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

Are you just pretending to be asleep, Blum?

"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.)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EB12Aa01.html

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:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8886

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.

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 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.

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.