New Hit Piece "Proves The 9-11 Conspiracies Wrong"

Proving The 9/11 Conspiracists Wrong
by John Hawkins
Original trash here.

According to a poll by Rasmussen, 22% of all Americans and 35% of all Democrats believe that George Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

Perhaps that's because it's not at all unusual to hear bizarre theories about 9/11. If you spend a lot of time on the internet, you'll hear everything from Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen, to Bush was behind 9/11, the Mossad was behind 9/11, the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb, the Pentagon was hit by a missile, the World Trade Center was taken down by explosives, WTC 7 was taken down by explosives, mini-nukes were used on the WTC, United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by a missile, United Airlines Flight 93 was never shot down at all, etc., etc., etc.. In other words, any and every crackpot theory that you could come up with in your wildest nightmare has probably been floated by some lunatic or attention seeker on the Internet.

So why have these conspiracy theories managed to spread? In large part because most serious commentators usually think it's beneath them to actually take the time to respond to the conspiracy theorists. The problem with that is that the nuts end up dominating the conversation by default because the sane, knowledgeable people tend to opt out of the conversation.

The other big problem is that conspiracy theorists use a style of argumentation that tends to baffle a lot of people. What the "truthers" and other assorted nuts do is ignore the big picture and focus on small things.

You see, there are always stories that are gotten wrong by the media in the aftermath of a big story (Think about how badly the Hurricane Katrina coverage was blown), small inconsistencies, and loose ends that aren't tied up. What the conspiracy theorists do is bring these minor issues up and demand that people explain them or else admit that there's a conspiracy. Most people don't know how to handle that because, quite naturally, they don't know what temperature steel melts at, who said what to whom two days after 9/11, or anything about some obscure study that the conspiracy theorists cite.

But, here's the thing: the conspiracy theorists have it backwards. It's the conspiracy theorists who need to build a case that explains what happened better than the official version, not people who believe the coherent, accepted version of events who need to explain away minutiae that the kooks have come up with.

For example, a lot of conspiracy theorists who believe the Pentagon was hit by a missile or truck bomb have pointed out that a 757 has a 124 foot wingspan and have asked how it could fit into a hole that was only 90 feet across. Long story short, per the Popular Mechanics Debunking 9/11 Myths book, part of the wings were likely sheared off when the plane hit the very thick walls of the Pentagon.

A much better question, which the conspiracy theorists would need to answer would be, "If the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb or missile, how can it be that so many people saw the plane fly into the building?"

What do they say to the countless witnesses, who like James Robbins, have a simple response to these conspiracy theories about truck bombs and missiles hitting the Pentagon,

"I was there. I saw it. That is my entire rebuttal."

No matter how you spin it, what claims you make, or what your "evidence" that a missile or a truck bomb hit the Pentagon is supposed to be, it's all irrelevant compared to witness after witness after witness who say that they watched a plane fly into the Pentagon.

This is the problem the truthers have on every issue: the evidence against their conspiracy theories is so overwhelming that almost no one who is well informed about the issue could possibly believe them.

Now, we could get into some of the specific claims that the truthers make. For example, there's the claim that, "the fire in the WTC wasn't hot enough to melt steel." That was true initially (although it became hot enough after the buildings fell and the fires burned on under the rubble), but steel begins to lose its strength at 400 degrees Celsius and at 980 degrees Celsius, only a small fraction of its strength remains. The damage to the buildings' structural supports and the weakened steel caused by the fire brought down both the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7. If you want to see that kind of point by point analysis, Popular Mechanics, which was mentioned above, has a whole book filled with it.

But, there's no point to doing that because this issue has been investigated over and over again -- and by sane, rational people, not truthers who think that all of our elections are fixed, that the Illuminati run the world, and that the US, Mexico, and Canada are going to merge into one giant North American Union next year.

The 9/11 attacks, or at least parts of those attacks, have been investigated by the 9/11 commission, the CIA, FBI, FAA, FEMA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Popular Mechanics, and countless mainstream newspapers -- among other sources.

None of these sources have concluded that there is any sort of grand conspiracy going on, that Bush was behind 9/11, that the Pentagon was hit with a truck bomb, that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, etc.

So in other words, to believe in many of these kooky conspiracy theories, you have to believe that tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, FBI agents, and CIA agents all know about an incredibly complex, monstrous plot against the United States, and are keeping their lips sealed while Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, and the fruit loops who think Bush is a puppet of the Freemasons have figured it all out.

For example, look at it like this: if you believe that a truck bomb hit the Pentagon and the government covered it up, you're in effect saying that you believe Bush, his cabinet, the FBI and/or CIA (who would have executed it), the eye witnesses, the rescue workers on the scene, people who work in the Pentagon, the newspapers that investigated it, Osama Bin Laden (who took credit for the attacks) and numerous other people all know that a truck bomb hit the Pentagon and are choosing to remain silent about it.

When I talk about looking at the big picture as opposed to conspiracy theorists focusing on tiny details, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Once you get out of the weeds where the crazies spend all their time looking at nearly irrelevant loose ends and start looking at everything that would have to fall into place to make this sort of X-Files scenario work, you can clearly see that it's impossible.

That's what people need to remember about 9/11: it has been investigated, in depth, by people from both parties, legitimate news organizations, and even Popular Mechanics, which is probably as close are you can possibly get to a non-political, non-partisan, unbiased organization in this instance and the conclusion is that there is no "there, there" to these conspiracies. That's why the only people who buy into them are the uninformed, the mentally unstable, and fools who don't understand that believing nothing that the government says is every bit as foolish as believing everything that the government says.

"Trash" is right!

I'm actually scared to post under the comments section as a 9/11 truther because strangely enough, you've two types skeptics to contend with: typical 9/11 debunkers and -- get this -- DEW proponents! That's right, the Marvin the Martian types have raided the house! And it would be one thing if they were just defending the idea that directed energy weapons were responsible for the destruction of the tower -- but NO! Instead, they're spewing out falsities like the following:

CB_Brooklyn writes: Friday, June, 08, 2007 6:55 AM

Mondamay - Journal of 9/11 Studies

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is run by a Dr Steven Jones. Jones is a former scientist from Los Alamos where directed energy weapon research is conducted. Jones 9/11 research has been proven faulty. He is also a Cold Fusion fraud who was planted by the government in 1989 to discredit free energy:

The paper you link to is written by a Dr Greg Jenkins. Jenkins has ties to Los Alamos too, as well as the NSA. Jenkins conducted an "ambush video interview" of Dr Wood for the purpose of discrediting her. But a careful reading of the transcript shows that Dr Wood won the debate:

Another so-called "prominent" person in the 9/11 Truth Movement is Dr Robert Bowman, former Director of the Star Wars program. He spent much time talking about how long it takes NORAD to scramble jets, which is a red herring since there were no plane crashes on 9/11. All those media stories about NORAD and war games on 9/11 was disinfo designed to mislead the Truth Movement. There were no plane crashes on 9/11.

Above we have three people. Each one of them a so-called 'prominent' member of the Truth Movement, each one of them with direct ties to directed energy weapon (DEW) research. Each one of them attempting to discredit Dr Judy Wood's DEW evidence.

All Judy wants is for people to look at the data:

Dr Wood has never refused a debate.

She has made some amazing discoveries, such as:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) contracted with Applied Research Associates (ARA) for the 9/11 NIST report.

Not only is ARA a manufacturer of directed-energy weapon technology, but are also a founding sponsor of Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS).

DEPS, founded in 1999, put out their first newsletter one year before 9/11. An excerpt from this newsletter is as follows:

"Lasers in space, lasers in the stratosphere, lasers on and over the battlefield - we're at the
beginning of an evolutionary new wave of


So you ask yourself: Why

So you ask yourself: Why would certain '9/11 skeptics' be commenting in response to a stock hit piece against the Truth Movement on a right wing website by attacking three prominent skeptics who have given it credibility, promoting 'theories' the author uses to discredit 9/11 skepticism? Why would they not instead show solidarity against the OCT apologists?

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

How To Write A Successful Hit Piece...

Useful Adjectives - Check
bizarre theories
crackpot theory
wildest nightmare
attention seeker
assorted nuts
mentally unstable

Topics to discuss - Check
Controlled Demolition

Debunked Arguments That OCTers Cling To - Check
"It's the conspiracy theorists who need to build a case that explains what happened better than the official version, not people who believe the coherent, accepted version of events who need to explain away minutiae that the kooks have come up with."

"So in other words, to believe in many of these kooky conspiracy theories, you have to believe that tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, FBI agents, and CIA agents all know about an incredibly complex, monstrous plot against the United States, and are keeping their lips sealed while Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, and the fruit loops who think Bush is a puppet of the Freemasons have figured it all out."

"That's what people need to remember about 9/11: it has been investigated, in depth, by people from both parties, legitimate news organizations, and even Popular Mechanics, which is probably as close are you can possibly get to a non-political, non-partisan, unbiased organization in this instance and the conclusion is that there is no "there, there" to these conspiracies."

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

and jon

this is why i voted up your most recent blog.
which is why i still cite michael ruppert, et al: because "they" can trot out countless articles, 'experts', explanations, etc, for the behavior of the twin towers, but what can they say about NORAD lying, the family's demand for a new investigation, mineta, the war games, etc.

im a huge proponent of the CD theory, but IMO CD is nothing without the real concrete evidence that you often cite.
people keep saying, 'just watch the videos, CD isnt a theory, its right there!'

and to a certain extent, i would agree. but remember what mike ruppert told us in the beginning of "the truth and lies of 9/11": the Zapruder film has been out and viewable for 20 yrs, but it has done NOTHING to change the common perception that kennedy was killed by a lone gunman. NOTHING.

so i salute you and your tireless efforts to give a voice to the victims families.

Morgantown 9/11 Truth
The Eleventh Day of Every Month

They can NOT trot out

They can NOT trot out countless articles THAT make sense. Physics is physics dammit. We do not all live in our own alternate universe.

Arson can be proven. Fall time can be measured.


the way I understand it, most people still believe impact damage + fire brought those buildings down. Whether or not the 'countless articles' make sense, they have an effect on the public psyche. The effect so far has been to completely disregard physics in favor of widespread denial.
The point im trying to make is that the coin doesnt exist without both sides; CD and all other evidence must be given equal footing or the argument is incomplete, and division will arise from within the movement. outside forces will percieve this division and exploit our weaknesses.

the very fact that people believe the OCT regarding the collapse of the towers is reason enough to hit them with 'the other side', the non-physical evidence
it all adds up, and people can only deny so much for so long

Morgantown 9/11 Truth
The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Those who believe the official story about the

collapse of the World Trade Center Towers need only read what the designers said:

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

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


As soon as a person with a 9th grade understanding of science or a moderate grip on logic can be convinced to actually LOOK at the CD evidence, and to think rationally and objectively about it... That's all it takes.

Unless of course they are like my friends who look at Building 7 and go, "Ok, I'm convinced that it was a controlled demolition, BUT THAT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING!"

Depressing. I once thought these people were intelligent. "Forget it guys. Have another glass of merlot and keep fawning over Al Gore. You're so fucking sophisticated."

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Yeah, it's like what now?

"Unless of course they are like my friends who look at Building 7 and go, "Ok, I'm convinced that it was a controlled demolition, BUT THAT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING!"

I get that trash all the time. People can admit that the 9/11 Truth movement has utterly and wholly disproved the OCT, but then they say "So what?" I don't get them. I've convinced people of multiple arguments about multiple points that all add up to a large-scale cover-up that could only happen because MIHOP was the scenario, and then they go brain dead. They just can't believe the truth even after listening, debating, and accepting that the OCT is not just wrong, but impossible. The only way that I've found that works is to spend a large amount of time with people one on one, and I just don't have that much time. I could do that the rest of my life and still not be anywhere. Anybody got any ideas on how to break the whole "worship the government" brainwashing?

By appealing to their self-interest...

The Inside Job that is 9/11, as tragic and criminal as it is, is but a symptom of the problem. That day was used to falsely justify incredibly massive new government spending, spending financed by debt (not the shared "sacrifice" of increased taxes that any patriotic American would gladly pay if they were needed to face a truly legitimate external threat)....debt that flooded the world's markets with dollars....that "hidden tax": i. e. "inflation", has made everyone who hasn't been on the receiving end of no-bid government war spending half as rich as they were prior to 9/11 (the dollar is less than half what it was relative to the Euro prior to 9/11....try pricing an European vacation, if you still dare sharing that continent with its people as a self-identified American....).

Yeah, we Americans didn't cut a check (by design) to the IRS for the 9/11 Wars, but we are still poorer by half, because our savings only buy half as much.....since the 9/11 Wars started.....and it's still headed downward....

And where did all that money go (besides to to the Halliburtans, Lockheed-Martins, and Blackwaters of the world)?.....It went to destroy two countries and kill close to a million innocent civilians....that's not what I would call "investing in America".....

Oh yeah, it also helped to pay for 14 permanent military bases and an embassy the size of the Vatican in a country halfway around the world.

Of course, that benefits all Americans (sarcasm, in case you can't tell by now).

Have a nice day.

I remember it well...

The "Truth & Lies" movie was the first 9/11 movie I ever came across. I have heard rumors that Michael Ruppert wasn't really a detective, and was a CIA "plant", etc... I dunno. I can't find anything to substantiate those claims. There are some in this movement, like me, that weren't awakened by the movement's efforts. I wasn't given a DVD of Loose Change on the street, etc... After 9/11, I became "addicted" to the news. I wanted to see what was going to happen next. I watched CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc... and as a result of my newfound "addiction", I saw some of the things the Administration was doing with regard to the families, and their efforts to hinder an investigation. That didn't sit well with me. So, for a long time, I did my own research. Came to my own conclusions. After a long time researching, I stumbled across "The Truth & Lies About 9/11." Some of what he said was very new to me, but other things he said resulted with me saying, "Holy shit, he's right!" Meaning that I had already read some of what he mentioned. That's why Ruppert connected with me. His "research" was similar to my own. Anyway, when he showed the JFK footage over and over again, and then talked about how he wasn't going to talk about Remote Controlled Planes, Controlled Demolition, etc... and then proceeded with the rest of his talk, at the end, I knew that that was the approach I was going to take when talking to people. I was going to use "their" words against them. I was going to point out important inconsistencies in what was being presented to us. I was going to talk about motive. I was going to do my best to present the best information possible, and stay away from the more "speculative" arguments. That being said, I do present speculative arguments, but I don't present them as fact.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders


Topics to discuss - Check
Truck bomb???

Where did he come up with that? He must have taken a wrong turn and ended up in OKC. Seems like he's getting the official conspiracy theories mixed up with the unofficial ones.

Actually Very interesting

But the "Truck bomb", was first reported by Main stream media on 9/11. I am certain that the first most initial reports about the Pentagon attack first assumed that a truck bomb exploded outside the Pentagon. Funny, I don't think a "conspiracy theorist" actually use that claim...


Help me shout 9/11 articles on:

I for one...

am proof that denial is on the fade. As are alot of my friends. Logical sense tells me those buildings could not have come down that quickly simply due to plane impacts. And WTC7? Nothing in the world can make me buy the "official line" on that. Nothing in the world will make me believe anything other than that building was brought down with explosives charges.

These facts are all I need to know in my heart that what we've been fed is fiction. So, bring the hit pieces. It won't change my mind, and eventually people will demand that the truth come to the surface. It cannot be denied.

My letter to the nincompoop


At least the ignoramus at Skeptic Magazine actually tried. I then destroyed his arguments point by point:

"Skeptics" or Dupes? Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical of 9/11 Lies

Much like David Ray Griffin's book has destroyed the Popular Mechanics myths point by point, which I know you'll run right out and buy in the interest of journalistic "integrity": Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Anyway, we're to take your word when you mock the idea that "Bush knew" pre-911, then you don't provide anything whatsoever to make your case. You repeat the mantra, "truck bombs at the Pentagon" as a substitute for investigation and honest discourse.

Much like the ignorant propagandists who have done this before you, you have placed the cart before the horse. You know very little about what actually happened on 9/11 (and are apparently comfortable writing from a position of ignorance), yet you feel confident telling us why it doesn't really matter.

Rather than educate yourself (heavens forbid), you'd rather go looking for wild sounding theories on the Internet ABOUT September 11th ... why? That's cart before the horse, ass backwards "thinking."

Of course it's exposed that Bush was moved out of his hotel the week of July 20, 2001 in Genoa Italy because of warnings of suicide hijackings. Anti aircraft batteries ringed the airport in Genoa during the G8 summit. This was in the LA Times, 2 weeks after 9/11. I'm really not sure how to press this point with people who outright refuse to think.

You see:

July, 2001: Secret Service moves the president from his hotel due to warnings of suicide skyjackings.

September 2001: Secret Service DOESN'T move the president during REAL suicide skyjackings.

This is one very sticky little point out of a great many.

Hey supergenius. Debate me. Rignt on this website. If you have the balls.

"">70 Disturbing Facts About 9/1170 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

I know...

This has little to do with what you said (good letter by the way), but I think debunkers do serve a purpose. They have helped me to refine my arguments. The "honest" ones anyway. The ones that constantly lie, name call, etc... I can do without them.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

Reading it.

Very good response. Still didn't finish it. So far I just have one objection:

"More obvious ignorant (or dishonest) explanations. This denigrated "27 m by 40 m core" provided ALL the support required for the towers. These were the supporting columns that enabled this structure to exist. Far from "additional," these were the vertical load bearing columns around which the structure was designed."

I think that the Core columns support 60% of the total vertical forces of the Towers, while the Perimeter supported 40% of the vertical forces in addition to all lateral forces.


Help me shout 9/11 articles on:

I love the self assured tone

It's funny too, the better they get at acting/sounding just so appalled that anyone could take the "conspiracy theorists" seriously, the more obvious it becomes that they are getting better through practice, having to again and again tell people that this thing that so many seem interested in is a bunch of hooey.

It's funny that that's exactly what we feel that WE are doing--telling people that this thing they believ in is a bunch of hooey.

I'm hanging out this weekend with some old friends I haven't seen in years, here for their 10 year college reunion, who are not all aware of my truthing. Even those who knew just called it "that conspiracy stuff"and mostly ignored whatever I said. There's a very different feeling now.

One guy saw the stickers on my car and said--"are you one of those people who think the towers were pulled?" (note he was not referring to firefighters) He said his dad, a former bona fide hippie is addicted to Alex Jones. I've managed to show a few minutes of Improbable Collapse to a few people who asked me for copies to watch later and had a few conversations addressing those sticking points that people always seem to get stuck on (what happened to the passengers, why has no one squealed, maybe they knew and let it happen...)

People no longer seem surprised to hear about someone they know being a truther. It's no longer shocking at all. Before people would have said "you are crazy to think they would do that".

Now, after WMD, Abu Ghraib, Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, Fallujah, Tal Afar, Halliburton, etc., the truth no longer seems all that crazy. Shills the author of this article may pretend it does, but the average IQ of the group of people who believe them is dropping precipitously.

What is happening is the liberal, well-educated, but not radical antiwar people who disliked the organized movement because it was too militant and pushy are discovering that the truth movement allows them to be part of an opposition that is focused without being bossed around by anyone and that just happens to be asking the right questions of the right people. They do listen to the warnings from the bedunkers, but to them it all sounds like Fox News shrillery and they realize that they are either with us or with the Fox News crowd.

They are people with consciences but who would never have demonstrated in public before the Iraq War. They are slowly realizing that their conscience requires them to follow the trail of criminality to its source. There was a reason they wanted to nip us in the bud. Having failed that, they do not have a Plan B it seems.


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

NEW---> check out our revamped site!



just nailed. well effing said, realtruther.
Morgantown 9/11 Truth
The Eleventh Day of Every Month