy theory won't hold up to investigation. Guilty criminals are the only people ever interested in preventing an investigation.

America "the beautiful"...

... in her most flattering light ever is done for. The only positive future she can hope for is to embrace honesty, and to see justice served (no matter how ugly that process may be).

Failing to do this can only guarantee many more shameful years to come as a depressive darkness envelopes her from sea to shinning sea. Worse than what she may do to herself, is the wanton spreading of her own sickness to far reaches of this single globe... initiating a vastly more hideous self preservation response by peoples elsewhere, who would certainly grow weary at some point awaiting America's cleaning of her own house.

What f*cking arrogance you display my fellow countrymen, to think and act as if through shear War Power alone, that we could hold the hill against five plus billion other souls. What are you going to do, blow-up everyone else and try to live in a hole in the ground? Get real.... please!


"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Show "**rolling my eyes at your" by Anonymous (not verified)

Actually, I read a lot of books,

... letters, historical documents, dialogue.... But sure, films are great for their ability to convey deeply felt human narratives, inspiration and basic story telling (as ancient as sitting around the campfire, you hack)

What about you, dip-shit? When's the last time you glanced at The Constitution, motherfucker?

Ever hear about what people did after inking something called The Declaration of Independence, assclown?

Care to drop a few lines from Socrates, Voltaire, or Bistiat... you illiterate thumb sucker?

Care to come find me here in my republic, and take a swing... you pathetic coward?


"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Show "Wow're an angry" by Anonymous (not verified)

Introduce yourself,

and you and I will be off to a fine start, sir.

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Show "The name's Steve. You gonna" by Anonymous (not verified)


I wish you the best of health, and keep your lunch money. Lets talk about your rolling eyes making light of my comment about America the beautiful.

Tell me, Steve, are you content with this state of affairs? If not, please tell us what's on your mind, and say a word about how you might propose to change things. Please, I'm not kidding.

If you're not bothered by the strangeness of Iraq, the fear-mongering about endless Terror, the direction of a police state horror show in America... if these seem like just overblown hyperbolic concepts typed into a computer screen and nothing more to you... then Steve... I'll politely offer to end our short conversation here and now.


"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Not only hateful, but creepy.

Called Erin a "little girl."

Wonder why that stuff is on its mind.

Very creepy.

Show "Oh...and speaking of" by Anonymous (not verified)

Only a complete buffoon

would inject a hypen in thumbsucker. ;)

The language is alive, shithead.


Wow misuse of the hyphen...the 9/11 truth movement MUST be a lie.
Oh wait, you were wrong about the hyphen too!
Wow you sure do a lot of research...making fun of people for their grammar mistakes and...YOU WERE WRONG.
Hahaha...always anonymous too.
It's seriously just one guy in every post that's why he won't sign up. And he's here all day every day.

i think that youre right on...

great post!!!

Show "Says who?" by Anonymous (not verified)


What's funny is less people are laughing every day..... you best gets on your pony cause this train is rolling right up your ass.

and when the majority is clear you will see the avalanche that follows.... what has caused people to start to see the truth?

it may not even be the truth at all but simply the attempt to suppress it.

Our government is struggling to cover their asses and it's becoming more and more clear every day.

I'm guessing that if we could outbid our government... NIST could produce a story which contradicts their first and they wouldn't even have to try.

We have pointed to all the examples that they put forward and it is evident that their calculations are flawed.... and their comon sense is hardly detectable.

but they were told to follow the yelllow brick road and depending which way you go .... the road either begins or ends with a man behind a curtain.

so strap on your brain straw man!... cause I want you to know when you get a ruby slipper in your ass!

Still nothing

I LOVE how you confirm that you cannot even give us any credible sources for your silly assertions, JJames.

We are not surprised. It\\\'s the nature of your 9/11 Denial.

\\\"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the \\\"evidence\\\" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.\\\"

- Michael Shermer, \\\"Fahrenheit 2777, 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories\\\"

Still nothing

I LOVE how you confirm that you cannot even give us any credible sources for your silly assertions, JJames.

We are not surprised. It\\\\\\\'s the nature of your 9/11 Denial.

\\\"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the \\\\\\\"evidence\\\\\\\" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.\\\"

- Michael Shermer, \\\\\\\"Fahrenheit 2777, 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories\\\\\\\"


American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
a·nom·a·ly (-nm-l)
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies...(pay attention to the last syllable)

1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify:


how many steel structures have ever fallen due to fire?
How does the most heavily protected airspace in the world get penetrated?

Why are you still talking?

Why do you bother opening your mouth?

You make the most ridiculous statements, bubba JJames.

\"how many steel structures have ever fallen due to fire?\"

Well, duh, you know that is entirely irrelevant. How many times do we have to explain that to your puerile mind???

:How does the most heavily protected airspace in the world get penetrated?\"

Says exactly WHOM?

Let\'s have your source of evidence, chicken.

God, how DUMB you 9/11 deniers show yourselves to be!

Shermer is a joke. Bona

Shermer is a joke.

Bona Fide shill and propaganda artist. Illogical. Bogus.

Should've seen him on C-span. Outright LIES.

He's in there with Popular Mechanics.

Where do these people come from?

Nothing like sticking your foot in your mouth

It is amazing how much denial you are in. And how proud you are to advertise your idiocy.

Your pathetic little train

Your pathetic little train was halted on the tracks eons ago. You've got no steam (evidence) to get that engine running there JJ. Nothing is gonna get that train movin, let alone get it to choo-choo it's way up my arse.

Sorry bud. You stuck in nowhere'sville with a group of clown people and a ton of tinfoil hats and Kool-aid mix.

Silly little people you are.

It appears you enjoy the

It appears you enjoy the company of Kool-aid swilling, tinfoil hat clowns in nowheresville because you spend an inordinate amount of time here.

We silly little people accept the compliment, and thank you for your kind attention.

Are you kidding? I love

Are you kidding? I love coming here! I've never seen such ridiculousness in all my life. This place is rich and ripe with uneducated comments, over-dramatic drivel, "SAVE THE WORLD" cheerleading, completely illogical thoughts and words, false claims, non-truths, silly antics, funny and completely irrational anecdotes. Some of the funniest material ever to be posted to the internet. You can't find material like this anywhere else in the world.

I come here purely for the entertainment. It's like watching monkeys throw shit at each other. Purely hillarious.

Happy to provide your

Happy to provide your entertainment, dahlin'. I suppose we're the best friends you've got.

As your friend and site-mate, may I ask: do you also shout at the t.v., annoy patrons in movie theaters with your loud commentary, heckle musicians and comedians onstage? How's that working for you? I'm concerned that someone might take offense and take you out. It's not safe in a post-9/11 world -- people are twitchy!

Perhaps you should look into video games; they are designed to be interactive, can consume hours and hours and hours a day, and they don't require text-based analytical thinking. Or you could spread the sunshine around and make another visit to the monkey house. They've probably missed you.

Love ya!!!

No wonder!

No wonder!
He likes to watch monkies throw shit at each other!
NO wonder he believes the government's coincidence theory!
He has never expressed one fact or piece of evidence.
Just keeps calling us names!
Name calling like a preschooler!

You are such a cool and

You are such a cool and smart person, anonymous. Thanks for sharing your precious time with us crazy twoofers. Thats so nice of you.
Now, im just a bit worrried that you'll loose way too much of your time here with us losers, maybe its better if you find something else to do than speaking out for the of course absolutely untouchable and totally proven Bin Laden conspiracy theory here. Just an idea...I mean, you should find something better to do with all that smartness you got.

Well said, JJJames

I see we agree on a lot, and that's a great description of what should have happened. I'm sorry I suggested you were a Nazi. I'm still wondering why what I said the first time bothered you so much.

Popular Mechanics.

I wonder if these articles will prove to be more realistic than the Popular Mechanics one. And finally, I sure wish we could get a forum for David Ray Griffin and others to flat out debate whoever is on the other side until someone wins. Maybe C-SPAN would air it, but I know I'd certainly be interested in watching it. That seems like the only American thing to do. Two teams of six or so going at it with questions from the audience. No time limits except on individual responses. If only we lived in a world so cool. Peace.

They have already lost any

They have already lost any form of credibility with their pancake theory and forgetting the fundamental structural reality of the core columns! I am tired of their fantasy... It should be called popular fiction.

CCC-Media: Read, Watch, Think - Decide!

I skimmed the article on who WTC-7 imploded, written by

MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. physicist & engineer [and gov't shill]. He expects us to believe that WTC-7, a high-rise office building in the heart of lower Manhattan, was fully laden with all sorts of tanks & generators containing highly combustible fuel oil, diesel, gasoline, whatever; and it was all being pumped throughout the building via a serpentine of pipes, which ruptured & gushed it all over the place like an uncapped Iraqi oil well!

What a bunch of complete bullshit!!!


It would be cool if we could get the folks over at to consider the myths of 9/11 on their site. I don't know much about them, but they seem like a popular site amongst people who question things.

Snopes?! They are awful 9/11 deniers...

Have you checked out their debunking of anything 9/11 related? My favorite is the put options explanation, in which they simply quoted the 9/11 Commission report saying that the trades were made by someone with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda. That's it. Debunked. Snopes is CLASSIC disinfo Oh my god, I could go on. In fact the date on the put option debunking was one day after I brought the issue up on Harvard's agent directed "peace and justice" list. The fact that one of the main shills on the list and in the group had previously brought up Snopes made me quite suspicious.

Just sayin'...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Good to Know.

That is good to know Truther. I have never really used Snopes myself. Seems like using one source for anything is kind of suspect anyway. Snopes shouldn't have any more authority than a good search on Google can provide. Thanks for the confirmation anyway. We need to blow this mutha fucka up. I just wrote Jim Webb to ask him to channel some of his anger into investigating the anomalies of 9/11. (emphasis on LIES) Peace.

Show "You always are" by Anonymous (not verified)

Shouldn't you be home reading Marx

on capital accumulation, falling profits, and inter-imperial competition? That's where Cockburn thinks you should be, with a Trotskyite group.

You found a huge hole. It's

You found a huge hole. It's as if these tanks didn't have any safety equipment on them whatsoever. WTC 7 was in the middle of NYC and around many other office buildings. There had to be a safety system that would detect a sudden loss of pressure, a sure sign of a pipe breach, and shut down the pumps. Lack of such a safety system would constitute grossly negligent engineering.

Steve B, I sincerely doubt there were any such tanks &

generators of dangerous combustibles inside WTC-7.


NIST could do a simple experiment..... take on of the columns from the WTC complex..... put a dramaticly unbalanced load upon it.... apply a constant supply of oxygen and kerosene or diesel fuel.... and light this column up from all four sides.... and see what happens....

Even though there wasnt a constant supply of oxygen or jet fuel.... I'd still like to see what happens.... what do you think this experiment would cost? $20 million or so?

They're called excess flow

They're called excess flow valves which close in case the volumetric flow rate of gas/liquid exceeds a treshold. This kind of safety mechanism must have been in place, but as the article describes the estimated flow rate may have been as low as 27 gpm (max 75gpm) it wouldn't have triggered the valves. What I consider absurd is that he says the was no utility power to signal a "need" from the day tanks, meaning that the SBB's system to fill the day tanks relied solely on the pressure and as pipeline was breached it pumped it's fuel to the fire.

For what were the generators then generating power for? why wasn't this "utility power" (to signal the "need") drawn from the SBB's system as it was responsible for filling up the day tanks? Why didn't the activation of fire suppression system in floors with day tanks lead to a fuel cut?

So we should believe SSB's engineers totally overlooked the possibility of their fuel system feeding a fire instead of an empty day tank... logic : Fire eating away our generators is totally OK as long as we have power...

So if Garcia can explain why

So if Garcia can explain why building 7 collapsed, why hasn't he gone to NIST with his findings, since they can't?

I never understood...

I never understood why the cruz of "9/11 truth" relied on the tower theories. It's like the JFK enthusists who obsess over the head shot back into the left frames, while missing the big picture.

I've seen ENDLESS circular back and forth arguments on the tower issue for a couple years ad nauseum, and it goes nowhere. It's like creationism vs evolution.

Hell, there may have been explosives in the sublevels, but the top chunk really fell from stress. Who knows, but notice there's certain points the "debunkers" never even attempt to "debunk"?

I notice that this got a

I notice that this got a vote down. Given the avalanche of evidence (Fetzer, noplaners, Pop Mechanics, Counter Punch) demonstrating the weakness of focussing on the towers I can't understand why people are so set against focussing on other parts of the story that they'd try to erase this comment.

Focus on physical evidence + documentary & testimonial


Only an imbecile would believe no planes at WTC, Pop Mechanics, & Counter Punch garbage.

My point is that CD is an

My point is that CD is an easy issue to obscure behind muddy water.

You were overdue to post some nonsense, pockyrot, so I guess

I should've expected this from you.

If JFK had been shot from behind, then why did his head jerk backwards, and why were his brains/skull blown out a huge exit wound in the back???

The towers erupted & exploded & fell at near freefall speed. This could only have been accomplished with incendiaries and/or explosives. WTC-7 imploded in a classic controlled demolition!

You can't change the laws of physics for JFK nor for the WTC!!!

The point is that there is

The point is that there is other evidence besides the physical evidence that can't be tampered with or cleverly side stepped.

It's not that JFK was shot from behind, it's that focussing on the bullets didn't succeed politically.

None of our leading physical evidence has even been plausibly

refuted to my knowledge.

All the evidence...

Why not discuss ALL the evidence?
I think the towers falling at free fall speed and building 7 are just as important as the NORAD stand down, Mineta's testimony, and the PNAC documents.
There's so much to discuss sometimes I get flustered but I think it is best to mix in both the physical evidience and the actual motives together.

All I know is that I think we're all getting much more researched in our knowledge. Four years ago I know absolutely nothing of the world and politics and now I can't go a day without researching more.

I've noticed the quality of posts is very high right now.
Good work!

I agree w/ misterguy. 9/11

I agree w/ misterguy. 9/11 Truthers are pigoeon-holing the debate on the collapse theories. there is so much more we can prove w/ fact rather than relying on physical evidence we don't have access to.

The towers are what killed the people

specifically, towers 1 and 2. It is key to show how this happened. The other stuff is too easy to spin into incompetence or negligence, when we are talking about murder aforethought.

I have yet to see any valid explanation of towers 1,2, or 7.

On a separate subject, Garcia has written some interesting articles about nuclear weapons labs and government physicists. Ironically, he explains why I think he might shill for the government.

Or maybe he is like Cockburn, and thinks 9/11 questions hurt the revolution. Garcia has written, apparently sincerely, that he wants the social gains of the Cuban Revolution worldwide:

Cockburn says we should be reading Marx, not NIST.

You're FUNNY!

40 years later.......
and you're saying stuff re: JFK like:

~ "But the Media didn't believe us so we better cut out the science and rationality."

That's deep.

be more specific mr. bot I

be more specific mr. bot

I assume you mean the south tower when you say "but the top chunk really fell from stress. "

Because the top of the north tower did explode right before the overall "collapse". Take a look, the upward and outward projection of matter from that explosion is visually obvious. That particulaer explosion also threw steel beams outward a significant distance (and into other buildings!). There is other evidence too, but you've posted here long enough that you should have done your homework.

Stop confusing events, or I'll rate down your comment too :-P

The Anti-War movement has

The Anti-War movement has been in decline since shortly after September 11th and has been reluctant to look at evidence of complicity the entire time. Also I notice that Counterpunch, an online journal, hasn't been very successful leading people away from computer screens and into the streets.

Counter Punch compromised?

Cockburn, expert in criminal prosecution, should now explain why North America's the biggest crime scene since the Indian Wars was allowed to be violated with impunity rather than isolated and investigated legally, as such.

At this point the more pertinent question is whether Mr. Cockburn is just worried about a lecture tour being cancelled or is he a rich asset? A similar question could well implicate their editors.

This is more or less what I wrote them. A hundred or more emails in this vein might exercise them enough to consider their compromised position.

Sorry, I don't think so.

Doesn't matter if Cockburn is a two-faced snake blinded by twisted ideologies or if someone (literally or figuratively) put a gun to his head, no delivery of opinion coming from people without tangible influence, i.e. raw power, will change his stance, imo.

"You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word." --Al Capone

Isn't it simply illogical to assume that an idealistic appeal to integrity would have any leverage here? If Cockburn really had enough integrity or courage to dare a 180 now, he wouldn't have taken it down this path as far as he already has. The system is devised to weed out the idealistic types, therefore I wouldn't invest my hopes or energy into trying to sway those corrupted souls like him who made it to the top. At some point, they sold out on the way, and have become so deeply invested in the morass that there's no turning back. Kinda like the Mafia.

Just look at Chomsky. He's a prime example.

PS: Oh, and on topic of putting guns to journos' heads, anyone remember the case of Doug Thompson from Capitol Hill Blue? That was incredible, he always offered intelligent critical coverage of beltway politics, and then one day came out with an irrational unconditional voucher for the 9/11 fairytale, entirely out of the blue. It was surreal, almost reminiscent of the body-snatchers. Guess he didn't want to end up like his namesake. RIP Hunter Thompson.

guns and sputter

Ultimately, after entering the dock on charges of treason, those finally indicted for the 911 crimes will probably only start spitting out the names of their handlers and accomplices once they've been shown the noose - perhaps writing to Counter Punch is a waste of time, but what to do?

Here's a website with many opportunities to post 911Truth - - most "progressive" fence sitters are not hit men like Cockburn who has a long history of hit pieces - another place to message to fence sitters is at anti-war rallies - when I go I carry a sign that reads "911Truth - END WAR OF TERROR"

What to do?

Simple: Approach people who are not die-hard shills like Cockburn - which is what you do already, so more power to ya!

Christ that thing is like

Christ that thing is like 75% broad generalizations and and silly associations... that's pretty much the only ammo they've got these days, sweeping derogatory statements and crazy comparisons like "did the shop owner raise his prices to pay rent or because there's a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world?" WTF?!!!!

We need to make a top 100 list of denier lines, with classics like:

"Every single one of your facts has been debunked a gadzillion times!"
"If there was a conspiracy, a bajillion people would have been involved!"
"So who planted the bombs, bigfoot or space aliens?"
"I masturbate to pictures of little boys and dead animals!"

Cockburn and his pals give us a few ones:
"I think the problem of conspiracy nuttery has got worse."
"There are plenty of real conspiracies in America. Why make up fake ones?"
"9/11 conspiracism stems from despair and political infantilism. There's no worthwhile energy to transfer from such kookery."

Good stuff.

Show "It\'s tough" by Anonymous (not verified)

What is it we are denying?

We are not denying 9/11. Could you please explain what you mean?

I like to call it the 9/11 Inquiry Movement.

-Total Deception-

"The human experiment is endangered by private interests who have usurped the function of money creation. Modern history reflects the gradual process by which they transfer all wealth and power to themselves, destroying Western Civilization and creating a world police state."

-Counterpunching the perps!

Cockburn lies about NIST and FEMA

A true sign of the decline of the Left is when Alexander Cockburn writes a lengthy diatribe on "9/11 conspiracy theorists" and argues almost the entire thing by allusion. This is like that. This reminds me of that. And so on.

There is a lesson here for Truthers: For god's sake, let go of the Pentagon. It leads nowhere. Notice how stooges like Cockburn harp on the Pentagon theories... every single time! Even if you remain agnostic about the Pentagon -- just say, "I'm not sure right now" -- you will do better arguing with people like Cockburn.

As for Cockburn's "scientists": Sweet crap, let go of the "hollow tube" description of the towers. It's a lie! How many goddamn photos of the construction of the towers does Cockburn need to see before he understands the towers were NOT hollow tubes.

And dammit, just read the NIST and FEMA reports. Stop referring to them as if their existence alone proves the official story. What does FEMA conclude about the collapses:

"With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse each tower could not be definitively determined." – FEMA BPAT, Executive Summary, p.2

Doesn't sound very conclusive. How about NIST? NIST could NOT replicate the collapses with models:

"All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing…" – NIST, p. 143

FEMA studied WTC7. What did they find?

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

So, Alexander Cockburn, stop bloody lying about the scientific studies you say prove the skeptics are raving lunatics.

Cockburn also says a helicopter pilot knew 9 minutes before the first tower collapsed that it was going to collapse. Quoting the 9/11 Commission Report:

"Prior to 9:59, no NYPD helicopter pilot predicted that either tower would collapse" (304).

9:59 is not 9 minutes before the south tower collapsed. Cockburn is lying. In fact, the report repeats the fact that the first responders did not know the towers would collapse:

"To our knowledge, none of the chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (302).

I could go on.

Goddammit, get David Ray Griffin in a room with Cockburn, tell Griffin to let go of the Pentagon material, and have at it.

Has not refuted Pentagon

I can see letting go of the Pentagon, but why has Chuck Spinney seen pictures and films not in the public domain? The government is aware people are questioning what happened, so they should release these photos and films. Why have they not? To divert or discredit? Why is that necessary?

If I recall correctly, Chuck Spinney has done some great work on Pentagon waste, and I will assume he told Cockburn the truth as he sees it. . That doesn't mean the information he saw is authentic.

The engineers Cockburn cites on the WTC towers are wrong.

Honey Pot

The response to your Pentagon query is: honey pot.

If they have videos of 77 hitting the Pentagon -- and I suspect, whether or not it happened, they do -- then they will release them only if necessary, and by "necessary" I mean, in order to discredit 9/11 Truth.

But, please, let's not begin a thread about the Pentagon. My original point was simply: Take notice, everyone (Dylan Avery, are you there?), how critics ALWAYS go for the Pentagon material first. I'm not saying the "No Boeing" people are necessarily wrong, just that arguments over the Pentagon go nowhere, and often serve to discredit us.

I have thought the same

I have thought the same thing, it would be the equivalent of nuke of the 911 movement and a massive undermining tool.

I still find it incredible tho, due to the lack of any reakage on the immediate live reporting tho. But if it is true it only highlights the importance of re-enforcing the many other aspects which contradict the official story, like WTC 7 and flight 93 and the massive improbable combined coincidences of a single day!

CCC-Media: Read, Watch, Think - Decide!

Yes, I can see that

Like I said, I'm not interested in the Pentagon, and like you said, it may be a "honey pot." But that's the point I was trying to make -- why would the USG want to do that, if not to cover up something.

Something exploded at the Pentagon, and it sure wasn’t AA-77!

- How could flunky Hani Hanjour have flown all the way from Ohio/Kentucky, and why/how could he have made those incredible acrobatics to hit the tiny, renovated section?

- How did AA-77 fly all around the Eastern U.S., well after the towers were struck, without being intercepted or even observed/photographed by NORAD/Air Force?

- Why won’t the gov’t release any clear video of what struck the Pentagon, more than 5 years later?

- How did they obtain DNA (delicate organic material) for 63 or 64 passengers when the seats, luggage, and most all of the airplane were vaporized in a fireball @ 530 mph?

- What were Cheney & the “young man” demonstrating in front of Minetta?

Focus on Mineta

"- What were Cheney & the “young man” demonstrating in front of Minetta?"

Exactly. Forget physical evidence, which can be manipulated, or guesswork about Hanjour's piloting. The smoking gun is Mineta's testimony, and it requires that something, probably a plane, approached the Pentagon and was allowed to hit.

The other questions you raise might have explosive answers, but unfortunately they can be obscured by manipulated evidence or dismissed with conjecture. But the Mineta testimony is on record, and it's very damaging. At the very least, it puts Cheney in the bunker about 40 minutes earlier than the Commission Report. Why the discrepancy?

Think about the lies that emerge from this single lie about Cheney not reaching the bunker until 9:58. It is one of many pieces of evidence that disrupt the military's timeline, which is an obvious lie. See Griffin's article on the NORAD tapes.

Like Griffin says (quoted by Cockburn, no less), the most incriminating evidence is in the government's own story.

simuvac, are you nuts or just disinfo?

"Forget the Pentagon"? I'll forget you long before I ever forget the Pentagon! Furthermore the physical evidence is on record too!!!

Let me expand upon the Minetta testimony: They could've simply been performing a ruse in front of the old guy. Just because they're saying something is 50 miles out, 30 miles out, doesn't mean something really was! A bomb or short-range missile would've done the trick at the Pentagon too.

If Cheney is ever made to testify to any of this 7 or 8 years later, he's just going to say he doesn’t remember anything.

Finally, stop making asinine statements like, "forget the physical evidence." okay?

As a lawyer with some experience

in evidence that sounds damning but does not work out in court, when the witness is "I don't recall"ing and no matter how ridiculous it sounds that's all you get, I have to say that my fellow Anonymous is exactly right. And so much of this stuff could be spun in many different ways -- incompetence, negligence, even a sting operation gone bad. And these witnesses would be a hell of a lot smarter than mine, with much more backing. Could a better lawyer crack them? Perhaps, but no guarantee.

The transfer to Atta of $100,000 by a Pakistani general, for example. Did it happen? The source is only Indian intelligence, who might be trying to turn the U.S. against their Pakistani enemy. Or even if proved, maybe they would say it was a sting operation gone bad -- isn't that how the 1993 WTC bombing happened with involvement of an FBI informant?

The physical evidence is key.


"Incredible acrobatics"? What, was he doing barrel rolls or something?

As for how he could get there, they have this thing known as GPS. You can even order them on Look it up.

So you can murder pilots & crew with boxcutters, and then fly

a commercial airliner hundreds of miles with your GPS purchased on Amazon? I don't think so.

(Does Amazon also sell a device to keep NORAD from pestering hijackers 45 minutes after WTC is slammed by other hijackers?)

Show "You are correct! Because" by Eric Blair (not verified)

That is such pablum

No one is saying Arabs can't fly planes or do anything else. What a tired argument.

As you say EB, "how he could get there" is one thing...

... hitting the mark is quite another.

It's NOT about the "extremes" of flight dynamics...

... and most pilots do not in fact actually refer to the maneuvering that day as "aerobatic". What more and more pilots ARE actually noticing (when taking a clear-headed look into the events) is the precision of the flights (even within the framing of "senseless wildness" and "erratic" flight paths).

The aircraft were NOT "pushed" to their aerodynamic limits. Nowhere have I seen in the FDR data, examples of sustained high speed Gs risking power-on stalls, inverted flight, loops nor rolls (which define true aerobatic flight).... What I, and many other pilots are now taking note of (after dropping the scales of Main Stream Media), is the final seconds of fast-action precision needed to reach the points of impact.

Not impossible for a cruse missile, a pilot in a fighter jet, nor a half ton Pitts.... but rather un-human like for a sluggishly responding craft such as those eluded to in the Official [make-believe] Narrative about kamikaze hijackers with no real air-show performances under their belt.

Some sort of computer enhancement of the flight control surfaces (such as a destination programed Auto-Pilot) makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Don't ya think?

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Erin, not only did those patsies not have "air-show experience"

strong evidence indicates that they couldn't handle Cessnas.

Eric Blair, very disengenous post by you

You know the acrobatics that flunky Hani Hanjour is alleged to have done! Incredible manuver to hit the tiny, renovated wedge of the Pentagon. Flying several feet above the ground! Making the huge airliner disappear into the first floor & basement!

Is this testimony credible ?

"there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon -- they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon's heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows. I knew two people who were on the plane. One was ID'd by dental remains found in the Pentagon."

M. Spiney tell us the driver of the van actually SAW the faces of the passengers in the AA77 jetliner ??? Flying at a speed of at least 250 mph (certainly a lot more) ... if you want to recognize the face of people, you should be very close. I think cannot even recognize someone driving his car at a low speed from a distance of 100 meters ? Can we find a photographic expert telling us that this testimony is FANTASY.

Definitely fantasy

and interestingly one that I've heard multiple times already, always from pretty obvious shills. And all of them referred verbatim to someone telling them about "the terrified faces of the passengers in the windows" - probably a line with extra cheese from some infowar how-to. They just love to invoke emotions, as invoking reason is a big no no.

We've been told the plane went at maximum speed. Don't quote me on this, but at sealevel that's probably around 180 m/s. To recognize faces, I'd say you should be no more than 30m away, being generous with the angular field, let's say 90°, that yields 1/3 of a second in which to observe, all the while the plane itself is traversing 60m within a 90° field before you (while your eyes possibly trail it). Of course these parameters can be argued and constitute just basic guesswork, but I think it's guesswork pretty favorable for the fairytale. And still I say: no way can you recognize facial expressions under those circumstances, and that's not even mentioning reflective windows and other difficulties.

Combine that with the noticeably high percentage of acquaintances of shills sharing this experience and leave the rest to your common sense.

I'll never let go of the Pentagon

AA-77 did not strike the Pentagon. The "official story" of how AA-77 struck the Pentagon is preposterous!


Michael Neumann, a philosopher, and CounterPunch contributor, at the University of Trent, in Ontario, remarked in a note to me:
"I think the problem of conspiracy nuttery has got worse, and is part of a general trend. There really were serious questions about the Kennedy assassination, an unusual number of them, and it wasn't too crazy to come to the wrong conclusion. There wasn't a single serious question about 9-11. But this is the age of angels, creationism, corpses all over Kosovo, Arabs suspiciously speaking Arabic, Satanic child abuse, nucular Eyraquees, and channeling. The main engine of the 9-11 conspiracy cult is nothing political; it's the death of any conception of evidence.

This is crazy -- Neumann cites examples of government lies about Kosovo and Iraq as conspiracy theories, when they are simply propaganda. How does this disprove that the government is lying about 9/11? The death of evidence is the result of taking whatever the government says as truth that must be refuted, rather than an assertion that must be proved. And what is Cockburn's conception of evidence, when he takes the highly questionable Osama tape as an admission?

would not be reading Marx's theories of capital accumulation if I wasn't working on 9/11, and I have protested the war on the streets and Internet. And I could care less about Bilderberger and the moon landings. I knew Cockburn was pompous, but did not know he was so stupid.

A letter to JoAnn

A letter to JoAnn Wypijewski:

What would you have told Italian dissidents in the 70s and 80s if they’d dared to claim that Italian intelligence was supporting the neofascist terrorist bombings from 1969-1980 starting with Piazza Fontana bombing?

Is the prospect of a US government willing to kill its own citizens with bombs somehow more disempowering than a government willing to kill the species by failing to address Global Warming?

How do you account for the evidence of foreknowledge in light of the stated objections of the PNAC?

Finally, could you explain the difference between your conviction that the US was in no way complicit in the attacks and your typical 9/11 conspiracy theorists conviction that the US made every aspect of the event happen on purpose?

Objectives, not objections

I believe you meant to write: stated objectives of the PNAC--not stated objections. The PNAC is infamous for having no objections at all to the prospect of a new Pearl Harbor.

You're quite right. I meant

You're quite right. I meant objectives.

Manny - Where's your proof? Ours is in the video tapes.

Manny, Manny, Manny. How much did they pay you to prostitute your degrees? Perhaps your degrees don't even exist. Who knows? I do know that your reports are pure conjecture and contain virtually no sustainable facts, truths or provable hypthoses. Where is your proof? Ours is in the video tapes. Ours is in the testimony.

Manny - You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Age of Irrationality Indeed

Age of denial, ignorance and

Age of denial, ignorance and cowardice.

CCC-Media: Read, Watch, Think - Decide!

Garcia is a liar, too

Here's how Garcia describes the WTC fires:

"The fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F) for perhaps 10 minutes. It ignited the many plastic furnishing (carpets, curtains, furniture, equipment cases, clothing, fixtures, office ceilings and partitions), paper items (paper supplies, books, pressed wood), and some structural elements (gypsum wall boards, plastic plumbing), which then continued the fire. The exposed steel beams in the impact zone heated to between 700 C to 1,000 C. Steel at 700 C has 50 per cent to 70 per cent of its strength at habitable temperatures; and steel at 1,000 C has between 10 per cent to 30 per cent."

Here's what NIST actually said:

"None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for as long as 15 minutes." – NIST, p. 180

"Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." – NIST, p. 181

"All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing…" – NIST, p. 143

~825ºC - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere

Tell me again about the 1100 C fires?

Garcia used different numbers

in his "Thermodynamics of 9/11" article. Which is it?

what does the left stand for?

"All Democrats in the U.S. Senate except for Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold voted for the original USA PATRIOT Act legislation. "

Just a general question here hoping someone can quickly perhaps in a few paragraphs explain what the left is. They don't seem to get much air time or perhaps the message is so inconsistent and varied I don't know what the hell to think. The right is transparent and ideological enough not to fool many with an IQ. But the left is confusing. Perhaps equally lost in their own rhetoric. After so many years of left politics, why do we still have a war on drugs, terrible education, classism, with globalization and big cooperations and big government and military and human rights abuse at an all time high. Clearly because they fail to do anything. Who knows... in the minds of most it's associated with being no fun. Reading a few articles on wikipedia about the 'left' and Democrats didn't help flesh it out anymore for me and sort of confirmed that no one really knows what to expect from them. Since I don't think our government functions anymore for the people what does it matter anymore stands for?

I should probably read Howard dean's book, and then read one by Newt Gingrich. But please if someone could save me the trouble. I'd probably only hate both parties more after that.

'Debunking' and the decline of Counterpunch

>The aim of this article is to supply some
> understanding of physics

He aims--and misses!

The myths we construct to express our understanding
> of the realities we are
> immersed in are limited by the range of our
> knowledge.

Such as the myth of the Al Qaeda fighters operating out of a cave in Afghanistan, foiling--without any assistance--the INS, FBI, CIA, and NORAD, and able to pulverize to dust three steel-framed skyscrapers on two tanks of jet fuel. Except that the "we" who constructed this myth wasn't actually "us" but rather the very people who have reaped the benefits of the events.

Experience has
> shown that if the evidence allows for several
> explanations to a given problem
> then the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is
> most probably correct.
> This principle is called Occam's Razor

Agreed--for example, if an event exhibits one characteristic after another consistent with explosive demolition, and not consistent with jet fuel fires, then the explanation of explosive demolition is most probably correct. (And so I suspect William of Occam himself would have been a 9-11 truther.) And here this guy is supposedly arguing for an explanation with as few assumptions as possible, but presenting an argument full of assumptions!

> in government has been
> broken, fear of its power is vivid, and
> understanding of the physical mechanisms
> of Nature is limited.

Particularly of those "mechanisms of Nature" which strangely seem to manifest themselves on one particular day but nowhere else before or since.

> NIST addressed the sequence of events and shifting
> of loads leading up to the
> failure that allowed the upper blocks to drop; it
> did not proceed to a
> detailed simulation of the collapses to the ground.
> NIST justified this on the
> grounds that there was sufficient energy in the
> descending blocks to crush the
> lower structures, once failures had occurred.

Oh--more than sufficient energy! as those "descending blocks" managed simultaneously to pulverize themselves to dust, meaning that the lower floors were successively "crushed" by a mass of dust. (Well, y'see, that dust was just falling so darn fast and had so much energy that--I mean, if force equals mass times velocity, then a reduction in mass could be compensated for by a comparable increase in velocity, and, ummm....)

the lower structure was
> only designed to hold up
> the weight above any given floor statically, not
> dynamically. The force
> imparted by the collision of the upper block was
> beyond the limits of the lower
> structure to resist. The lower structure was
> essentially crumbled by a "hammer"
> of descending material, and the mass of this hammer
> increased during the
> course of the collapse.

Again, a "hammer" composed of dust. And again, the point is that the lower floors exhibied ZERO resistance. The "limits of the lower structure to resist" is limited indeed in the official theory--to the point of being essentially non-existent.

> The controlled demolition hypothesis for the
> collapse of the World Trade
> Center buildings is described at length in a
> Wikipedia article ("_Controlled
> demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World
> Trade Center_
> (
> Trade_Center) ,"
> The popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories (also
> outlined in a useful
> Wikipedia entry)

Naturally he finds these Wikipedia articles "useful" as such Wikipedia entries typically manifest the same patronizing, condescending, gatekeeping, establishment-buttressing biases as one finds in this article.

It is inconceivable that our demolitions expert
> would time his
> surreptitious explosions to occur HOURS after the
> aircraft impact. He couldn't possibly
> be absolutely certain that the impact fires would
> even last an hour.

How is this supposed to refute the critics of the official theory?! It's quite a rhetorical trick to imply that an adversary is conceiving the "inconceivable" when we've done no such thing. As is well known, and widely cited by 9-11 truth activists, the collapses occurred less than an hour (56 minutes) after collision in the case of the South Tower and an 1 hour and 42 minutes after collision in the case of the North Tower. Who said anything about explosions occurring "hours after the airplane impact"? They obviously didn't.

no demolitions
> expert in the world would be willing to promise his
> client that he could
> bring down a tall building with explosions
> guaranteed to be indistinguishable
> from the effects of an aircraft impact.

Maybe that's because these effects are quite distinguishable, as critics of the official theory are constantly pointing out--and I don't know of any such critic who has claimed that such a foolish promise was ever made by the demolitions experts to their clients in this case. Basically, the line of argument in the preceding passage boils down to the perverse position that the exposure of fraud somehow proves that it could not have been fraud. It maintains, in effect, that the official theory cannot be as absurd as its detractors claim it is, simply because criminals would never carry out their crimes if they were going to have to rely on absurd, implausible stories to throw the public off their track. Talk about assumptions! Haven't they ever heard anything about the special force and effectiveness of the Big Lie? And thanks to the large public capacity for denial and the steadfast willingness of corporate media and gatekeeping "alternative" media to prop up the official line without ever subjecting it to scrutiny, the price of relying on absurd stories to cover ones tracks has possibly never been lower.

Back to the matter of "aims"...

> The aim of this article that readers can
> expand their range of rationality and hence their
> political maturity.

Yeah, sure! Obviously, the purpose of this article is to reassure those readers who still buy into the official conspiracy theory that they are more rational and politically mature than those of us who reject it.

This is just another sign of how desperate they are becoming

Brothers and sisters in Truth -

Please take this fairly transparent hit piece as a very strong indication that the perps are getting very worried and let's keep doing our thing.

Let Dr. Jones, Jim Hoffman and others critique Manuel Garcia Jr's attempt to obfuscate the laws of physics, then we can rain email down on him citing their critiques and letting him know that all those involved in the ongoing coverup will end up in Leavenworth.

As we continue to increase our numbers we are going to see a greater effort to counter our progress in a variety of ways and at an ever increasing tempo. The easiest way to describe this is by quoting Gandhi:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you and then you win."

While they still try to ridicule the truth (and they will to the bitter end, negative politics is their #1 tool), they are now trying to counter the actual science with a major push on WTC 7 by creating their own science to give their shills more "credible" tools to fight us with.

We are getting to the serious fight stage right now. Fox hiring Mancow is one sign (expect more junk from him), this series in Counterpunch is another. Do not be surprised if we see some more strange "meltdowns" within the Truth movement, just keep plowing ahead educating and growing our grassroots. Our diversity is and will always be our main strength.

It is time that we increase the pressure in the media, we need to identify and focus on certain radio talk shows for concentrated action and also increase the tempo of other public activities to break into the MSM.

I will be posting more on this very soon.

Once we get a foothold in the MSM, the dynamic created by the Truth movement will be truly amazing. They will counter with a limited hangout option, like hanging NORAD and Rice, but by this time too many will know enough to not settle for an Iran/Contra style escape act.

As far as tactics go, let them play the Pentagon card all they want (they are certainly cooking up a great Flight 77 video to splash the MSM with when they really need it), and stick to WTC 7, the Towers, Flight 93, Mineta, NORAD's failure, PNAC, William Rodriguez, etc. This is like a boxing match, keep switching it up on them, don't buy their feints and remember we have truth and physics for our unbeatable one-two punches.

I would like to second the suggestion of a previous poster that we need to frame the opposition as the irrational conspiracy nuts as they are increasingly left with only the most ridiculous arguments to support the OCT.

We really do need to start coordinating our activities on a regional/national level to take this to the next level. More on this soon, too.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize, brothers and sisters.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


great post

did garcia have access to the evidence?

It would seem from Garcia's explanation of the collapse, that he was able to pick through the rubble and examine the evidence left behind. How else could he explain in great "detail" how these structures failed.

What a load of bollocks. Pure hypotheses.

Keep going evreryone, the quote from Ghandi is a great one...

I just wish there was more info on 7/7 for us to get our teeth into in the UK.

I hope Alexander Cock burn

now realizes it's war.

Seriously wow what great journalism the NIST report to explain the "science" behind WTC 1 and 2 and diesel fuel fires to explain the collapse of Building 7. I've never heard that before. I was actually excited for a second I thought I might hear some new far-fetched theory for how the towers collapsed. Instead it's just a re-hash, and a lazy one at that. My favorite part was when he claimed that the 12000 gallons of diesel had the same energy as 330 kilos of dynamite or whatever he said I cant bare to read it again. Ya, the same heat energy as dynamite, but none of the explosive power. What a brilliant scientific mind. I'm not even a scientist and I understand the difference.

No mention of concrete pulverization, heat currents of dust and debris in Manhattan, the 99 day underground fire, the rapid speed of the collapses. He actually claimed we were advocating a pancake collapse. Way to do your research Alex. The only decline you have documented here is your own.

Alex Cockburn Loves Logical Fallicies

Man Alex Cockburn is a lunatic. You would think after having his ass handed to him by Michael Berger he would come to his senses. I couldn't even read this whole article it was so rife with logical fallacies (straw men, begging the question, faulty use of authority, ad hominems, non sequiturs, etc.). I like how he claims his friend saw pictures of the pentagon being hit by a 747 and we should just take his word for it. And how he claims the twin towers "pancaked" because they were poorly built by corrupt New York politicians. For all of Garcia's citing of the NIST reports you think Alex and Manuel would realize the NIST is no longer claiming the twin towers pancaked. And why does Alex think a government scientist who makes weapons is someone people would find credible? Alex has really gone of the deep end sticking to his defense of the 9/11 Commission Report. His whole tirad is quite estonishing. Alex probably doesn't believe governments practice false flag terrorism whatsoever. I think Alex just needs a girlfriend. Finding a girlfriend must be hard when your bat shit crazy though.

"3. To ensure collapse of a

"3. To ensure collapse of a major building requires very sizable demolition charges, charges that are large enough to do a lot more than emit the "puffs of smoke" cited as evidence for the explosives hypothesis. I've seen both live and filmed explosive building demolitions. Each explosion is accompanied by a very visible shower of heavy rubble and a dense cloud of smoke and dust. Just that fact alone makes the explosives hypothesis untenable; no demolitions expert in the world would be willing to promise his client that he could bring down a tall building with explosions guaranteed to be indistinguishable from the effects of an aircraft impact."


He is obviously not familair with van Romero's testimony on 9/11 when he asserted that the buidlings fell far to methodical to have been the result of a plne impcat and it would only require a few charges placed in vital points of the buidlings structure, he originally believed it had to have been explosives that bought the buidlings down.

Is this guy actually saying that no debris or "dense clouds of smoke" were present on 9/11 at the wtc site ? mmm ok i'll have whatever he is smoking.

This is a very weak hit peice, never has the name COCKburn suited someone so much.

Cut him some slack

If you wanted to graduate Propaganda College summa cum laude, you wouldn't have time for some basic research on explosives, either.

Which would be sad, of course, because the concept of linear shaped charges is somewhat fascinating.

He is also not familiar with

He is also not familiar with the iron workers in "Metal of Honor," who said they never expected the towers to collapse, and that the way they collapsed was better than what most demolition companies could accomplish. And those are the guys who built the friggin towers.


"To ensure collapse of a major building requires very sizable demolition charges,"

That's why it wouldn't t collapse like a house of cards once "global intiation ensues"!

I agree, Anders. What a joke.

Long-term Sleeper? Closeted Intelligence Officer?

Father was a "communist" - (as was William Kristol's...guess children of the opposition are prime targets for recruitment? Or perhaps "communism" was infiltrated to start?)

Supposed to get a girlfriend?

Well, I always assumed Cockburn's sexual orientation was gay, but it turns out he self-identifies as straight.

His girlfriend (-ex), at one time (cannot easily find any on-line references to others), is identified as"Lally Weymouth" who is the daughter of the Grahms - notorious government assets - owners of the Washington Post. Pivotal in covering up the JFK murder. They were an item in the 70's, before Weymouth "became conservative".

Weymouth is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations: the group about which our local 9/11 Truth group has always had suspicion regarding 9/11.

Frank Morales, I remember, recently discovered a direct link. Names matching with names.

Will have to get the details refreshed.

Members of our 9/11 group recently picketed CFR offices in NYC. As did Alex Jones when he was in town. We believe this group is closer to the real perps of 9/11 than Bush or Cheney.

Scroll down the link above to check out the video. You might have to understand the some background of the CFR to appreciate it.

According to Luke:"People have to understand a 90 year old man with a pace maker and a Texas idiot who almost died from eating a pretzel are not in charge and masterminds of 9-11."

The book "Debunking 9-11

The book "Debunking 9-11 Myths" claims that the hijackers purchased GPS units and put in the coordinates of their targets. But, the book was thin on detail. Didn't say how they knew this, didn't quote store personell, didn't talk about recepts, etc. The book said Atta MAY have been at the WTC on 9-10, taking a final reading. Didn't, once again, have any support for that statement. Where the book does provide support material, it is usually the 9-11 Commision Report that is quoted. Which is very circular.

hollow tubes?

I can't believe this section in Alexander Cockburn's piece: "The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow (...) the relatively thin skin of the hollow tube must be braced at intervals to prevent local buckling of the skin under various possible loads, otherwise the tube itself can go out of shape and lose its strength." (2nd paragraph below). Nuts!

Herman Soifer, a retired structural engineer, summarize the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly, in a letter to me, remarking that since he had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction he was able to explain the collapses to his wife a few hours after the buildings went down.

"The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow. Tubes can be very efficient structures, strong and economical. The Trade Center tubes effectively resisted vertical loads, wind loads and vibrations and could probably have done very well against earthquakes. However, the relatively thin skin of the hollow tube must be braced at intervals to prevent local buckling of the skin under various possible loads, otherwise the tube itself can go out of shape and lose its strength.

"For their interior bracing, the thin-walled tubes of the Trade Center towers depended primarily on the interior floors being tied to the outer wall shells. These floor beam structures were basically open web joists, adequate for the floor loads normally to be expected. These joist ends rested on steel angle clips attached to the outer walls.

"As the floors at the level of airplane impact caught fire, the open web joists, which could not be expected to resist such fires, softened under the heat, sagged and pulled away from their attachments to the walls. Their weight and the loads they were carrying, caused them to drop onto the next lower floor, which was then carrying double loads also becoming exposed to the heat. Then that floor collapsed, and so it went. But as the floors dropped, they no longer served as bracing for the thin-walled main tubes.

"This loss of bracing permitted the walls to buckle outward in successive sections and thus the house of cards effect.

"There was no other major bracing as would be encountered in a more conventional type of structure, or as might have been introduced in the design if one feared the potential loss of the floors. There were no stiff horizontal trusses in the perimeter to act as bracing ribs every few floors. There was no system of vertical trusses to provide any integrity, not was there anything that could be considered a frame or "skeleton" of columns and attached girders to keep the tube intact."

Towers were made of Milk Chocolate

Jesus people, the towers were made by Hershey Corporation back when Chocolate buildings were the rage:

Check out my short but telling presentation of just how thin the debunker's arguments are at:

Yes I advertise and have made 3.25 in the past two months.



That is bizarre

You would think Cockburn would want to find someone credible. What an odd article.

Counterpunch behaves schizophrenically on the subject of 9/11

You can search Counterpunch's archives and find several mentions of US complicity in 9/11 by its writers. Paul Craig Roberts has written several himself.

There's even a positive review of "The New Pearl Harbor" on the site.

It's like they are of two minds: on the outside, their official posture is hostility toward the suggestion of complicity. But underneath, they seem to realize it's entirely plausible. Just bizarre.

1 thing is for certain

If we the people do not TAKE BACK our Mainstream Media and start forcing them to do their damn job, invistigate and tell the truth then we will never get much further than we are right now.

We already have WAY more than critical mass but unless people see it on that freaking tube then it doesn't matter at all.

Right now our main push has got to be TACK BACK our MSM, enough is enough.

Oh No...

Have we been "debunked" again?

Did they cover this? How about this?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Those are limited hang-out stories

Don't you understand Jon?

Those stories are distractions.

There's a farting elephant in the next room and those stories are for polite conversation around the table.

It's called "Fake Opposition."

Those are two...

Of the MANY pieces to the puzzle. If you think legitimate pieces to the puzzle are "distractions", then what are you doing here?

Incidentally, the purpose of posting those stories was to show how hypocritical counterpunch is.

I think hit the nail on the head with their editorial.

So the 'holiday season' has brought us a rehash of the recent attack on 9/11 skepticism from the schizophrenic

Apparently at Counterpunch, if you are a commentator with a fair amount of intellectual/political capital, you can write articles that suggest the 9/11 attacks were helped by US complicity. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair will be happy to publish it on the front page (see any number of Paul Craig Roberts' articles posted there, for instance).

To the rest of us ordinary people, Cockburn offers the back of his hand at the suggestion of complicity (see 'Nutty conspiracy theorists', all. Yet his own diatribe contains the crucial admission which certifies the importance of 9/11 skepticism. More on that in a subsequent post.

For now, here are two 'nutty' pieces from Peter Dale Scott and Peter Lance on the amazing career of terrorist and US government employee, Ali Mohamed.

What Lance's work shows, undeniably and foremost, is that the 9/11 attacks were the entirely foreseeable consequences of US covert politics as usual. It is the policy of US intelligence to employ literally anyone, be they murderers of heads of state, terrorist trainers or planners of a plot to blow up the World Trade Center, if it is determined that they are useful as 'strategic assets'. Not 'capture and bring to justice', but 'employ and protect from prosecution'. That's not 'blowback', it's complicity in terror before and after the fact.

It also reminds us that due to the longstanding and plentiful ties US intelligence has to terrorists at any given moment in time, those terrorists are always available to be used or framed should US intelligence ever see fit to use or frame them. For anything. And those of us on the outside - meaning virtually everybody, including most others within the intelligence apparatus and certainly including those in Congress who supposedly have 'oversight' as well as the public - can never know with a sufficient degree of confidence that they've gotten the full story on a deeply covert operation. Remember, even the much-celebrated 'independent, nonpartisan and thorough' 9/11 Commission was denied direct access to Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and the other supposed masterminds of the plot. The Commissioners were not permitted to ask direct questions of the accused. Instead, they (laughably) were told to submit their questions which the CIA promised they would hand deliver and submit the answers to the Commissioners. How helpful! And how unsatisfactory. And how standard.

Back to the current case. If Lance and Scott are correct, Ali Mohamed is guilty of conspiring to kill Anwar Sadat and Meir Kahane, and blow up the WTC in 1993. He lived in Osama Bin Laden's home, declared his 'love' for him publicly to Patrick Fitzgerald before the 1993 WTC bombing, trained Al Qaeda terrorists, and no doubt figured in a host of other capital crimes. So who was he ultimately working for during the different phases of his career as a terrorist murderer? Since the final sources are the terrorists themselves and the covert intelligence types who employed them and who make a career of telling lies, how on earth can you know what to believe?

That's the world of 'intelligence'. You can't reliably find the bottom of it from the outside. How again does this benefit the people?

We hope readers will focus more on facts, and less on the speculative conclusions drawn by Lance. It's baffling how he can claim that Mohamed 'bamboozled' or 'snookered' his handlers right after Lance claims Mohamed told Fitzgerald he loved Bin Laden and could make an 'operation' happen in an instant. The indisputable facts are that Mohamed was permitted the space by his US sponsors to train terrorists and hatch plots, for whatever reason. That's the important thing, not Lance's speculation on how he was able to outsmart his handlers. Better that we leave open the question of just how Mohamed was able to bring this off, as Scott does, in concluding that:

"It's time to confront the reality that these (US intelligence) agencies themselves, and their own sponsorship and protection of terrorist activities, have aggravated the greatest threats to our national security."

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


Point well taken Jon.

There are many layers to this. It was devised that way.

What you are talking about above is the "story line," which was also planted. Yes, it also doesn't make sense. Just like the Oswald "story line" / legend did not make sense either, if you scratched the surface/ look too closely.

The problem is that people are "taught" i.e. "trained" to see things a certain way ans have certain opinions. So, around this issue, people are not really thinking, as we take the word to normally mean.

The problem is not in the lack of factsevidence IMO, it's in the ability of people, who are mentally conditioned, to recognize them.

Looks who is talking

Jon Gold - the best disinfo agent the government has.


I try to earn the $10,000 a week they send me.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

this is the explanation you've been afraid of

it is no more anti-semetic to speak out against the israeli gov't than it is anti-american to speak out against the us gov't. this man has done his research and frankly, makes a lot of you arguing about collapsing towers look quite silly.

ZOG, 911 and you!

Counterpunch show how absolutely silly they are by publishing all of these physics equations at their website. CP normally has many worthwhile articles of social value, as I'm sure many people would agree. I find them a tad Zionist lite at times but CP did publish the book, The Politics of Anti Semitism, and have published many great articles critiquing Zionism. Why do I mention this, because clearly, what most of the people in the 911 truth movement do not get, is that 911 was not an inside job but a Zionist job! Visit Eric Hufschmid's website to learn more!
And, have a nice day!

Btw, here is an excellent book people should read that explains US militarism, not an unrelated topic to 911!

"Beware of the dark side, of anger, fear and aggression." - Yoda the wise one

Grant Smith's new book: Deadly Dogma, about the "Neocons," is a wonderful, eye opening, easy to read primer for the uninitiated or the more astute student of the Neocons/Israel Lobby issue. From the first chapter we learn that Wolfowitz (et al.) perfected his techniques for falsifying data (ala Weapons of Mass Destruction) during the 1970's in order to increase US military spending and prolong the Cold War (nice contribution to the progress of civilization). Of course, though Wolfowitz "contrived to convince" congress to expand the budget, does not exculpate the willing non Jewish participates in this outlandish game and monumental waste of resources, but it does explain a lot (by the way, Jimmy Carter would nave none of this nonsense, and out the door he went after one term). Smith's chapter on the way the Neocons need extravagant military budgets in order to maintain their wealth, power and control over their colony the USA is very enlightening. Noam Chomsky wrote a book called Toward a New Cold War in the early 1980s, it is somewhere in the back of my closet but I'd bet a million bucks he does not pursue the Zionist angle in regards to what prolonged the Cold War. Thus, talk of "US militarism" is imprecise unless we also talk of Zionist manipulation of US military policy. The empire strikes backward!

The only thing I disagree with Smith on is 9/11, Smith presents the issue as if "the Arabs dunnit" without presenting any proof that they did (nor has the FBI for that matter). I agree with Eric Hufschmid that 911 was not an "inside job" but that it was "a Zionist job!"

Dick Cheney, not Israel is to blame

Dick Cheney exercises all the power of the Presidency. That has never happened. Ever.”
Bruce Fein

Dick Cheney was given the power to authorize 9/11 war games, which moved air defenses out of the area of attack.

Dick Cheney created the (secret and illegal) energy taskforce which planned and made oil maps within Iraq and Afghanistan before 9/11 took place.

Dick Cheney was the one who ordered the NORAD stand-down

Dick Cheney (and Bush) were the ones trying to block a 9/11 investigation

Dick Cheney said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda.

Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Oil Company Halliburton, leaving to become the Vice president and then give billions of dollars of no bid contracts to Halliburton for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dick Cheney signed the PNAC document calling for an aggressive US foreign policy which required a “pearl harbor” like event to get American support for their agenda.

If anyone could be held accountable for the events of 9/11, it wouldn’t be Osama Bin Laden, it wouldn't be Israel, it would be Dick Cheney.

For all intents and purposes, Bush is not the president—Dick Cheney is. Bush is a mere puppet along for the ride.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Here we go again

Sorry, I don't buy it. I agree that Arabs should not be blamed without proof. Nor should Israelis be blamed without proof. Personally, I think it is more likely to have been done at the behest of patrician WASPs, but I guess I'm being a hypocrite, as I have no proof. Let's see where the proof leads, whether to Arabs, WASPs, Pakistanis, Israelis, others, or some combination thereof.

I agree

I agree with "Here we go again" in so far as there needs to be more proof. But what is clear about the 911 truth movement, and I agree with Eric Hufschmid about the 911 truth movment in the same way that I agree with the most authoritative critic of the US Zionist controlled Left, Jeff Blankfort, is that both of these "movements" 911 truth and the American Left, are shying away from pointing to Israel, the diaspora Jews (only 48 percent of Jews voted for Carter, the only president to really stand up to Izzy, and Jews normally overwhelmingly vote Democrap), the Israel Lobby, the Neo Cons (regarding a previous commentor who says Cheney did it) and so on. Cheney is a greedy corrupt power monger goyim who is getting his cut but an errand boy of ZOG, the Zionist Media (Mortimer Zuckerman) and so on. Get it?!?!?!!?

Have a nice day beast gentile America.

As Michael Ledeen of the AEI said, the Middle East deserves to be turned into a cauldron, and he, Mr Zoggie, got his wish.

Debunker Baiting

Classic 9/11 baiting by debunkers. As with the rest of the debunker crowd, CP tries to draw us into a fruitless debate over the physical evidence, while ignoring the mountain of powerful evidence for US complicity. Try getting these people into debate about the war games, the money trail, drugs & oil, the "homeland security" gravy train, insider trading, or any one of many other subjects that all point in the same direction. They avoid these topics like the plague, claiming they are "not evidence."

Don't take the bait! Let them rant on about the WTC, but keep hammering them with these other questions.

My letter to Counterpunch

I don't see conspiracies that don't exist. I worked with metal my whole working career. I worked next to an aneeling oven whose express job was heating up steel to temperatures that would soften or aneal it. You will never convince me that in less than one hour a kerosene driven fire would bring those buildings down. That article is total bullshit. The only thing this article convinces me of is that Cockburn is a traitor.
If you are sincere in your convictions about this event you wouldn't be trying to shove it under the rug. We all know that the people in the 9/11 investigation were compromised before the start.
I will only be satisfied after every aspect of the whole affair comes under a microscope and is investigated till there can no longer be a shred of doubt about the results.

I didn't hear a peep...

about video footage of molten steel pouring from the side of tower 2. It really irritates me that these "debunking" articles don't cover all of the relevant evidence. Although I don't feel that this in itself constitutes yet another conspiracy--namely, that we're dealing with shills--I think it does shed light on the fact that these people have at least some sort of vested interest in maintaining the official conspiracy theory. They can't believe that we could do it. Not we, really, but they. It reminds me of arguments I've had with devout theists. They treat the argument as some sort of affront to their worldview as opposed to a series of genuine questions aimed at finding the truth through the bullshit. Garcia refuses to even use the word "molten" to refer to the rubble dredged from the basement levels. It's a pathetic excuse for an argument piece. The guy is even a weapons scientist...clearly a nationalist on some level.

Know what this reminds me of?

"Let us pretend that the framework of the building is made of "ironcrete," a fictitious mixture of 72% iron and 28% concrete. This framework takes up 5.4% of the volume of the building, the other 94.6% being air. We assume that everything else in the building is combustible or an inert material, and the combined mass and volume of these are insignificant compared to the mass and volume of ironcrete. I arrived at these numbers by estimating volumes and cross-sectional areas of metal and concrete in walls and floors in the WTC Towers."

Clear disinformation tactics, but funny! It reminds me of one of my favorite ytmnd's...

LOL that made my day!

Everyone watch this!

Good job, everyone!

You ALL did a fantastic job of illustrating Cockburn\'s point of the wacko, willful ignorance, and outright stupidity of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Every time someone publicizes your stupidity, you all stumble over each other to be the FIRST to show how stupid you all REALLY are.

No wonder the 9/11 Truth Movement wants so much MSM publicity, just so you can show the real world that you really ARE as nutty and irrational as we already know you are.

Again, congratulations for illustrating Cockburn\'s points so well!

Willful Ignorance R Us

Please, stop.

Writing out of your posterior.

If you actually have a rational, smart and sane comment, feel free. Otherwise your hate betrays the clouding of your intellect.

Nice self portrait, Peggy

It reflects what we all know your 9/11Truth Movement really is: one of the most irrational, impervious to reason, hateful of critical thinking, deniers of evidence, reality, and truth, and just plain idiotic.

That\'s why you are known in the real world by your real name: the 9/11 Denial Movement. Your denial is based on hate.

And since you will not listen to reason, all we can do is laugh at your pathetic nature and expose you for what you are. Get used to it or wise up.

Have a swell day.

Fool Psyoper

It's a picture of you since everything you say is poison garbage.

Your "reason" is like poison belching out of a smokestack. You call it "reason" but you don't even know the meaning of the word.

Next time you project your own faults, I suggest you stand in front of a mirror.

My letter to Garcia Jr.


"Your conclusions are in dispute and not settled, but that's not what inspired me to write.

You conflate "conspiracy" with the demolition claim, as if the two were synonymous.

With grotesque ignorance of what happened that day, you are in no position to make that call.

Did you know that Mohamed Atta received $100,000 on the orders of the head of Pakistani intelligence (who just happened to be meeting with high level administration officials before and after the 9-11 attacks)? (Chossudovsky)

And that no mention of this appears in any investigation released to the public?

Or that Atta's "flight school" (although he already had pilots licenses from several countries) was a drug smuggling operation? A plane with 43 pounds of heroin was busted at Orlando airport, yet the pilot was not prosecuted. (Hopsicker)

Further, that in July, two months before 9-11, George W. Bush, his entire team including secret service was moved out of a high rise hotel in Genoa Italy at the G-8, because of a "KNOWN AL QAEDA PLOT TO ASSASSINATE BUSH AND OTHER WORLD LEADERS" (LA TIMES 9-27-01) by "hijacking a commercial jet and crashing it into the summit." So what was happening in that classroom in Florida?


No, you don't know shit about September 11th. And you shouldn't be pretending that you do."

B I G P. S.


People are interested! Meria Heller is sending this out on her show's mailing list. We could actually make a difference.

Please consider this carefully.

9-11 TRUTH ACTION: Burn your copy of the 9-11 Commission Report in front of Congress on January 3rd, 2007

Seize the moment with a new tea party for the new millenium.

The 9-11 Truth Movement should converge on the new business as usual 110th Congress, and bring as much media and independent video as possible. As Nancy Pelosi plays footsie with George W. Bush, the movement will burn a giant stack of 9-11 Omission Commission reports outside the building.

This is the time. This is the opportunity. If you can get to the US Capitol on January 3rd with a copy of the 9-11 Commission Report (printed off the internet, or purchased), then make a huge bonfire. Challenge the congress to see the movement. Challenge them to acknowledge the crowds. Challenge them to respond.

Please pass this to everyone in the 9-11 Truth Movement. Time is of the essence. January 3rd, 2007 is when the new Congress seizes power.

As far as I know, burning the flag is First Amendment protected speech. Therefore burning this state sponsored collection of lies should also fall under First Amendment protected speech, as well as petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

This is a NON-VIOLENT and PEACEFUL action to petition the US Congress for a redress of grievances, so they will reinvestigate September 11th, 2001. The bonfire should be done in a safe, open area and in a responsible manner with no chance of property damage or injury to anyone, preferably outside of the tight security zone directly surrounding the Capitol building.

TV and print media reporters will be there to cover the changing of the guard in Congress. Their attention is crucial.


For this protest in Washington, DC to be a success, it's going to take at least several dozen -- better several hundred -- persons to participate (a million would be nice :). Please forward the info on to your lists and friends in the region.

I realize that some don't agree with this tactic. However, think how happy you'll be if this action gets broadcast everywhere, upstages the Congress, and Congresspersons start getting asked numerous questions about the failings of the 9-11 Commission Report as a result.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at: