The Puzzling Suspension of Incredulity to the “Official” 9-11 Theory


The Puzzling Suspension of Incredulity to the “Official” 9-11 Theory

by Kim Petersen / August 29th, 2007

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
By David Ray Griffin
(Olive Branch Press, 2007)
ISBN: 978-1-56656-686-5

According to a categorical assertion by the Association of Muslim Scholars’ most senior member, al-Fayyadh, the Iraqi resistance has killed no less than 35,000 US soldiers and wounded no less than 70 thousand…1

The outrageous neocon-concocted lies of the Iraqi government being in possession of weapons-of-mass destruction, that US forces were liberating the Iraqi people, that only 30,000 Iraqis have been killed, that the invasion-occupation was not about seizing control of Iraqi oil, that the US was not aiding Israeli interests have all been exposed. Given the plethora of undeniable mendacity surrounding the immoral, illegal, and lethal enterprise of aggressing Iraq (not to forget Afghanistan), it is utterly amazing that some people, especially progressives, continue to cling to the version of “reality” spun by the neocons and Zionists.

That media continue to publish the relatively low number of fatalities among US soldiers, and completely ignore other accounts, is mind-boggling. Yet, the corporate media (and most progressive media) remain fixed on a much lower figure approaching 4000.

But, most mind-boggling is the dearth of skepticism to the neocons’ version of what happened on 9-11 — the event that was seized upon as a justification for what is a litany of war crimes and crimes against humanity wreaked by the US state — including the supreme international crime, as determined by the Nuremberg Tribunal, described as encapsulating “the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Progressivism and 9-11 Truth Seeking

Yet some progressives have taken to castigating fellow progressives for coming to conclusions about 9-11 that differ from the US government version (a feat which really calls into question the castigators’ adherence to tenets of progressivism, such as a commitment to diversity, free inquiry, freedom of thought, and free speech). It also leaves such critics open to charges of left gatekeeping. Of course, these voices that adhere to the “official” neocon version of 9-11 have a right to present their opinions, but to determine in what way other people should direct their energies and disparage them for not heeding their advice is regressive with the ultimate result that it argues against encouraging people to think critically for themselves.

I previously wrote an article to this effect.2 Some people quibbled with certain points.

One reader questioned my, supposedly, referring to the “scientific evidence,” as per the noted writer on 9-11, Noam Chomsky, as “essentially worthless.” What I wrote is that I share Chomsky’s skepticism, but importantly, I added a proviso: “not the level of skepticism.” In other words, I do not consider the evidence as “essentially worthless.”

The article was not an examination or analysis of the evidence. Instead, it was about how some progressives engage in disparaging an involved citizenry. I found this unprincipled and supported the right of people to seek “truth.”

Science and 9-11

Certainly, the “official” 9-11 view is not scientific. It is a post hoc explanation designed to fit a preconceived agenda. Although scientists will try to explain phenomena, science is not driven a posteriori but by testable hypotheses where experiments are conducted or natural observations are carried out. This is the scientific method. To date, I know of no controlled experiments carried out to test whether steel-laced high rises will collapse demolition- or pancake-style when struck by airplanes.

Another reader, John Pontrello, presented a very compelling rationale for such experimentation and why the “official” 9-11 theory has huger ramification:

[I]f the official conspiracy theory is true, we had better vacate every building in the United States immediately in case a fire breaks out and the building collapses killing thousands of people. Also, being that a building collapse is far riskier on all fronts than damage and casualty from fire, every building owner in America should be forced to insure specifically against pancake collapse. All high rise buildings should be temporarily evacuated until such a time when they are properly studied to ensure that they will not spontaneously collapse killing thousands of people. 9/11 has really opened up the possibility that buildings spontaneously collapse, so I argue that they should not be used anymore until they are proven safe. If three people were tossed and killed from a roller coaster on one day, would you put your children on it? Furthermore, every building in America should abandon evacuation drills for fire and replace those mandatory drills with Pancake evacuation drills where something like window ejection with parachutes are provided, since stairwell evacuations will not protect one from the upper floors falling on them.

He also challenged me: “get off the fence and pick your side Kim.”

To pronounce on 9-11 requires, preferably, either expertise in the matter at hand or a willingness to delve deeply into a plethora of evidence (at least that which has been made available; the non-release of evidence throws the Bush administration under heavy suspicion) and attempt to sort fact from fiction, possibility from impossibility, probability from improbability. I am naturally skeptical, and I have always been deeply skeptical of the “official” explanations emanating from the corporate media (and progressive media) and government about 9-11.

But there must be a way to lean toward what best approximates the truth. One way, is to determine motives. A well recognized motive has always been personal enrichment. Evidence from 9-11 points to many protagonists in this regard, including people within the military-industrial complex and one World Trade Center owner. The motive attached to the alleged 9-11 attackers of hating American freedoms is risibly pathetic and self-defeating for its promulgators in that since 9-11 American freedoms have been severely curtailed. If this was, indeed, the motivation of alleged 9-11 attackers, then it represents a victory for the alleged haters of American freedoms?

In addition to assessing motive, one should also, of course, examine what evidence is available. Science has been a point of contention among people in the 9-11 debate. In science, if one peg of a theory can be knocked out, then the theory should be abandoned. If one peg of the “official” 9-11 theory can be disproven, then the rest of the explanation is rendered dubious. The “official” 9-11 theory is attackable on nearly all its foundations, indicating just how wobbly it is.

Dr. David Ray Griffin has been a foremost writer on what transpired on 9-11, which he compellingly avers to be an insider job. Griffin is a theologian and some people attack him on this basis. This, however, is a thoroughly arrogant, elitist, and self-defeating argument that must be utterly refuted because of what it represents. First, it assumes that only experts are able to speak on a topic with authority. Second, it assumes that experts are correct, but that this is false is easily revealed by the fact that experts disagree among themselves. Third, it assumes that “average” folks cannot train themselves to become experts. Fourth, it assumes that “average” folks cannot understand the intricacies of specialized subject areas. The logical outcome of such assertions is that non-specialists must rely on experts to inform them how they should think — a complete sop to critical thinking and egalitarianism.

Griffin has done his homework and has written five books on 9-11. His latest is Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. He assaults the “official conspiracy theory” from many quarters: the stupendous unlikelihood of cell phones operating at high altitude in 2001, the glaring discrepancies in “official” time sequences reported, the likelihood of the alleged pilots being able to carry out the maneuvers they are alleged to have done, the pancake theory of WTC buildings collapse, etc.


The weakest link in the “official” theory appears to be its explanation of the demolition-style collapse of WTC building 7: a building which was not struck by planes; had no demonstrably large, nor hot, fires burning; and was foretold as having collapsed ahead of time; and which the 9-11 Commission did not even try to explain.

Griffin asks why, if WTC 7 was awash in flames, no photographers and TV camera crews on the scene recorded this spectacle.

Griffin calls WTC 7 “one of the [9-11] Commission’s most amazing omissions. According to the official theory, building 7 demonstrated, contrary to the universal conviction prior to 9/11, that large steel-frame buildings could collapse from fire alone, even without having been hit by an airplane. This demonstration should have meant that building codes and insurance premiums for all steel-frame buildings in the world needed to be changed. And yet the 9/11 Commission, in preparing its 571-page report, did not devote a single sentence to this historic event.”

Griffin cites the demolition industry website Implosion World’s statement that an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience … to perform these true building implosions.” Griffin then asks: “Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world?”

Griffin points out that there was extensive foreknowledge of WTC 7’s imminent collapse among firefighters and medical workers. Griffin quotes medical worker Decosta Wright: “they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand,” which was “5 blocks away.”

How was this foreknowledge explained? Damage plus fire — both of which Griffin deconstructs.

The words of WTC owner Larry Silverstein on PBS, give credence to a demolition about to occur: “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

Wielding Occam’s Razor

Physicist Manuel Garcia took a stab at explaining the demolition-style collapse of WTC 7. He constructed a Mouse TrapTM-like explanation for how the “dark fire” formed and brought WTC 7 free falling into its footprint.

He writes of falling debris rupturing the oil pipes of a fuel distribution system, the fuel distribution system pumps oil up causing a diesel fuel gusher burning with excess air; the diesel fuel spill spreads out along Floor 5 and spills down elevator; oil pools near a truss and is ignited by local office fires, resulting in further combustion; heat is trapped; the thermally weakened truss fails, the loss of support low in the eastern interior propagates to the roof, the weight (and dynamic force) of material falling onto the diaphragm based on Floor 5 tips this rigid layer of the building, this causes failure of column joints to the diaphragm, lack of vertical support through the diaphragm progresses up the interior of the building west of Truss 2, a progressive collapse propagates up and material falls freely; since the building implodes, the exterior walls fall in.3

Nine-11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan says Garcia’s WTC explanations are “based on false or unsubstantiated claims” and disses the speculative “string of improbable events” in Garcia’s “dark fire” theory. Thereafter Ryan delves into ad hominem and the tactic of involving Garcia in a conspiracy theory.4

Peter Webster refutes Garcia’s WYC 7 shock wave explanation weakening integral parts of WTC 7.5 Webster claims the oscillations of the WTC buildings would have died out without further energy being pumped into the buildings, for example, by further plane crashes in resonance with the buildings’ oscillations or timed explosions.

To decide between the “official” 9-11 theory and the other theories proffered the 9-11 truth movement, Garcia suggests: “within the spirit of Occam’s Razor, of seeking explanations for the WTC building collapses that require the fewest number of ad hoc assumptions (e.g., no conspiracies).”

Occam’s Razor — also referred to as the Principle of Parsimony — holds that the simplest theory is preferable; therefore, any explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible. But Garcia relies heavily on assumptions in his “dark fire” theory.

The demolition theory is simple. It requires only that one assume that some person(s) rigged the WTC 7 with explosives. This is less crazy than assuming Osama bin Laden’s freedom-hating Arabs piloted the planes and set off the first ever fire-induced demolition of a high rise building.

Griffin utterly dismisses the National Institute of Standards and Technology (federal agency NIST) which theorized excessive falling debris and long-burning fires as being capable of bringing down WTC 7.

The most serious problem with this [NIST] theory, however, is that it is completely inadequate to the empirical facts. Damage to one face of the building plus small fires on a few floors – plus perhaps really big fires on the fifth floor — could not explain why the building collapsed on a debris pile only three stories high, as this would have required the 81 columns of this 47-story-high columns to break into several pieces simultaneously. This damage and fire could not explain why the building came down virtually free fall speed. They could not explain the squibs, the molten metal, or the sulfidized steel. The official theory, in other words, cannot explain why, if this was not an example of controlled implosion, it was a perfect imitation thereof.


Who is behind the 9-11 terrorist attack? Elsewhere Griffin answered:

It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. Federal officials, however, could have gotten access and would have had motivation to bring the buildings straight down. They would also have had the ability to orchestrate a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report.

The evidence that the destruction of the WTC was an inside job has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush’s advice not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories.” We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.6

Griffin has proffered a theory counter to the “official” 9-11 theory. Those people dedicated to free thinking will reject the advice of some progressives to ignore non-“official” theories of 9-11 as “conspiracy”; they will consider competing theories that purport to explain the events of 9-11; they will arrive at their own conclusions.

Three WTC buildings fell straight down, demolition-style, into their footprints. The Bush administration stood by as forensic evidence was removed, and it blocked any meaningful investigation of 9-11. The “official” 9-11 theory asks me to trust those people proven untrustworthy and suspend my skepticism. This I will not do. Who the insiders of 9-11 are, I can only speculate.

Full skepticism, however, must greet the US government accusations that al Qaeda is behind 9-11. The US government, contrary to its own legal tradition, ignored any presumption of innocence. When al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden denied that his organization was not the perpetrator, the US, specifically the White House, demanded that Bin Laden prove that he was not behind 9-11. The same proving-a-negative tactic was used with Iraq: the US demanded that Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein prove that he has no weapons-of-mass-destruction. When no weapons-of-mass-destruction were found, the White House responded that the Iraqis were not telling the truth.

Furthermore, when Taliban leader Mullah Omar agreed to hand over the suspect bin Laden (who, as Griffin notes, is on no FBI wanted lists for 9-11) if the US provided evidence of his involvement in 9-11, the US never replied. The invasions-occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq are the outcomes.

Based on the evidence available (and especially the parties involved), Occam’s Razor leads me to dispense with the “official” 9-11 theory.

A Final Challenge

Pontrello challenges adherents of the “official” 9-11 theory:

Try this: the next time you walk a big city, gaze up at a massive building and picture a relatively small burning hole near the top of it. Then imagine it burning for an hour on only a few floors and then spontaneously pulverizing into fine dust before your eyes as if on cue. It took a few times for me to de-program my mind from the brainwashing, but once I did, it was liberating. I laugh now when I look at those three towers come down like that, and listen to the official story defenders try to explain pancake collapse as the explanation. I try to imagine what could make all the steel columns, joints, concrete and trusses simultaneously give way and allow for absolutely zero resistance from the otherwise intact structure below the point of impact. It is impossible and that is the truth. The only way those buildings fell like that was from controlled demolition and I don’t care what so-called experts say. I know what I saw, and I know what makes sense.

Griffin’s book is a good place to start for open-minded people who are critical thinkers. Who the perpetrators of 9-11 were is important. It would, for one, add impetus to cease the genocidal occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be a blow to Ziocon plans to aggress Iran. It would also lay the path for punishment of those individuals responsible for 9-11 and the subsequent warmongering based on the lies of the “official” 9-11 story. If the perpetrators were sufficiently punished, this might stand as a deterrence to others drawn by the corrupting influence of power and money. Even if it is no deterrent, it is a partial victory for justice in a world that sorely needs such victories.

Ah, I just submitted this

Check out the comments section, where Joshua Frank from AlterNet tries the old "it's a diversion from more important stuff" line.

Good to see Petersen come around on 9/11 and give Griffin the credit he deserves.

Yadda, yadda, yadda

I checked out the comments section, including the one from Joshua Frank you mentioned. More yadda, yadda, yadda from those 9/11 ostriches of the left:

'Asking questions and demanding answers is one thing. Thinking you know all the answers about that day is another.' Then for the remainder of his comment, he makes clear that he's not even in favor of asking questions and demanding answers, regarding these as a fruitless waste of time. Inanely, he 'argues' that, 'While Griffin writes his next tome, Palestinians are dying.' Umm, yeah, Josh--just like they've kept dying through all the tomes Chomsky, Cockburn, et al. have written in recent decades. What, does he think that Palestinian-rights advocates were soooooooooo close to reversing U.S. policies until the gosh-darn 9/11 truth movement came along to derail their efforts?

It's truly striking how the issue of 9/11 among all others has this power to turn otherwise intelligent people into mealy-mouthed fools.

Not fools

The left gatekeepers are knaves, complicit in the crimes of 9/11. Joshua Frank is just doing his job, lying in service to his genocidal masters.

Could it be that majority of the gatekeepers

are tied to the interests of Israel? So far in my cursory examination, this is appears to be the case. Do these gatekeepers also avoid discussing apartheid and ethic cleansing of Palestine as well? So far, this is the only explanation that makes any sense. Why would intelligent and otherwise curious men and women who derive their livelihoods from exploring issues that lie beneath the covers so wiling to ignore or disparage the 9/11 truth community? When confronted with this lack of curiosity or purposeful obfuscation, they claim they "don't have time" to read a (Griffin) book or at least look at a (9/11 Witness Press for Truth) video. Maybe to this gratekeeper crowd, they already knows in their hearts, that Israel is the obvious partner in this world class psychological operation. They remain mum out of fear or elegance Their journalistic integrity and sense of justice is trumped by more powerful forces that remain in the shadows. Its only by exposing the crimes and shinning light into the shadows that we all can benefit by living with less fear.

nuggets - you are just scratching the surface

I fear that you are just scratching the surface when it comes to describing how big and how many countries are really involved with 9/11.
One point you might want to consider is that it was so important that it be done with George W. Bush as President. The evidence for this is the 2000 presidential election Coup. He was appointed by the US Supreme court judges on a split decision due to a voter fraud uncovered in the State of Florida, which just happened to have his brother as Governor at that time.
There is a two part video about it available for free downloading at the following website. It is "Unprecedented - The 2000 Presidential Election" as well as a BBC documentary called "How Bush Stole the election". You will have to scroll past all of the free 9/11 videos.

That was the death blow to America. It's my opinion that there were so many people, you know the kind that are so powerful that you don't say "NO" to, that spent trillions of dollars. Didn't Rumsfeld announce that they Pentagon could not account for 2 or 3 trillion dollars just before 9/11 ?

You can't blame any specific country. All the little European countries let the CIA extradite people. Germany and Italy are the only ones who asked extradition for the CIA agents to be tried for their crimes.

The "hijackers" were mostly from Saudi Arabia. Pakistan, India, UK and a great many other secret intelligence agencies were involved as well. The major Corporations were involved. When asked about the Pod that is clear as day on the bottom of the second plane that hit a Tower Boeing refused to identify the aircraft citing "National Security" restrictions. American Airlines and United Airlines as well.

All of the insurance companies benefited from the new product that 9/11 gave them to sell from the entire US Congress. Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

There was a great deal of legislation that had been prepared and paid for in advance of 9/11. You aren't really naive enough to think that the Patriot Act was whipped up overnight are you?

The WTC Towers were long considered white elephants. There had even been a secret study about how to erect scaffolding to decommission the buildings in 1989.

1998 The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey issued a press release announcing the first successful landing of a commercial aircraft at their Newark International Airport by the use of the new technology called the Global Positioning System.
3 days later there is another press release that announced a Historic Shift in the Port Authority's planning and that they were putting the WTC on the open market.
The problem was that nobody would buy it because the new owner would have had to go along with the NYC building codes that the Port Authority was exempt from and that meant removing the asbestos that was outlawed after the towers were complete.
Mr. Eisenberg, Director of the Port Authority, Mr Silverstein, who already was leasing WTC-7 and Mr Frank Lowy who is involved with the Westfield Group who leased all the retail space in the trade center in July 2001 with Silverstein.
Each of them made a huge profit.
I have no complaints about the buildings being down. My complaint is that the job was so nicely done that it proved that they could have done it without the loss of anybodies life and was used by evil people to cause chaos and death with wars.
Those wars have also had an impact on our economy to the point where the US dollar is no longer the choice of currency for the other countries. It has lost and is still losing it's value. We keep printing paper money like it was monopoly money but there is nothing behind it. You can't turn a one dollar federal reserve note into one dollar of silver anymore.
It's sad. I keep waiting for them to come get me. I think for myself and don't buy into all their crap. I am artful at rocking the boat but don't want to tip it over because if the boat tips over everybody loses. I don't now how to stop it other than to believe that the Higher Power that I believe exists is Good and will find away to overcome the Evil which has befallen the planet earth.
I better stop.

I don't see a correlation, actually

An intriguing hypothesis, but I don't think it will fly. I say this because the two examples I am most familiar with of alternative journalists who are snide, dismissive jerks when it comes to 9/11--Cockburn at Counterpunch and Raimondo at no inhibitions in discussing the injustices endured by the Palestinians and the undue influence of pro-Israel interests over U.S. policy. Your theory could account, at least in part, for the stance of some gatekeepers, but the examples I've just cited lead me to believe there must be other factors involved than some defensiveness regarding Israel.

For what my opinion is worth

I think Cockburn is probably some sort of agent for the perpetrators. I.e. he serves some kind of "Emmanuel Goldstein" function of drawing elements of the dissident left into effectively useless activity.

I hope I'm not hurting anyone's feelings here by pointing out that leftist activists and readers fretting about, say, the plight of the Palestinians has a long history of accomplishing almost nothing for the Palestinians, if for no other reason than that generations of history has conclusively demonstrated that AIPAC and other militantly pro-Israel forces are always able to prevail politically in the English-speaking countries. It reminds of a scene in the movie *American Gigolo*, where the lead character is desperately trying to bribe the already-bribed man who's framed him for murder. "How much do you want?" he cries. "It doesn't matter," replies the other man, "because the other side will always pay more."

How can Palestinian rights activists succeed against that sort of power? Indeed, how, despite years of growing domestic opposition to the war in Iraq, can the Democratic Establishment be prevented from vastly expanding that war into the much larger land of Iran?

But back to Cockburn. He's no mere 9/11 ostrich like so many I give the benefit of the doubt to. He's an aggressively vicious sophist for the 9/11 official lies (as he was about the JFK assassination). I love how he tries demonstrate his credibility by say that, after all, he does believe FDR stopped a response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, so he's not reflexively close-minded about massive government conspiracies. (Nice touch. But how convenient that nobody cares much about Pearl Harbor anymore, and whatever people do think about it holds little promise of blowing the lid off the inner workings of contemporary regimes.)

The smoking gun for me is hiring Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory weapons designer Garcia to employ his technical expertise to disinform Counterpunch readers -- in one piece desperately lashing out at one foreign MSM reporter who started to go slightly off the reservation. There's something profoundly wrong with this picture.

As to Raimondo, as a fellow libertarian I've followed him and his outfit quite a bit. He refuses to write or speak to 9/11 truth, and strictly bans such discussion from his site (including all Paul Craig Roberts columns that mention it, though all other Roberts columns about foreign policy get posted there), except on occasion to declare it insane ("utterly daffy," he put it once, thereupon referring others to Cockburn's writings on the subject).

I expect he's just what the old pro-Soviet Communists called a "useful idiot." Too fearful of losing his connection with the respectable left, too tied to philanthropic donations, too terrified of his own inner demons. That's just my sense of him and his little crew of sycophants.

I am sorry you got that impression

I was merely trying to point out that it wasn't just the US, UK & Israel involved and that I think it goes through out the US Congress and other governments secret military covert operations.

Let me see if I can clarify it a little bit, bear with me.
Let's say that the US Army sends a squad out on a patrol and they get attacked by a group of CIA agents doing one of their covert operations and two people were killed. I wouldn't put it past the CIA to arrange such an incident. They have done it in the past.

The actual results could be spun in a variety of ways, such as two US deaths as a result of friendly fire or one US death and one insurgent extremist or maybe even Iran attacked a US Army squad and killed one of our soldiers.

Maybe an explanation without countries involved. Do you know how a Paintball war is played in an specific area ?
Every team gets a different color paint to put in their guns. Red, Blue, Yellow, Green, etc.
When a person gets hit they leave the game and they can tell which team shot him by the color of the paint, correct ?

How would you be able to identify the shooter it if every team received mixed colors to start the game and reload ?

The poor grunts in Iraq are being manipulated by their officers who have elected to disregard their oaths to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
In my opinion, I think that the active Joint Chiefs of Staff have the military responsibility to say "NO" to GWB. Bush just fires them, promotes someone else who will say "yes" and then asks for more time and money that we don't have.
Congress also takes a similar oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies every time they approve more money they are breaking their oaths.

Nobody has been able to stop the domestic enemy living at the White House from destroying this once great country.

He and whoever are helping him are the guilty ones. He is the extremist that he is fighting. Why doesn't his father tell him that he is wrong ? Where is the Psychiatrist to have him committed ?

Then, please, exactly, Who did 911?

inside job is beyond a reasonable doubt done by domestic terrorists.
Foreign terrorists ... would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings.

Nice argument!! I like it! Never thought of it, duh!

DOMESTIC, that immediatly makes me think of Richard Meyrs! Chief of Staff is a) responsible and b) fully informed. So for him it is ok to murder 3000 NYC civilians and defraud the US taxpayers?

Where is he now? He recently joined UNITED TECHNOLOGIES, a company that has the best CIA connections and is generally overlooked.

Great piece, one of the best

Great piece, one of the best I've seen on blogger in awhile. I love the paragraph on the democratization of scientific expertise, something which Einstein repeatedly stressed. No, we don't need advanced degrees in structural engineering to understand the basic principles of Newtonian physics.

Kudos to the anarchist site DissidentVoice for publishing it. Along with Information Clearing House and a few other select sources, they have been one of the only progressive sites to rise to the challenge of 911truth.

I rarely visit Counterpunch and Znet any more -- even though they have lots of great material on other subjects -- because I'm so disgusted with the way they've treated 911.

I disagree with the author in one respect however: I wouldn't classify Kevin Ryan's remarks toward Garcia as ad hom. It's perfectly legitimate to point out that Garcia has links with the military industrial complex and to question his motives (and "science") as a result. Just as one would have to think twice about believing a "scientist" employed by big tobacco who claimed that smoking doesn't cause cancer, so should we be highly skeptical of government mouth pieces like Garcia and NIST as they concoct bizarre, Rube-Goldberg-like explanations for the collapse of the twin towers and WTC7.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month


"website Implosion World’s statement that an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience"

So it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who did it?


I find that a somewhat misleading talking point. What if what happened at the WTC was not a traditional demolition, and therefore could have been carried out by more than just a few groups?

The WTC7 demolition was a

The WTC7 demolition was a perfect traditional implosion.

The demolition of the towers was a very spectacular show for the TV audiences. It surely needed even more skill than a traditional demolition.

So who are these handful of companies?

Who makes thermate and thermite? Who else possesses this knowledge? Is it taught in miltary academies or at the university level? What in fact are the technical difficulties of doing top to bottom demolition (WTC 1, 2) versus bottom-up demolition? Has anyone talked with these experts?

Regarding (super)thermite and/or (super)thermate

none of it was likely purchased but rather manufactured.

As for the skills needed to demolish a building, my understanding is that it is one passed on from generation to generation within a family business structure (see the book "Rubble": There are likely those that learn via the military, but I haven't seen any statistics.

Regarding the technical difficulty associated with a top-down as opposed to a top-up demolition sequence, I assume it can't be all that different. I quote Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc.: "by differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance. We'll have structures facing north and end up going to the north-west."

To my knowledge, some of the experts have been consulted, both for and against the theory of controlled demolition:


AGAINST: (Jim Hoffman replied to this paper

I see from this that

the Implosion World website has closed down:

and is now just a URL-for-sale.

My distinct impression is that the 9/11 perpetrators have been working successfully over the last couple of years to get the controlled demolition community to shut up and lay low.

Response to RM's post

" 'Asking questions and demanding answers is one thing. Thinking you know all the answers about that day is another.' Then for the remainder of his comment, he makes clear that he's not even in favor of asking questions and demanding answers, regarding these as a fruitless waste of time. Inanely, he 'argues' that, 'While Griffin writes his next tome, Palestinians are dying.' Umm, yeah, Josh--just like they've kept dying through all the tomes Chomsky, Cockburn, et al. have written in recent decades. What, does he think that Palestinian-rights advocates were soooooooooo close to reversing U.S. policies until the gosh-darn 9/11 truth movement came along to derail their efforts? " - RM

Great point. My question - and I hope any and all can answer - is how do you counter the arguement that its a waste of time looking at this and there are more important things out there to worry about?

Because, honestly, if someone thinks that there is something out there that is more important than preventing our own government from conducting terrorist operations against our own people then something is REALLY wrong with that person. Society and the forces within it seems to be so good at detaching events from their real significance and wider meaning.

How can we make people see that what they want (freedom, wealth, healthcare, etc.) is not really achievable unless the system that is in place is destroyed (smash the big banks and Fed, break up the CIA, rise up against the military-industrial complex, restructure the market, paper ballot election reform, etc). 9/11 has left a huge chip on this gilded system allowing everyone who wants to look at the evidence to see the criminality and immorality that defines everyday life once you look past the surface. Man, we got to win this for humanity.

Answer to your query

"Great point. My question - and I hope any and all can answer - is how do you counter the arguement that its a waste of time looking at this and there are more important things out there to worry about?"

Griffin in his book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" puts forth the notion that the War on Terror takes away much time and resources away from issues that are more pressing, like, for example, Global Warming.

One of the best presentations that I've seen dealing, at least in part, with this issue can be found here:

Vermont Round Table, Part I:

Vermont Round Table, Part II:

Even though the 9/11 ballot measure didn't pass, I still defer to these guys time and again as they clearly and distinctly express the heart of many 9/11 issues -- particularly in a way which you might like to emulate for future debates.

Incompetence or careful, methodical planning?

Thanks Vermonter for posing this thought: what could possibly be more important than determining if the government (or hired hands) would kill its own citizens for economic and hegemonic goals?

It is my understanding that since Reagan, people in the government are trying to demonstrate to us in countless ways that the government is incompetent and that it should be replaced with private contractors that are profit driven and by nature less accountable. This philosophy now extends into the military with enormous amounts of money going into private (Blackwater etal) hands. Hence, the voluntary army is good only for so much and then the slack is to be taken up by private contractors. So the government is slowly destroying itself from within to gut its effectiveness thereby requiring more and more to be handed over to private interests. Witness private proprietary voting machines. Or private companies conducting surveillance. Or hiring 4th tier law graduates to staff the justice department. Or using young republican cronies to manage the occupation of Iraq. Do you see how fostering incompetence is a powerful strategy for criminal behavior?

AND the best official explanation for the lack of response by the government to the attacks of 9/11 is (surprise) incompetence. The power structure uses incompetence as a shield, a cover, and a rationale for this self-perpetuating cancer. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard intelligent people, (ex-CIA analysts for example) say things like our government is too incompetent to have carried off 9/11. George Bush was likely the very best choice by the power structure to showcase this strategy of incompetence. Right? What or who could be better serve as the shield and a cover for larger crimes which are now so completely and thoroughly obvious?

I agree with Vermonter for Truth that we need to replace the existing system with its massive flaws, greed, corruption, extortion, and planet-destroying behavior. We need to radically downsize government. We need to hold accountable anyone serving in the public interest no mater what party. This is a struggle that has been revealed by me by what happened on 9/11. There are millions of us that are now paying attention and willing to boycott, strike, refuse, confront, and demand competent humane health-affirming and responsive government.

I agree also but I would start before Reagan

The CIA was organized in 1947 and it was the beginning of the secret government. Ask G.H.W. Bush who first was involved in the late 1950s.

Woodrow Wilson made a speech to Congress in 1918. 10 Months before WWI ended.
"The Fourteen Points outlined in this speech served as both the basis for peace and the hopeful establishment of a better post-war world at the conclusion of "the culminating and final war for human liberty."

"The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, all we see it, is this:

1. Open covenants of peace must be arrived at, after which there will surely be no private international action or rulings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view. "

Things have to be done honestly and in the open.

It is the only way.

The "waste of time" point

This is a favorite of Chomsky, Frank, and many others. I can think of at least two responses.

(1) If you know there are omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report, how can you NOT press for more answers? That is, it would be immoral to ignore something as obviously fraudulent and massively important as 9/11. Chomsky and friends have probably written hundreds of columns and millions of words since 9/11: Are there really that many more important issues? A subset of this response is: If we allow the power elite to lie about something as big as 9/11, on what grounds do we demand answers for much lesser crimes?

(2) 9/11 is the myth that sustains many other crimes (illegal wars, torture, trampling of the constitution, etc.). Without that myth, all of those other issues would be remedied.

At the heart of the "waste of time" point is (a) a presumption that there's no there there, (b) the government will never re-open 9/11 (probably, but not necessarily, true), and (c) there are more immediate issues. I would say the propaganda value of 9/11 trumps the immediacy of other issues. That is, the propaganda of the War on Terror sustains the war economy, sustains the police state, sustains etc. etc.


......For all your efforts. Hopefully more people will use what they have between there ears.
Basic common sence.