William Blum: I don't get the logistics of 9/11 Truth

Author William Blum recently posted these comments at Dissident Voice.

Some Further Thought Regarding the 9/11 Truth Movement

When I say, as I did in last month’s report, that I don’t think that 9-11 was an “inside job”, it’s not because I believe that men like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, et al. are not morally depraved enough to carry out such a monstrous act; these men each has a piece missing, a piece that’s shaped like a social conscience; they consciously and directly instigated the current Iraqi and Afghanistan horrors which have already cost many more American lives than were lost on 9/11, not to mention more than a million Iraqis and Afghans who dearly wanted to remain amongst the living. In the Gulf War of 1991, Cheney and other American leaders purposely destroyed electricity-generating plants, water-pumping systems, and sewage systems in Iraq, then imposed sanctions upon the country making the repair of the infrastructure extremely difficult. Then, after twelve years, when the Iraqi people had performed the heroic task of getting these systems working fairly well again, the US bombers came back to inflict devastating damage to them all once more. My books and many others document one major crime against humanity after another by our America once so dear and cherished.

So it’s not the moral question that makes me doubt the inside-job scenario. It’s the logistics of it all — the incredible complexity of arranging it all so that it would work and not be wholly and transparently unbelievable. That and the gross overkill — they didn’t need to destroy or smash up ALL those buildings and planes and people. One of the twin towers killing more than a thousand would certainly have been enough to sell the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, and Homeland Security. The American people are not such a hard sell. They really yearn to be true believers. Look how they scream hysterically over Hillary and Obama.

To win over people like me, the 9/11 truth people need to present a scenario that makes the logistics reasonably plausible. They might start by trying to answer questions like these: Did planes actually hit the towers and the Pentagon and crash in Pennsylvania? Were these the same four United Airline and American Airline planes that took off from Boston and Newark? At the time of collision, were they being piloted by people or by remote control? If people, who were these people?

Also, why did building 7 collapse? If it was purposely demolished — why? All the reasons I’ve read so far I find not very credible. As to the films of the towers and building 7 collapsing, which make it appear that this had to be the result of controlled demolitions — I agree, it does indeed look that way. But what do I know? I’m no expert. It’s not like I’ve seen, in person or on film, numerous examples of buildings collapsing due to controlled demolition and numerous other examples of buildings collapsing due to planes crashing into them, so I could make an intelligent distinction. We are told by the 9/11 truth people that no building constructed like the towers has ever collapsed due to fire. But how about fire plus a full-size, loaded airplane smashing into it? How many examples of that do we have?

But there’s one argument those who support the official version use against the skeptics that I would question. It’s the argument that if the government planned the operation there would have to have been many people in on the plot, and surely by now one of them would have talked and the mainstream media would have reported their stories. But in fact a number of firemen, the buildings’ janitor, and others have testified to hearing many explosions in the towers some time after the planes crashed, supporting the theory of planted explosives. But scarce little of this has made it to the media. Likewise, following the JFK assassination at least two men came forward afterward and identified themselves as being one of the three “tramps” on the grassy knoll in Dallas. So what happened? The mainstream media ignored them both. I know of them only because the tabloid press ran their stories. One of the men was the father of actor Woody Harrelson.



The logistics are impossible... except for 19 Arabs.

Are you just pretending to be asleep, Blum?

This is hypocrisy in action.

Hiding behind a facade of intellectual rebuttal, the gatekeepers march on.

There is one Presidential Campaign that effectively refuses and denies 911 Truth and yet attracts a critical mass of 911 Truth support.

We have to stop allowing these gatekeepers neutralize us with false paradigms and arguments.

Logistics are impossible.......... - False Premise.

Blowback.... Government incompetence........ New investigation... yes..... but effecively implied only for Govt incompetence. - Very Dangerous False Premise.

These are the distractions and distortions politicans and media pundits use to neutralize us.

We have to be very very careful not to have the 911 Truth Momentum disrupted or distorted.

How polticians and media pundits can distort mass murder in the thousands on logistics and blowback scenarios is impossible for me to comprehend.

We have to realize that for all practical purposes, there is overwhelming evidence that insiders in the US and International Military Industrial Complex were responsible for the execution and cover up of 911.

Any other "cover story" by whomever, is but a trap to nullify the extremely strong case we have against them.

The William Blums of this world will be shamed one day when the inevitable tide of history turns.

So will all those politicians who denied 911 Truth when they had the chance to do and say the right thing.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

I think we should take a different approach to Mr. Blum

Rather than assume he is a "shill" of some kind, let's be kind to him and entertain his invitation. I sense he is mostly on our side (and certainly his book Killing Hope constitutes pretty good credentials).

Please offer him constructive criticism.

Look at his last paragraph

To see what I mean. That last paragraph, though awkward, seems very much on our side.

Perhaps you are right

i may have been a too harsh or premature in my criticisms. I just hope Mr Blum realizes the truth soon.

Logistically 911 was well carried under the cover of wargames and the experience gained from prior false flag ops such as WTC 1993, Oklahoma 1995 etc... Media and Political Coverups from experienced false flag operators.

911 is a Prime Example of false flag terror. William Blum may find it easier to grasp the reality and truth behind 911 if he was better informed about the reality of false flag terror / attacks to provoke wars.

He should be introduced to Operation Northwoods for example. No room for doubts there.
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Let's continue...

... constructive discussion with Mr Blum, focusing on the strongest evidence.

Missing the profit aspect

"That and the gross overkill — they didn’t need to destroy or smash up ALL those buildings and planes and people. One of the twin towers killing more than a thousand would certainly have been enough to sell the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, and Homeland Security. The American people are not such a hard sell. "

He should consider how much money was saved by destroying these buildings without complying with environmental regulations. My understanding is that the buildings were not particularly profitable, and the Port Authority had just lost an asbestos abatement lawsuit against insurance companies. If the buildings had been left standing after airplanes smashed into them, tenants would have left in droves and the buildings would have been worthless. Why not leave one standing, he says. This shows that he has not considered this financial aspect at all.

So this is one possible response to Mr. Blum's question. Cui bono?

(I see Simuvac already made this argument at Dissident Voice. Thanks.)


Another problem that has not been receiving adequate attention is the fact that when the WTC was built in the early 1970s, asbestos was applied as insulation to steel columns and beams up to the 39th floor of the North Tower before a ban on the use of the carcinogenic mineral took effect in 1971. Asbestos fiber was a common protection against fire and heat in many products, especially building components, until its heavily toxic effects became publicly known. The American Lung Association warns that "if asbestos should become airborne and is inhaled, it can remain in the lungs for a long period of time, producing the risk for severe health problems several years later". The incubation time can last up to 30 years. Health effects can include asbestosis, lung cancer and other diseases, depending on the concentration. It is estimated that hospitalization, oxygen, medication and home care can cost a victim $300,000-$500,000 during the course of the illness.

WR Grace asbestos containing insulation was used at the WTC. Grace Vermiculite was 2-5 percent asbestos. A total of 100,000 36-kilogram bags of this vermiculite were used in the WTC. In addition, 4,150kg of 20 percent asbestos MonoKote 3 was used. Therefore, in total more than 91,000 kilos of pure asbestos fiber from Grace was used in the WTC. Grace filed bankruptcy in April 2001 over its multibillion-dollar liability from asbestos lawsuits. Unfortunately, Grace was not the only supplier.

T&N, formerly the largest asbestos company in Britain, reached a favorable settlement with the Port Authority on a $600 million lawsuit against 37 defendants, including T&N, for asbestos contamination of municipal buildings, including the WTC. Further, the Port Authority lost a 10-year court battle to get its insurers to pay more than $600 million for removing asbestos from its properties, including the World Trade Center and New York's airports. The judge ruled that asbestos-abatement costs by themselves do not constitute "physical loss or damage" under the Port Authority's all-risk policies.

The collapse of the twin towers released asbestos into the air for months, yet concerns for the long-term effect on the health of the population in the region are curiously under wraps thus far from public health organizations. Not even the normally inquisitive press seems to be paying much attention. The official statistics of the WTC towers boasts 97 elevators for passengers and six for freight, 181,000 tonnes of steel, 325,000 cubic meters of concrete below ground, 43,600 windows, 19,300 kilometers of electric cables, 319km of heating ducts, 23,000 fluorescent lights, but nothing on the amount of asbestos used.

Then there's the insurance case after the attacks:

No!!! No!!! No!!!

"To win over people like me, the 9/11 truth people need to present a scenario that makes the logistics reasonably plausible. They might start by trying to answer questions like these: Did planes actually hit the towers and the Pentagon and crash in Pennsylvania? Were these the same four United Airline and American Airline planes that took off from Boston and Newark? At the time of collision, were they being piloted by people or by remote control? If people, who were these people?"

9/11 truth people do NOT have to answer these questions. The government does, as it has all the information. The government jhas not fulfilled its duty to answer these questions openly according to air safety regulations under federal and treaty law. It has also has not established the premise for the "war on terror."

Mr. Blum needs to read these articles:




How the hell are we supposed to have definitive answers for those questions? Although I agree that Blum should be treated courteously and given the benefit of the doubt, a remark like that makes me suspicious. Every now and then, it seems that someone 'takes the temperature' of the Truth Movement, asking us to put all our cards on the table and commit to them as factually accurate (as if we could). This seems like a pretext for subsequent discrediting.

Moreover, this is one of those 9/11-specific logical fallacies that seeks to disregard conclusions unless we can get them all to hang together neatly as a cohesive narrative. (Call it "Appeal to the Obligation to Get Our Story Straight..") I'm beginning to think that among the planners and perpetrators of the attacks, there must have been thought given to undermining our ability to do just that. Things don't add up, all over the place. The Pentagon would be a prime example.


"A priori" logic

As David Ray Griffin, I believe, has said on many occasions, this type of argument employed by Blum is "a priori," or prior to evidence or experience.

Why assume what is possible? Why not simply follow the evidence? I don't know "why" certain people did 9/11; but I know the evidence suggests the official story is wrong, or at the very least the "alternative" story is possible.

I think Taibbi asked the same question of Loose Change. But really this type of question simply avoids having an opinion of the actual evidence.

A multi-billion dollar insurance windfall not very credible?

Scrooge McDuck Silverstein would disagree (I think this is a better nickname than "Lucky Larry" because luck had nothing to do with it).

The logistics of the 4 airliners that day have a lot to do with

the fact that Cheney was conducting war games with fake blips being put onto radar screens. Some or all of the flights may have been nonexistent, or they could have been swapped with drone aircraft.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

I posted the following comment

Doubt the moderators at "Dissident Voice" will approve it! What an ironic name for the magazine!

Your comment is awaiting moderation - we'll get to it ASAP!

You attempt to discredit the JFK conspiracy FACT? The magic bullet that passed through John Connelly’s arm, reversed direction and struck President Kennedy in the throat? That was the same PRISTINE bullet found on President Kennedy’s gurney at Parkrose Hospital. Even the 1978 House Committee on Assassinations concluded that President Kennedy’s murder was the result of a conspiracy!

The plane that allegedly flew into the Pentagon did so 34 minutes after the second World Trade Center Tower was struck. That was 34 minutes after it was a confirmed fact the United States was in a state of war! One of the world’s most heavily defended buildings was stuck by an amateur pilot who could barely keep a Cessna in the air! NORAD failed to intercept the plane due to at least five war games in operation on 9/11. On any other day, any derelict plane in US airspace could have been intercepted in less than 15 minutes!

Conspiracy theory? I call it common sense!

Sad . . .

I find it interesting how sites and publications like the Nation, Counterpunch and Dissident Voice all are avidly against "conspiracy theories" or else push the ridiculous hoaxes, and also do whatever they can to trash the Green Party, the Peace Movement and others, when it counts. If you watch closely, you see them undermining everything that counts . . .

DVoice only pushes no plane at the Pentagon, nothing else of note that I've seen.

>>They might start by trying to answer questions like these: Did planes actually hit the towers and the Pentagon and crash in Pennsylvania?

The whole point of asking that question -- and not a relatively rational question -- is to create a swamp that most people on this site will walk into blindly and not even realize. By responding with, "only the government knows" you walk into the trap of the inevitable logic of "we don't believe real planes hit" and that amounts only to "we're nutty conspiracy theorists."

But people on here fall for that, and a number of no plane people here are pushing through and voting those up to keep the momentum of us looking like idiots going.

That's the most important way to keep us sidelined, by keeping us pumping out two of the most ridiculous nonsense statements to average Americans -- "the planes weren't real," and "the hijackers weren't real."

That's all they need to do. Because neither of those can be backed up. The towers demolition becomes more and more ominous the more closely you look, but the planes and hijackers stuff is just designed for us to destroy ourselves.

What's sad is that you missed the point

And assumed I was making an argument I was not. The burden of proof being on the government, and us not needing to answer any questions, is a point that could be applied to many questions. Maybe people liked the articles I cited, which are excellent and highly significant, and are not based on any particular theory, but on the many questions that have been raised and the utter failure of the government to establish its own case, let alone answer these questions.

I really don't give a damn what William Blum, Cockburn, Rothschild, or anyone else thinks about "nutty conspiracy theories." You are arguing that if only you could expel "nutty" theories from the movement, these people would join us. That is a false, defeatist, and apologetic premise. Are you saying that Blum is excused from ignoring the obvious physical facts about the destruction of the towers, based on a simplistic and ultimately absurd speculation about why the perpetrators would destroy both towers, merely because other people have questioned the planes? Let's assume that's disinformation. You're sophisticated enough to see it. Why then isn't covert operations expert William Blum -- who says he wouldn't put anything past them -- not sophisticated enough to see that? You are excusing the inexcusable.

And why are you ascribing such a dishonest and manipulative motive to Blum? If he in fact thinks that way, and is trying to "trap" us, then he doesn't care what really happened and is not trying to find out anyway.

Since planes were the questions raised by Blum, a "no planes" theory is not the only reason to demand solid proof of exactly what hit the towers. Many people in this movement wonder about remote controlled planes, but that's not the only reason either. I assume that's why Aidan Monaghan.is doing FOIA requests, and he's very clear that this is not in support of a no planes theory. Regardless of why he is seeking the information, his requests are appropriate and valuable.


It's called evidence. You don't assume evidence in criminal cases. Period. There is missing evidence, and lack of NTSB investigations that are required for all destroyed aircraft under international law, and should have been required under federal law since the law enforcement exception giving control to the FBI, passed after Flight 800, is being used to keep information from the American people. No real criminal cases have been brought-- the Moussaoui case and the Mottasadeq case in Germany are travesties of justice and a stain on Western jurisprudence.

Please stop your contentious criticisms every time somebody says something you disagree with. I was not trying to push any particular theory, I was responding to Blum's demand that we answer questions, which just happened to be about the planes. If I missed his "trap," it's because it didn't occur to me that he was so disingenuous to be laying a trap.

It's really sad that you dismiss this basic principle that the government has the burden of proof. I suggest you read Elias Davidsson's articles and think carefully about this principle, because it is far more important than what William Blum thinks.

The Government promised to

The Government promised to provide concrete proof that Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda was responsible for 911. I recall Rice and Powell as well as others making lots of noises regarding this immediately after the tragedy.

Yet to date no concrete proof has provided regarding the actual guilt of Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden with regards to 911.

That is why even the FBI does not dare list it as one of the crimes that Osama Bin Laden is wanted for on their OWN website.

The Feds cannot even back up their own story.

Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden may be guilty of other crimes and atrocities in Afghanistan etc against their own people. But if even the FBI does not dare bring up charges against Osama for 911, then we have to ask ourselves some critical questions.

Who else could be responsible?

Cui Bono? Who benefits?

It is not a stretch to start fingering the Military Industrial Complex. The burden of proof is on the government. Yet it looks like we the people are taking that responsibility and researching, investigating to provide proot that leads to a different source.

They have tried to make fools of us all for the lat 6 yrs. Sending American Sons and Daughters to die for FUTILE wars of conquest on behalf of Corporate AmeriKa.

To All those Gatekeepers out there. When the truth comes out, will they be able to forgive themselves?

A Dark Page in American History can be turned if we are willing to pay the price.

And the Price of Freedom. True Freedom. Is Eternal Vigilance.
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Did planes actually hit the towers and the Pentagon

and crash in Pennsylvania?

Four passenger jets crash in one day in the US and not one single 'traceable' part from even one of these flights has ever been presented to the public. There should have been 100's of traceable parts, especially at the Pentagon and PA, where there should have been no problem recovering all of the parts from these planes.

Also, it is the only time that I know of that the NTSB did not investigate a passenger jet crash, no less four of them on the same day.

As Col. Fletcher Prouty said

As Col. Fletcher Prouty said regarding the Kennedy assassination, the real question to ask is "Why?" The "hows" are window-dressing for the public to endlessly chew.

9/11 was a black-op, no matter who controlled it. Mr. Blum surely recognizes this considering his comprehensive work. Prouty said that if one wants to know who is ultimately behind a scenario once the fallout begins, one need only ask:

Who benefitted?

Who had the ability to suspend normal operating procedures and security?

Who had the ability to cover it up?

As to the first question, it is obvious that no elements within the Muslim world have benefitted. No "organizer," no matter how deranged, would have failed to anticipate the resulting shitstorm from the mighty Empire and its syncophantic allies.

Blum also knows that successful intelligence black-ops leave fingerprints far too opaque to indentify -- and that they have historically been instigated to seize land and resources for the gaping corporate American maw. Since none of these apply to a "confession" by Ali Baba on behalf of 19 Crazy Thieves representing an American created al Qaeda, he should know better.

I do sense wiggle room in his statement, however, and don't necessarily think he is disavowing the notion altogether. He has at least disputed one of the debunkers arguments by stating that the power center is indeed capable of the sociopathy necessary to consider it. It's a big point.

I don't get the logistics...

of the fake War on Terror...

Many debunkers, gatekeepers, and those one the fence of 9/11 truth depend on

Argument from personal incredulity:

"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead... Two common versions of the argument from personal incredulity are:

'I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true.' (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)

'That's not what people say about this; people instead agree with what I am saying.' (Here the person is asserting that a proposition must be inaccurate because the opinion of 'people in general' is claimed to agree with the speaker's opinion, without offering specific evidence in support of the alternative view.) "
Arabesque: 911 Truth