Some Comments to Monbiot & the Guardian

These are posted in the comments bin below Monbot's (sic) article at the Guardian;


February 6, 2007 02:33 AM

"...but it drowns the truth in an ocean of nonsense..."

and lies...and half truths and hidden truths. Could be talking about the Bush and Blair years and legacy.

WMD had no basis in fact either and hundreds of thousands have died due to an illegal war,so what's a little conspiracy theory sweeping the world among friends?
Aren't we just reaping the whirlwind of our governments' deception and manipulation?

Blair and Bush should be put on trial for war crimes,
lest some other jumped up nutters try a re-run in the future...maybe invading Iran.


There are plenty more in the comments bin, check it out;,,2006830,00.html


February 6, 2007 02:35 AM

Certainly a lot of Loose Change is, well, less than true. But for a couple of kids working on a laptop with zero budget, its fairly good. But there is more to 9/11 than simply the "Bush used it" theory.

The NIST and Commission reports are garbage. NIST 'proves' its collapse theory with a circular argument (50% of columns had to be cut for the building to fall. The building fell, therefore 50% of columns were cut) The 9/11 Commission Report spends 20 pages blaming the problems of the middle east on socialism. Pure propaganda.

The money train is discussed at length in the more grounded film 9/11 Press for Truth, made by the victim relatives. The money trail points clearly back to the Pakistani ISI. The head of the ISI had wired $100k to the hijackers in the weeks before 9/11. On the day itself, this man happened to be in Washington DC, meeting his counterparts in the CIA. When the FBI discovered this in 2002 they wanted to question the ISI. Bush killed the investigation on national security grounds.

Now, maybe there were no bombs in the twin towers and maybe a plane did hit the pentagon. But the money trail is plain as day and indisputable. And it smells of a cover up.

There is more to 9/11 than the fanciful "hijackers out of the blue" theory or the "Bush incompetence" theory. There needs to be a proper investigation.



February 6, 2007 02:53 AM

To be honest, I have many questions about what happened on that day for literally hundereds of reasons. I ignored this topic of 9/11 theories for ages, but as a friend mentioned it once in passing I decided to actually have a decent look at what these people were purporting to be wrong with the official investigation.

After doing at least 2 weeks of solid research i came to the conclusion that NIST and The Commission report were just quite simply inaccurate, and there was plenty of valid material omitted.

I think it is very easy for Monbiot to just take a huge swipe at the so called 9/11 truth movement, but the problem is that they have valid questions. Monbiot is right though when he says it is sweeping across the globe. Loose change is however a poor film, and there are plenty of other films which cover the material in a more digestable, sourced and informed way.

The most compelling evidence i have found is a collation of information by a man named paul thompson. His website is here and all of the questionable aspects of 9/11 are well laid out and all from mainstream sources.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theorist but sometimes you do need to take into account all of the evidence.



February 6, 2007 03:32 AM

Dear George,

your article loses credibility in the first sentence because of the strong language you use. Why "virus"?

A friend of mine who was in the towers and was later interviewed by a number of American TV stations was disgusted by the way the reporters wanted him to focus on how his brother found him in the crowds rather than on what he saw, and how the camera focused on survivors who could break out crying on it.

The main problem with the 9/11 response was it was dictated by emotions rather than reason and the media did their best to turn it into a Hollywood flick. Five years later we are beginning to be able to examine the evidence with cool heads.

What I don't like about the films that are out there is that they want to replace one theory with another, right now. That makes them vulnerable to being shrugged off as "conspiracy theories." The job now is to focus on assessing the facts in the official reports and on pointing out pieces of information that may (or may not) be relevant (like Silberstein's insurance deal, that W's cousin was the boss of the security firm that took over the WTC in the summer of 2001, or that WTC had one of the lowest rents in Manhattan because of the high vacancy rate).

It will take years before we can piece together how 9/11 might have happened. So I would suggest you pay attention to some of the valid objections these kids have and spend less time on the counter-theories they propose: being an outsider educated in the U.S. I would say that the emphasis in essay writing in American schools is on putting forth an argument. These "kids" live in a world dominated by apophatic discourse. Turning our public space to a more kataphatic mode would do a whole lot of good.



February 6, 2007 03:36 AM

'Loose Change' may be a covert Bush Regime peice to confuse the public.... but David Ray Griffin is the real article, his speech rings true to me. I think the sad reality will be that everyone will rue the day we find out that all the climate change tipping points were passed while the Bush Regime continues to lie about everything. These neo-cons have passed their 'used by date' and accordingly should be disposed off, same as removing stale milk from fridge. The survival of humanity may depend on it literally,and my message to the Nobel committee: Do NOT award a peace prize this year, leaving the position unfilled will speak volumes.



February 6, 2007 07:43 AM

There are a few flaws in Loose Change. Hopefully, they will be corrected in the final cut.

Regarding facts this government is able to hide:

Phenomenon Archives: The Monopoly Men

Aaron Russo's - America: Freedom to Fascism

Alex Jones - TerrorStorm - Fear & Propaganda CIA Tools of Tyranny.

Operation Northwoods - FOIA Top Secret Document for False Flag Operation on Cuba.

Pearl Harbor Attack Known by FDR (FOIA UNClassified Documents)

HBO's "Hacking Democracy"

Frontline's "The Dark Side" The Iraq War Scam

Uranium: Deja DU - The Agent Orange of Eternity

Bombs in the WTC Buildings Proves Nothing to Racist-Fascist Bigots

What is the Problem with Equality - Presumptive Equal Shared Parenting

Other facts not addressed. Almost all our fighters were transfered to Alaska for a war game. Norad had no idea what was going on because there was another 'war game' simulation of hijacked of airplanes being flown into the WTC buildings AT THE EXACT SAME TIME HIJACKED AIRPLANES WERE BEING FLOWN INTO THE THE WTC BUILDINGS. Cheney took control of NORAD months before the attack to prevent pesky military types from doing their duty and shooting down the planes. Never before in the last decade history of NORAD has plane veared so far off course without interception.

There is alot more, but I'm not wasting any more time on this article that picks and chooses it's 'facts' WHILE IGNORING SO MANY.

And don't even get me started on the scam tyranny of England on it's people in conjuction with our government's fascism on it's people.

Dei Jurum Conventus - (God's Rights (Unity)/Convention)

Ed Ward, MD, Int. Pres. WTPU;
Independent writer/Media Liaison for The Price of Liberty;



February 6, 2007 08:00 AM

I'm a big fan of yours George, but I think you've missed the point here. Many of the people following these "conspiracy theories" want nothing to do with the more outlandish alternative explanations offered for the events of 9/11, or for 7/7 for that matter; they just want answers to unanswered questions. What fuels this growing industry is the fact that we are expected to take on trust the official explanations, even when they seem scarcely credible (WTC7 for example). So much of the official versions has been presented to the public without so much as the semblance of proof, even when it should have been easy to provide the public with evidence, even days after the event (not 6 months later), like CCTV footage of the London bombers, for example. The mainstream media is so scared of the "conspiracy theorist" accusation that it has let the authorities get away with incoherent accounts backed up with precisely zero evidence whatsoever. People like the Loose Change authors are simply stepping into the gap. Their "theories" are almost certainly ridiculous and self-serving, or just plain wrong, but if journalists with better access to facts and more "authority" were to do their jobs properly, none of this would be happening.



February 6, 2007 08:02 AM

If a similar incident had happened in, lets say Soviet Russia, and the Russian people wouldn't believe Stalin or somesuch was capable of such a crime, we in the west would point to the indoctrination of their people due to the total control of the Media through the state.

The fact of the matter is that the official version of 911 is patently rubbish. Loose Change, and other films like it are much nearer to the truth than people would like to believe. It is an unsavoury truth that the US government acts with impunity and has showed it is capable of considering such a plan in the publication of the "Northwoods" documents. Is there really an earlier post that thinks Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter?

The bald fact is that 3 steel constructed skyscrapers fell at a freefall rate after inconsequential fire damage. Physics is not on George Bush's side. Time to face up to the fact that we are not living in the post war free world we have been brought up to believe in. I, and a growing number of people, don't believe that parallels with the Nazi regime are unfounded



February 6, 2007 08:03 AM

There are some interesting questions surrounding the attacks, but most of them are technical and have been answered. It is certainly odd that the towers fell so fast as if they were in free fall, but there is no doubt they pancaked from the top down. You can see it in the videos. You wouldn't think they could free-fall down the path of greatest resistance, but they did. They didn't fall into a demolished base. If they were demolished step-by-step from the top down it would not eliminate the question of how they could fall quite so fast and, incidentally, would leave us needing to explain how the entire building could have been wired that thoroughly with no-one noticing.

The Pentagon is also a bit odd - I was in Manhattan and clearly remember the first reports of a truck bomb. But I have also seen pictures of sections of aircraft on the Pentagon lawn. There my have been more to it, and it's odd that the plane hit on the side furthest from the top brass, but the plane was there.

The questions that, to my mind, indicate criminal responsibility, revolve around the apparent failure of fast-flyers to respond to four simultaneous hijackings even after planes started to hit buildings, the alleged evacuation of bin Laden dependants, and the Administration's fraudulent retrospective use of the events to justify an unrelated agenda against the non-participant Saddam and hundreds of thousands of his citizens. The one really interesting one, however, is why the author of the anthrax letters has never been charged? He can, after all, only be one of a handful of known individuals. They know the cow that the Ames strain was collected from and the machinery that was used to weaponise it. Where is the suspect?



February 6, 2007 08:39 AM

Why has no one saved samples of steel from WTC7 for further investigation? Why was so much of steel (aka evidence) destroyed before it could have been examined?

Maybe some claims made by Loose Change aren't nonsense, but worth demanding an independent investigation....



February 6, 2007 08:42 AM

There are a lot of (mostly former) military, intelligence and government officials who also question the official story, and some think it was inside job:
Are they also infected?
A lot of physicist and engineers too:
There is also a physicist who analyzed debri from the site and found confirmation that explosives were used:
I'm myself a physicist too, and man, how WTC 7 could possibly come down that straight by itself, even if damage was huge really needs to be explained...
Nevertheless, as long as there are no unbiassed thorough investigations, these are just opinions, but interesting opinions.
I don't understand George Monbiot. How can he be so convinced of his truth?



February 6, 2007 09:01 AM

Conspiracy theories like this happen in the US for several reasons: the US government consistently lies about anything and everything; the US government is ruthless and doesn't shirk from engaging in highly illegal activities; the US government has a track record of engaging in conspiracies (Iran-Contra is a rare example where the conspiracy was soundly uncovered and people went to prison, although some of the protagonists are back in power).

As for 9/11 there are many questions left unanswered by the government. Someone will answer those questions, more or less cogently.



February 6, 2007 09:12 AM

Governments can't keep projects with thousands of participants secret? I don't think so.

The Manhattan project with 100,000 participants was kept secret for 3 years.

The US has many ongoing "black" defense projects with civilian contractors that are kept secret for decades.

Even so, there are many "whistleblowers" that have indeed come out to speak what they know.

The thing you seem to be wanting is that someone would come forth and openly admit "I participated in killing 3000 people". Now how likely is that? Especially when you're being bribed and threatened to keep you mouth shut.



February 6, 2007 09:15 AM

As debunking goes George Monbiot's effort is feeble. What is interesting is that he feels the need to do it. That's a recognition that Loose Change, with all its well known flaws, is sweeping the world. I hope he returns the subject having done a more thorough investigation.



February 6, 2007 09:22 AM

".......The failure of the twin towers has been exhaustively documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Far from being impossible, the collapse turns out to have been inevitable......."

And you never read the report, did you? If you actually read the report, there is no clearcut evidence about the actual heat and tempurature. One massive flaw in their "study" was to fail to account for the effect of heat being wicked away by the steel beams. In any case they could only find several beams where the temperature approached 500C.

The study postulates a scenario that might lead to collaspe and then stops. There are not facts about how the building actually collapsed.

The study does not explain how asymetrical damage leads to a perfect symetrical collapse.

Even in the absence of conspiricy questions, there are many safety and technical questions unanswered.

But the powers that be love all this flack because it helps disguise the real unanswered questions.

Monbiot - if he would bother would see that there are many questions posed about the Twin towers and posed by qualified people.

My favourite anomoly is the passport. A fireball so hot is melts an entire aircraft and a building and the passport of a hijacker zips thorugh the building and out the other side.

Then a second "miracle" - flames spewing, people jumping, dust debris and panic and John Q Citizen ( unidentified ) rather than being mesmerized by the events above is scanning the rubble and .....voila.....finds an unmarked passport. (this is documented in the 9/11 report - try reading it)

Then hands it to the nearest cop. I guess maybe he did not notice the flames above.

Across the specturm there is a lot of chaff, but underneath there are serious unanswered questions.



February 6, 2007 09:26 AM


Your thesis would be more convincing if weren't for the hysteria. Loose Change is certainly flawed and somewhat fanciful in some of its speculation. However, if you think that "the film's greatest flaw" is that "the men who made it are still alive", you clearly haven't done enough research. There are thousands of websites and documentaries dedicated to answering the unanswered questions engulfing 9/11. What's Bush going to do? Kill 'em all?

Furthermore, using the film to exemplify the integrity of those who choose not to take the official account of 9/11 at face value is as short-sighted and misleading as using The Sun newspaper as a barometer of British political thinking. There is an awful lot more to it than Loose Change deals with. As you of all people should know.

Anyone who doubts that an American government would ever even consider carrying out an audacious false-flag terrorist campaign need only google "Operation Northwoods" or "Gulf of Tomkin". As any half decent dicatator can tell you, if you can carefully groom people into believing they are acting in the name of patriotism, you can make them do anything. You can even convince them that they will be hanged for treason, and not embraced for their courage, should they dare open their mouths. And if I were complicit in the worst terrorist atrocity in living memory, with the US governtment looking over my shoulder, I'd be inclined to keep my gob shut and follow that American dream thingy. Would you say that young Americans are patriotic and impressionable enough?

We now know that George W. Bush deceived the world shamelessly over Iraq; so is it so ridiculous to raise questions over why he and his administration were so keen to obstruct every attempt to conduct a public inquiry into his country's worst terrorist atrocity? And when they finally capitulated and trumped up an "inquiry" so blatantly castrated and manipulated that it made Hutton's look respectable, should we have just shrugged, accepted the findings and forgotten about the enormous body of evidence and witnesses that were excluded from the proceedings?

For every expert who comes out in support of the GOP's version of events (for it was they who moulded what the 9/11 Commission was ultimately able to conclude), you can find a comparable number of equally qualified experts, brave and willing enough to risk social and professional ostracism, who will offer compelling evidence to show that the official version is incomplete, contradictory and scientifically dubious.

If the unofficial conspiracy theories are so weak, there's still a lot that the Bush administration could do to kill them dead. They could release footage of an actual plane hitting the Pentagon and not just a fireball (or, like the number 30 bus in Tavistock Square, were the hundreds of CCTV cameras spread around the building out of order that day). They could release the flight data recordings from the black boxes that they are so keen to keep secret. They could explain why, in spite of at least 5 of the alleged hijackers being found alive and well and fielding interviews for the BBC, the FBI hasn't seen fit to update its list of 19 suspects. They could explain why it has since done nothing to address the safety issues pertaining to 110 story buildings collapsing so quickly.

Those who suggest that such an incompetent regime as Bush's would never be able to carry out such an attack are naive. I have worked in Saudi Arabia for the last 3 years, and as many ex-pats out here will testify, you quickly learn two indelible truths: It is rarely those with the power or authority that get either their hands or "face" dirty. And secondly, that anything being organized and executed by Saudis is doomed to failure - if it ever gets off the ground in the first place. That's why I was sent here in the first place. And very welcome I have been made to feel.

Qui bono George?



February 6, 2007 09:39 AM

This is a sad day for British Journalism and George Monbiot, whom I thought better of. As another poster has written, the controlled demolition of WTC 7 proves 9/11 was an Inside Job - it doesn't matter if all the other evidence in Loose Change 2 is presented incorrectly.

It is now long past the time where the academic community - including Noam Chomsky should step out of the intellectual straighjacket in which they constrain themselves when it comes to studying the basic factual evidence of what happened on 9/11/01.

Or should we just believe the Bush/Blair propaganda machine and forge ahead with more blood letting in the Middle East and a fear-based domestic policy which wrecklessly detains people and forces us to pay for our own identities?



February 6, 2007 09:52 AM


"Conspiracy theorists" have a tendency to "sex up" their case in order to get the point accross more easily..

A bit like when Colin Powell was mentioning the "mobile chemical factories" and "nukular" missile launchers of Sadam Hussein who at that time was apparently or conveniently considered a friend of rogue ex-insider Bin Laden the scarecrow... A real James Bond plot.

Both of these versions share a simplistic tabloid sensionalist version of events that deserve an objective assessment that is rather difficult to do various reasons;
But it creates a discussion and it challenges the norm. Is it not what you are doing for a living George? Maybe you just hate these things because they are a tabloid version of what you do and you're concerned that it could harm your credibility. I think that it is made for the masses and it encourages the masses to question and to develop a questioning mind. And this can only be good.

The last thing about "conspiracy theories"; you can laugh about the "theory" and there are some really hilarious ones about; Should I remind you UK's finest David Icke? Now space lizzards, that's funny. Some of the finest Sci-fi is just pseudo science theories. Theories and fantasies walk on very thin line that separate genius from ridiculous. They are a source of great entertainment

But conspiracies exist at every level and I'm sure you've already participated in one like each and every one of us. Organising a surprise party is conspiracy, looking for another job when you're employed is a sort of conspiracy... Conspiracies are not limited to the big things but everything. Conspiracies are about control and everyone seeks control.



February 6, 2007 09:52 AM

And anyone who trots out the 'they could never keep it a secret' routine, is just naive; and the remark about Jerry Springer is off the scale in its naivety. How many covert Government ops do you know about? What did the CIA do last year with their $30 billion budget? What are the latest military black technology projects currently under development? What happens at the NSA (National Security Agency ) at Fort Meade? Not marked on the map, 38,000 people all sworn to a lifetime's secrecy? What do they do there? You have no idea. Between the CIA, the NSA and the NRO they get through about $80 billion a year on classified projects that you haven't the faintest idea about. How can anyone claim they can't keep a secret? You really think the people who worked on the Stealth bomber project are the same as those idiots who prance around on the Jerry Springer Show? If you are going to attack the 9/11 Truth movement at least get real.



February 6, 2007 09:54 AM

Another question to George:
If - after your logic - the government should have killed the makers of Loose Change, then *when* exactly, do you think, should they have done it?

More speicifically, before or after the film became popular on the Internet?

If they should have done it beforehand, then how could they have known beforehand amongst the many other documenations on 9/11 that this one would become so popular? Or should they have killed every single one of the thousands 9/11 conspiracy theory film-makers?

If they should have done it afterwards then it would not prevented the further spread of the film, since it already would have been available on the Internet. Indeed, it might have made the film *even more* popular because there would have been an interesting story behind it.

So your "logic" makes absolutely no sens.



February 6, 2007 10:03 AM


Perhaps George could take some time off from saving his planet and show the world the mechanism that caused the Twin Towers and WTC7 to fall to the ground as fast as they did.

Despite his assertion that NIST and other assorted government funded "experts" have provided this proof, there is one tiny flaw in that assertion George. They haven't. Neither have they ever claimed to have provided said explanations. We've had pancake collapse, progressive collapse and global collapse, yet none can explain away the laws of physics George. That's the point you need to address.

The world is over 5 years down the tyrannical road George, and nobody knows the official explanation for why WTC7 fell to the ground and how NIST's analysis of the Twin Towers "up to the point of collapse" resulted in those buildings being demolished so fast.

If you really knew what you were talking about George, you would have known that wouldn't you.

NORAD have changed their story so many times that even you George must have reasonable doubt.

The irony in Monbiot's risbile "article" is that he finally relies on a conspiracy theory to prove his point. Stunningly hilarious.

George's conspiracy is that the makers of Loose Change are part of a government operation to distract us from the "real abuses of power" and relies on their longevity for his proof.

For all I know George you could be right. Let's suppose you are.

You are a conspiracy theorist.

If you really do not believe that 9/11 was the New Pearl Harbour called for in your admitted, PNAC blueprint for full spectrum domination and the subsequent invasions of two sovereign nations, so far, and the murder of 100's of thousands of innocent people are "real abuses of power" then you are seriously disconnected from reality.

Are we therefore to asume that your environmental analysis of climate change is founded on similar blind spots George ?

Given that you are by no means noted for your expertise on 9/11 and flase flag terrorism, would it be acceptable to you for a comparative environmental ignoramus, to issue forth about climate change ?

If you really think that your readers are bound to swallow your drivel George then I conclude you have done yourself and the Guardian much more harm than you have attempted to inflict on those that doubt the 9/11 Commission report's version of reality.

Perhaps next time your editor asks you to knock off a piece on 9/11 George you could give us your analysis of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Stick to what you do best George, making a living out of the environment and "climate change".

A very poor attempt to coral any would be strays from the Green pen.




February 6, 2007 10:14 AM

Indeed, Loose Change is full of inaccuracy and speculation.

There are also a large number of ridiculous conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 floating around at the moment.

But this does not entail that the 9/11 Commission, NIST and FEMA reports are by any means satisfactory.

After Henry Kissinger was forced to step down as head of the 9/11 Commission, Phillip Zelikow replaced him. Zelikow is a close affiliate of the Bush administration who has co-authored works with Condi Rice, hardly free from conflict of interest.

The conclusions drawn in the Commission Report directly contradict much of the testimony from the 9/11 hearings. Most notably Norman Mineta's testimony, which directly contradicts Cheney's account of his movements that morning.

Bush and Cheney refused to testify in public and only agreed to address the Commission if they could do so together and that it would not be recorded.

Commissioner Thomas Kean has said himself that the Commission were unable to investigate properly.

The NIST report does not explain the collapse of WTC7. They have promised a seperate report giving an explanation but over 5 years later we have yet to see it.

It should also be noted that NIST do not provide any explanation of the actual collapse, their analysis is limited to the events that lead up to the 'collapse initiation' but do not evaluate any of the structural behaviour of the actual collapse.

NIST has not released the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81)

For anyone interested in viewing documentaries regarding 9/11 which are factually accurate I recommend:

9/11 Press for Truth (an account of the failings of the 9/11 Commission)

September 11th Revisited (an analysis of the WTC collapses and how the official reports do not explain them, entertainging the possibility that explosives were used to bring them down)

It should also be noted that we have yet to see any evidence which places the alleged hijackers at the scene of the crime. There is no CCTV of any of the alleged hijackers at any of the connecting airports, only footage of Mohammed Atta at portland airport which none of the flights in question left from. None of the alleged hijackers names were on the flight manifests, despite their supposedly buying tickets.

We are supposed to believe that one of the alleged hijackers' passports survived the explosion and was found by an FBI agent on the pavement outside the WTC.

The director of the Pakistani intelligence services (ISI) ordered $100k to be wired to Mohammed Atta just before the 9/11 attacks. This has never been investigated properly.

The truth is that we don't know the truth about 9/11.

Refuting poorly constructed conspiracy theories does not reinforce the official explanations.

Critique of the NIST report here:

Rebuttal of Popular Mechanics article here:



February 6, 2007 10:17 AM

Ok, so many in the "conspiracy theory" camp are raving loonies. But that does NOT mean the official version of events is correct either. There are lots of quite valid questions which remain unanswered.

There are also lots of pieces of "evidence" supporting the official version which look faked: The hijackers passport found in the rubble for example. Give me a f*ckin' break!

And the video of Osama claiming responsibility was a total joke. The actor looked NOTHING like OBL. I remember in the news a few days after 9/11 when Tony Blair stated that he had seen the "evidence" from the Americans that OBL was responsible, but he wasn't allowed to say what it was for "national security reasons". What a load of tosh!

Furthermore, on 9/11 itself I remember distinctly listening to reports from CNN. The side-story it was running in the morning was that a "bomb" has gone off at the pentagon. No mention of planes, whatsoever. None.

The official version stinks. You are asking us to believe the words of PROVEN LIARS about what happened: the very same people who lied about WMD in Iraq, and lied about their reasons for launching an invasion.

I don't know what happened on 9/11 other than two planes hit the WTC towers which subsequently collapsed. That is IT. That's all we can say, for it is the only evidence that exists in the public domain. The more detalied accounts of what happened are largely speculation, conjecture, and in some cases downright lies.



February 6, 2007 10:19 AM

The "ocean of nonsense" was started soon after 9-11, when the "trail of evidence" was announced to the world.

The catalyst for the "GWOT", starting in Afghanistan and the subsequent "occupation/liberation" of Iraq was none other than 9-11.

"A flight attendant on American Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office as the plane was hijacked and give them the seat numbers of the hijackers".

“That was the first piece of hard evidence," says Mueller.

She says they are all of Middle Eastern descent

The document presented to Britain’s parliament on October 4 by Prime Minister Tony Blair has been hailed by the media as proof that Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network planned and carried out the September 11 hijack-bombings in New York and Washington. In fact, Blair’s dossier is a clumsy patchwork of assertions that provides NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE establishing the guilt of bin Laden or the complicity of his Taliban protectors

"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document".

As for the "trail" of evidence....

In an apartment rented by Ziad Jarrah and Ahmed Alhaznawi, the FBI finds a notebook, videotape, and photocopies of their passports. [Miami Herald, 9/15/01]

In a bar the night before 9/11, after making predictions of a attack on America the next day, the hijackers leave a business card and a copy of the Koran at the bar. The FBI also recovers the credit card receipts from when they paid for their drinks and lap dances. [Associated Press, 9/14/01]

A September 13 security sweep of Boston airport's parking garage uncovers items left behind by the hijackers: a box cutter, a pamphlet written in Arabic, and a credit card. [Washington Post, 9/16/01]

A few hours after the attacks, suicide notes that some of the hijackers wrote to their parents are found in New York. Credit card receipts showing that some of the hijackers paid for flight training in the US are also found. [Los Angeles Times, 9/13/01]

A FedEx bill is found in a trash can at the Comfort Inn in Portland, Maine, where Atta stayed the night before 9/11. The bill leads to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, allowing investigators to determine much of the funding for 9/11. [Newsweek, 11/11/01; Times of London, 12/1/01]

The hijackers past whereabouts can even be tracked by their pizza purchases. An expert points out: “Most people pay cash for pizza. These [hijackers] paid with a credit card. That was an odd thing.” [San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/3/02]

“In the end, they left a curiously obvious trail—from martial arts manuals, maps, a Koran, Internet and credit card fingerprints. Maybe they were sloppy, maybe they did not care, maybe it was a gesture of contempt of a culture they considered weak and corrupt.” [Miami Herald, 9/22/01]

Note The New Yorker's quote of a former high-level intelligence official: “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the FBI to chase.” [New Yorker, 10/1/01]

It started the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. In the immediate shocked aftermath of the attacks, these findings were somehow reassuring: American intelligence was on the case, the perpetrators were no longer faceless.,11209,669961,00.html

10:32 a.m.: Air Force One Threatened? Some Doubt Entire Story
Vice President Cheney reportedly calls President Bush and tells him of a threat to Air Force One and that it will take 40-90 minutes to get a protective fighter escort in place. Many doubt the existence of this threat. For instance, Representative Martin Meehan (D) says, “I don't buy the notion Air Force One was a target. That's just PR, that's just spin.” [Washington Times, 10/8/02]

A later account calls the threat “completely untrue,” and says Cheney probably made the story up. A well-informed, anonymous Washington official says, “It did two things for [Cheney]. It reinforced his argument that the president should stay out of town, and it gave George W. an excellent reason for doing so.” [Daily Telegraph, 12/16/01]

The thesis of Webster Tarpley's 911 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA has been enthusiastically received with its working model of the 9/11 plot: a rogue network of moles, patsies, and a commando cell in the privatized intelligence services, backed by corrupt political and corporate media elites.




February 6, 2007 10:24 AM

It's all very well for experienced journos to now debunk the 911 truth movement but let's stick to the facts: where is the evidence that a 757 jetliner hit the Pentagon? Another debunker, Alexander Cockburn of 'Counterpunch' claims to have a friend who has seen such a photo, but it has yet to see the light of day. The high-definition official photo I downloaded from the DoD website has no such evidence and the five security camera frames so far released show something more like a missile.

And why believe the '100's of people' who alledgedly saw a jetliner hit the Pentagon and dismiss the 100's of witnesses - including firemen and radio reporters - who heard explosions going off in the WTC towers just before and during the collapses?

The official story that Al-Qaeda masterminded the 'attacks' came out at 10 am (ie. not long after the towers collapsed) and the list of 19 hijackers was released soon after (Sources: and Paul Thompson' 911Timeline).

This remarkably early solution to the crime of the century should have been a red flag for any journalist, but instead they mostly swallowed the official Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory and it was on the world's front pages the next morning.

So much for investigative journalism by mainstream media.



February 6, 2007 10:27 AM

"The failure of the twin towers has been exhaustively documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Far from being impossible, the collapse turns out to have been inevitable. The planes cut some of the support columns and ignited fires sufficient to weaken (but not melt) the remaining steel structures."

The NIST report only explained what initiated the collapse of the 2 towers. It didn't explain how the towers collapsed. The NIST report does not provide any evidence to support your claims. The NIST report also completely omitted any mention of the collapse of building 7. Why can't NIST explain why WTC 7 collapsed? The NIST report has been thoroughly debunked.

"Counterpunch, the radical leftwing magazine"

Alex Cochburn who runs counterpunch has called people insane conspiracy nuts for believing in climate change. Do you really believe he's a credible individual?

"Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions."

Hearst Corporation which is literally in the dictionary under 'yellow-journalism' owns PM. And this PM article you cite has also been debunked.

"Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel on to the fire."

If this was true the basement louvers(vents) would be pouring out smoke, yet they were not. Because no smoke was venting from the basement where the diesel tanks were, this claim is literally impossible.

"The only people they interview are a janitor"

William Rodriguez is a hero. And for you to belittle him simply because he is a janitor shows how little you care for the victims of 9/11. William Rodriquez was the last person out of those towers. He risked his life over and over to help people get out of those towers. His coworkers were nearly killed in an explosion and had all their skin burned off. He was awarded as a national hero by the president for his heroic actions that day. Have you saved the lives of numerous people George? You are an incredibly mean spirited individual.

Your logical fallacies and false claims are too numerous for me to wish to address. This editorial is flat out hate speech. Your sources have been discredited and debunked and you accuse us of not having authoritative sources.

Why didn't you try to debunk "TerrorStorm" or "9/11 Mysteries" George? What about "9/11: Press for Truth" or "Improbable Collapse"?

"9/11 Mysteries"


"9/11 Press For Truth"

"Improbable Collapse"

Lets see you debunk those films George



February 6, 2007 10:34 AM

From NIST Document "Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the
World Trade Center Disaster

Mechanical and Metallurgical
Analysis of Structural Steel (Draft) "

Clearcut? The problem with society is no one reads stuff in details anymore. The devil is in the details. The collapse of the Twin Towers is NOT clear cut.

"..... Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse.

Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of
steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire- affected floors of the towers. Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers. ......"

Another amazing fact :

"No steel was recovered from WTC 7..."

So a third building collapses and they fail to retain or find any of the steel to study it?

Essentially the NIST report says: A plane hit the building, there was a fire, we kept and examined very little of the steel, the steel we examined was good stuff, the bulding collapsed.



February 6, 2007 11:47 AM

I've seen Loose Change a few times and some bits are not very persuasive, the flight 93 stuff for instance does not seem well resolved, but the stuff on the Pentagon and Towers 1 & 2 I do believe.

For me the towers falling at almost free fall speed is quite telling, I can't imagine the lower structure offering so little resistance without extra expolsives being used. I think that even if the all the trusses sheared off as per the pancake theory, they would absorb some energy before giving leading to a more pronounced slowing of the collapse.

The Pentagon crash is also very dodgy, the lack of debris and the depth of the hole stick out as highly suspsious.

However Loose Change is not an official investigation, or even one that had access to the sites. That full and open investigation has never been done, and can't ever be done as the structure has been sent to china and recycled.

It is also worth noting the relationship between the US and Bin Laden, I think it quite likely that he was a CIA asset when fighting the Russians and still is today. Taking this relationship into account the 9/11 insider job looks likely.


Heckuva Job!

so many intelligent comments!

I love it!

Even 'debunking' articles...

These comment sections really spread the word. To me this says: if you can, send in comments every time anyone mentions 9-11 in public. People read the comments more than the articles themselves, often enough.

Clearly, even 'debunking' articles can have a good effect.


the plain fact that their hiding from the questions SCREAMS GUILTY !!!!


Is that a ray of hope I see ahead!
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

this guy is a dumbass he

this guy is a dumbass
he doesnt even deserve our attention

do you notice that none of the posters are saying

"building 7 proves 911was an inside job"

all of them just say---why was the wtc7 evidence hauled off

not one of them said the wtc7 smoking gun
there is a fake 911truth movement that wants to keep off the blame of kissinger and the cfr etc....

they could be pretending to be concerned about 911shills
the wind is now going the way of THE TRUTH!!!

hired shills are worthless now

let the real work begin!!!