Question Authority ... Except About 9/11? A Reply to The Progressive

Question Authority ... Except About 9/11?
A Reply to Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive

By Allan Wood

On the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive, published a lengthy commentary on the magazine's website: "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already". It was posted at Common Dreams the following day.

In discussing the 9/11 Truth Movement, Rothschild made some blatant distortions and omissions, which I would like to address.

I have been independently researching various aspects of 9/11 ever since the names of the 19 hijackers were first released on September 14, 2001. I helped write and edit entries for Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 Timeline, I co-wrote an examination of what George W. Bush did on that infamous morning, and I spoke at a press conference for 9/11 Citizens Watch in lower Manhattan before the 9/11 Commission's first public hearing in 2003.

From my perspective, Rothschild's attitude – which echoes that of many progressives, including David Corn of The Nation – is 'Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, all of them, they lie day and night about every topic under the sun – except for 9/11.' Why would we think the Bush Gang would distort the facts about everything except the central event that has given them the opportunity and license to do everything they wanted?

The Administration's ability to take advantage of 9/11 – and their great success at doing so – certainly does not prove their complicity. It should, however, compel us to make sure we know exactly what happened on that day. The implied admonition in Rothschild's headline – "Don't ask questions" – runs counter to the basic premise of progressive thought.

At one point, Rothschild asks: “[Are we] supposed to believe that this incompetent Administration, which brought you Katrina, was somehow able to execute this grand conspiracy?”

I would never call the Bush Administration incompetent. In fact, I’m continually amazed at how efficient they have been at accomplishing their agenda – war without end, funnelling billions of taxpayer dollars to their business buddies, imprisonment with charges or trial, spying on civilians, concentration camps, torture, limiting dissent – the list goes on and on – all with little or no resistance from the Democrats, the media or the American public. Most of this has been accomplished by using the so-called war on terror as an excuse – and raising fears of another 9/11.

When Rothschild calls all 9/11 conspiracy theories "profoundly irrational" and insists they "lead nowhere" and are "almost all ... baseless", he gives tacit approval to the Bush administration's official story.

I use the term "official story" to refer to the broad outline of what supposedly happened on 9/11. It's very important to note that there is no one "official story". Nearly every aspect of what we've been told about 9/11 – the actual attacks and the military's reaction, the warnings from more than a dozen foreign nations, the hijackers and their backgrounds – can be called into question, either because the government has presented no evidence or because they have released several contradictory versions of the same incident.

Rothschild's third paragraph begins, "Here's what the conspiracists believe". With that one phrase, Rothschild lumps millions of people who doubt the official story of 9/11 into one monolithic group.

Even a cursory examination of the 9/11 Truth Movement will reveal that it's not a single organization or group, but many independent people doing diverse research and having radically different beliefs. There are perhaps no two people in the Truth Movement whose thoughts on 9/11 line up 100%. Yet Rothschild's starting point is that everyone who questions the official story believes the exact same things.

And what are these beliefs? Rothschild discusses only four: (1) 9/11 was an inside job, ordered by the Bush administration; (2) three buildings at the WTC complex collapsed because of pre-planted explosives; (3) a small plane or a missile hit the Pentagon; and (4) Flight 93 was shot down.

Rothschild chides those researchers "who never even took one college science course [holding] forth at great length" on how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed. Yet he appears guilty of something similar – dismissing the 9/11 Truth Movement without having done much research into it, or, seemingly, into the events of September 11th themselves. Rothschild's observations on the movement are very similar to other uninformed dismissals from the mainstream.

9/11 researchers do not agree on what caused the buildings to collapse or what hit the Pentagon. In fact, those are probably the two most divisive subjects in the movement. Many researchers, including myself, do not spend much time at all investigating or debating those topics.

In discussing what brought the two towers down, Rothschild gives credence to the March, 2005 cover story of Popular Mechanics, which set out to debunk many 9/11 conspiracies. In that article, PM's researchers showcased the silliest and flimsiest theories (including several that already had been discredited within the 9/11 community), as if these were the main talking points of the movement.

Rothschild writes: "Osama bin Laden has already claimed responsibility for the attack several times and boasted of the prowess of the suicide bombers who hijacked those planes. Why not take him at his word?"

On September 16, 2001, bin Laden explicitly denied any involvement: "The US government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks."

Bin Laden may have been lying when he said this, but why wouldn't Rothschild also "take him at his word" on this statement? In June 2006, when asked why there is no reference to the September 11 attacks on the FBI's bin Laden Wanted Poster, Rex Tomb, the Bureau's Chief of Investigative Publicity, conceded that "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Rothschild continues: "And if bin Laden were working in cahoots with the Bush Administration, why was the President warned on August 6, 2001, in a Presidential daily briefing that Osama bin Laden was about to attack the United States? Wouldn't that risk exposing the conspiracy?"

This naively assumes that everyone in the Bush administration (or FBI, or CIA) would have had to be in on a conspiracy in order for one to exist. Was every Enron employee in cahoots with the criminals that ran that company? No. Is every newspaper reporter privy to what goes on in editors-only meetings? Of course not.

Rothschild claims, "The problems with a vast conspiracy theory are obvious. There's the likelihood that someone along the chain would squeal." He then quotes Richard Clarke, who served as counterterrorism czar for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush: "The government is not sufficiently competent to pull off such conspiracies and too leaky to keep them secret."

This is a common belief, but it is also a Catch-22. If we're aware of various government secrets, then someone must have leaked them. But if the government has been successful in keeping things hidden, how would we know? It's still a secret!

Daniel Ellsberg, who knows a fair amount about conspiracies and secrets, addressed this matter in his book Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (my emphasis):

It is a commonplace that "you can't keep secrets in Washington" or "in a democracy," that "no matter how sensitive the secret, you're likely to read it the next day in the New York Times." These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn't in a fully totalitarian society. ... But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, admit in their new book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, that officials from the Pentagon, NORAD and the FAA all likely lied to the Commission in their testimony. And while the Commissioners considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, in the end, they did nothing.

Top administration officials – including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers – have given multiple, contradictory accounts of their actions on the morning of September 11. In my own research, I found seven different accounts of how Bush learned about the first WTC plane crash. I believe the American people deserve a straight answer, but the Commission never demanded or even requested one.

Rothschild's statement on the possible shoot down of Flight 93 is surprisingly weak:

[Many] conspiracists allege that Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was brought down not by the passengers struggling with the hijackers but by a U.S. missile. But we know from cell phone conversations that passengers on board that plane planned on confronting the hijackers. And, as Debunking 9/11 Myths [the Popular Mechanics book] notes, "a Cleveland air traffic controller assigned to Flight 93 heard signs of a struggle in the cockpit, followed shortly by screaming."

Plans to confront the hijackers and sounds of a struggle do not preclude a shoot-down. All three events – or any combination of them, or none of them – could have occurred.

There are solid, bona fide reasons why the crash of Flight 93 should be investigated further, including the numerous reports from local residents right after the crash of other planes in the area, TV news reports that morning that two F-16 fighters were tailing Flight 93 before it crashed, and a flight controller's statement on September 12 that an F-16 fighter made several 360-degree turns to remain close to the airplane.

As I mentioned above, I have not spent much time examining what hit the Pentagon. The incessant bickering within the movement on this subject seems more like a diversionary tactic than an attempt at constructive debate. However, since the FBI has admitted that it possesses film footage from no less than 84 security cameras stationed around the Pentagon, it could likely put all conspiracy theories to rest by simply releasing all of the film from those 84 cameras that was taken between 9:15 to 9:45 AM on 9/11.

There remain scores of serious 9/11 issues that have been ignored by the media and thus invisible to the American public. When one of these topics is mentioned, either in public or on internet message boards, the defenders of the official story fall silent. Sadly, Rothschild doesn't so much as hint at these important issues.

Here are three items I'd like to see get some front-page attention and serious investigation:

* There were as many as 12 war games being staged on the morning of 9/11 (scroll down on this page), some of which involved the simultaneous hijackings of passenger planes, both military and civilian airliners "impersonating" hijacked planes, and the crashing of a plane into a government building. For some of the military exercises, false "blips" meant to represent hijacked planes were placed onto FAA radar screens. This is a critically important issue in understanding the response of the American military, yet no media outlet has yet reported on these exercises and the 9/11 Commission casually mentioned only one of them in passing in a footnote.

* David Schippers (the House Judiciary Committee's chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial) claims that several FBI agents knew the targets and date of the attacks as much as six weeks before 9/11. During August 2001, Schippers tried to interest anyone in Washington (including then-Attorney General John Ashcroft) in this information, but no one seemed to care.

* Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi – two eventual hijackers the CIA knew had connections to the USS Cole bombing – had a very close relationship with Abdussattar Shaikh, a long-time undercover FBI informant who worked closely with the Bureau on terrorism cases. Alhazmi lived with Shaikh in San Diego for almost one year – and two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Hani Hanjour, may have also hung around Shaikh's house.

In his book Intelligence Matters, Florida Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the attacks in late 2002, discloses how the FBI first failed to tell the Inquiry about Shaikh, then refused to allow him to testify (while insisting its internal investigation had determined his innocence), moved him to a secret location "for his own safety", and apparently set him up with "a well-known former Justice Department attorney [who had] a strong relationship with the FBI".

The 9/11 Commission's Final Report refers to this FBI asset only once – as an anonymous "homeowner".

These three issues may turn out to lead nowhere. But one needn't be profoundly irrational to believe they should be addressed.

Rothschild refers to David Ray Griffin (a professor of theology and religion, who has written more than 25 books, including three on 9/11) as "the guru of the Truth Movement" and spends much of his essay taking apart Griffin's theories of controlled demolition and what hit the Pentagon. But he completely ignores Griffin's best work – his untangling of the convoluted explanations given for the military's lack of response to the four hijacked planes.

Indeed, most people don't know that in its Final Report, released in July 2004, the 9/11 Commission invented a brand-new chronology for the US military. This new timeline not only contradicted every single news report since the attacks occurred, but also contradicted the Commission's interim reports and many of the witnesses it had called. The Commission did not mention or explanation this discrepancy.

Paul Thompson, the editor of The Complete 9/11 Timeline (published as the book The Terror Timeline), has documented seven radically different versions of the military's response. The first account was given by Richard Myers, the acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, in sworn testimony before the Senate on September 13, 2001. He testified that no military plane was scrambled to respond to the attacks until after the Pentagon was hit – more than one hour after the first plane was known to have been hijacked. It was on the following evening that the "official" story began to change.

Rothschild admits that the government's version doesn't make complete sense, but he's quick to say that trying to solve the mystery is pointless.

To be sure, there are discrepancies and omissions … But almost all of their [conspiracists'] major assertions are baseless. And their own theories have such gigantic holes and require such monumental leaps of logic that they discredit themselves.

At bottom, the 9/11 conspiracy theories are profoundly irrational and unscientific. ... The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a cul-de-sac. They lead nowhere.

Progressives and liberals demanded to see evidence of Iraq's WMDs prior to the US invasion, and we howled when it became obvious that such evidence did not exist – and that the Bush administration knew that from the start. Why is it wrong to demand the same regarding 9/11?

It's bad enough that conservatives and moderates, in every available media outlet, ridicule everyone who doesn't toe the Bush line on 9/11. That progressives do the same thing is shameful – and hypocritical.

redsock/Allan Wood lives in Ontario, Canada.

Trust everyone named Bush & Rothschild...

At least he has an appropriate surname.

appropriate surname??

" Trust everyone named Bush & Rothschild...
At least he has an appropriate surname."

You should be ashamed of yourself. Bigotry has no place in this debate.

Tnx, excellent article.

Tnx, excellent article.


thanks. it is more for a general audience (i had hoped that common dreams would run it as a rebuttal (they published something of mine in 2004), but no.

i figured people here might like to see it.

They are afraid that if the

They are afraid that if the 19 hijackers and Osama story falls away, Israel is standing there as the main suspect, with lots of evidence and spies in the US, even in the US government, who could aid and abet the plot. Its that simple and probably means they don't believe the official story either.

What we expect

What we expect is not your defense of already debunked data, but an actual acknowledgment that you have been shown not to have any credible evidence to support the absurd - and puerile notion - that 9/11 was somehow an inside job.

The real world will always win against you whether you wish to hide from it or not.

Where is the love?

Has no one shown you any love lately? You always come on this board tossing out imbecillic little taunts concerning allegedly debunked arguments. Yet, you never offer any arguments of your own to back up your empty (and ultimately "absurd and puerile") assertions. Why don't you actually do your own research, and make some constructive arguments in favor of the official line? Otherwise, I'm sure there are other groups who would appreciate your smooshy nuggets of wisdom more than the individuals on this blog.

BTW, you are correct in saying, however awkwardly, that "the real world will always win against you whether you wish to hide from it or not." Lars, it's time for you to give into the real world, and stop hiding from the mountains of evidence flatly contradicting the official fairy tale of Osama and his 19 magic merry men.

Stick around, and you might learn something. Otherwise, the not-so-real world of Fox News would love to have your patronage.

The burden of proof is on YOU

You can't escape the fact that you have to refute the evidence but when we ask you to you run away whining.

When will you learn that you haven't presented any evidence to support you?

Common sense debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories

Common sense debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories
By Austin Bay

CONSPIRACY theorists didn't let us down. On the fifth anniversary of 9/11 they were all over, attempting to spread sensational claims and sensational lies.

Moreover, it was not hard to guess that sensationalist media would collaborate, not because the squawk show host or headline scribbler believes the poisoned foolishness, but because anger, fear and trembling sell.

Conspiracy theories are public ghost stories of a sort, campfire horror tales tarted up with government devils, corporate witches and other demons-of-convenience.

However, Popular Mechanics magazine has provided a handy antidote to the conspiracy theorists' more noxious rhetorical poisons.

"Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To The Facts" expands to book-length a collection of articles Popular Mechanics published in March 2005. The book contains new appendices and updated analyses.

"Debunking" begins with an insightful and blunt foreword by Sen. John McCain, who observes, "Conspiracy mongering is no small phenomenon. ... These theories come in nearly infinite variety, but all reach essentially the same conclusion: that the U.S. government, or some shadowy group that controls it, organized the attacks as part of a master plan for global domination.

But the truth is more mundane. The philosopher Hannah Arendt described the banality of Nazi evil; the 9/11 hijackers were also ordinary, uninteresting men with twisted beliefs."

Counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke's blurb for the book describes it as "reliable and rational" and that the government "isn't competent enough to pull off such conspiracies and too leaky to keep them secret."

Book editors David Dunbar and Brad Reagan laud former Sen. Pat Moynihan's classic quip: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts."

With Moynihan as a guide, the book follows a "Claim" and "Fact" format. Here are excerpts from the section entitled "Melted Steel":

"Claim: ... 'We have been lied to,' announces the Web site 'The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.' The posting is entitled 'Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC.' ...

"FACT: Jet fuel burns at 1,100 to 1,200 degrees Celsius ... significantly less than the 1,510 degrees Celsius typically required to melt steel. ... However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength -- and that required exposure to much less heat."

The "Fact" section includes analysis from structural engineers, a professor of metallurgy and explosives experts.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories have overt and covert promoters. Some are more nuisance than threat. Howard Dean verbally toyed with 9/11 conspiracy theories when he was playing primary election footsie with hard-left constituencies. Others seek nuclear weapons and finance terrorism. "Debunking" notes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rambling May 2006 letter to President Bush included "broad hints" that the U.S. organized the attacks.

"Debunking's" afterword, written by Popular Mechanics editor in chief James Meigs, deserves special plaudits. Journalism and rhetoric professors should make use of it in undergraduate classes. The afterword's first sentence sets the stage: "On February 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for global domination." That's the day his magazine's "debunking" issue appeared in print.

Meigs, however, quickly moves from hate mail to a discussion of "conspiracism" techniques. ("Conspiracism" is a term coined by Chip Berlet of the liberal Political Research Associates think tank.)

Meigs analyzes eight 9/11 conspiracy-spinner techniques. I'll mention two:

(1) Attempts to "marginalize opposing views." Meigs says thousands of eyewitness 9/11 accounts and the analyses of numerous universities and professional organizations (including Underwriters Labs and the American Society of Civil Engineers) are dismissed as "the government version."

(2) Circular reasoning. Meigs writes that " ... among 9/11 theorists, the presence of evidence supporting the mainstream view is also taken as proof of conspiracy." He concludes: "Like doctrinaire Marxists or certain religious extremists, conspiracists enjoy a world view that is immune to refutation."

Meigs' analyses of "demonization" and the "paranoid style" are particularly crisp and compelling.

I also wrote a book blurb, calling "Debunking" "a victory for common sense." The world deserves more victories just like it.

Oh, Lars. Just "pull-it" and watch the building collapse.

"As a former Minister Of National Defense, when the news came out I had to wonder. Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews? Why did the President just sit in the schoolroom when he heard the news? Why did he not acknowledge that he already knew what was going on? You spend billions and billions with spooks all over the world and surely should have known what was going on. You get into very deep terroritory here because it's the same kind of thing as we saw with Pearl Harbor."

— Paul Hellyer - Former National Defense Minister Of Canada

Who is Austin Bay?

Who is Austin Bay?

How tied in is he with the military-industrial complex?

What is the nature and degree of his association with James Dunnigan and the development and use of military war games?

Did he ever work for SAIC?

PM Falls apart under pressure

Too bad that Popular Mechanics can't argue their assertions face to face with those whom they claim to debunk. They lost all credibility long ago. Listen to this one Lars, to see how strong PM's arguments really are:

I added this comment on the site's article

I found it of note that the editor included 9/11 debunking sites at the end but not one of the many well-researched and quite convincing sites that argue that the government's conspiracy theory does not add up and that it does, quite literally fly in the face of physics. Unfortunately, this says volumes regarding this site's left-gatekeeping status and desire to eliminate all debate with half-truths and misdirection. For those of you would value this site, you might wish to wonder why they would take the position that no rational debate of the -evidence- is warranted. I also take umbrage with those who think ad hominem arguments are somehow appropriate. We who seek the truth are neither moonbats, irrational, 'Clinically insane' (as another writer suggested). We seek rational and evidenced based truth. Not fancing writing from an obvious shill.

Rothchild is one who attempts to stifle debate. And I have to ask why. Why would anyone wish to eliminate debate of the issues, of the evidence, of the deed. In my mind, according to all I have learned in life, those who attempt avoid debate are those who are most vulnerable to it. That's Rothchild. That is On the evidence and history even I would win in a debate with Rothchild hands down. So, is clean or dirty in this enterprise? Of complicity in stifling debate. And, if so, why? Why won't these 'editors' allow any reputable 911/truth movement representative to reply to Rothschild's obvious 'hit piece'? Why do they insist upon telling only one side? (and a flawed example to boot) I can count the reasons on one finger.

You're transparently wrong

You must think people are incredibly stupid, medicis. The 9/11 Truth Movement has consistently refused to deal with real evidence it doesn't like. It ignores it, it minimizes it, it claims it's planted.

Eventually you're going to have to recognize that your conspiracy theories are nothing more than fantasies gone wild. As long a you pretend you are somehow serious and rational, you are going to be laughed at.

You are hiding your heads in the sand, refusing to confront, much less even begin to inavlidate, the real evidence that conclusively proves you have not a leg to stand on.

You're a victim of your own ingonrance and prejudice against reason.

A researcher named "KJF"

A researcher named "KJF" offered more info on Almihdhar:


(a) I have six sources that say the NSA was listening to Al Mihdhar's calls from the US to Yemen, including the DOJ's Office of Inspector General and FBI agent Dan Coleman who, after 9/11, read the dispacthes the NSA drafted about (some of?) the calls. In addition, there was an operation (perhaps called Catcher's Mitt) monitoring Al Qaeda operatives in the US before 9/11 - the Joint Inquiry confirmed the NSA was still picking up Al Qaeda intercepts from the US in 2001;

(b) The CIA admit openly they were following Al Mihdhar and the Al Hazmi brothers around Malaysia and this was a big operation. The CIA says they lost him, but according to KSM, Al Mihdhar thought they were followed to LA;

(c) Rumsfeld was told on 9/11 that three of the American 77 hijackers had been followed "since Millenium and Cole";

(d) According to 9/11 Commission staff director Eleanor Hill, the hijackers were "right in the centre of the FBI's counterterrorism coverage", meaning they associated with a whole bunch of terrorist suspects the FBI was investigating;


KJF notes that at least 11 of the 19 hijackers were known to intelligence agencies before 9/11, although not all of them were as well known as Al Mihdhar.

It is beyond obvious that the CIA and NSA know more than they are telling about the hijackers. (In addition, there are very clear examples in the "official story" of hijackers like Atta and Jarrah being in two places at the same time.)

We do not need to rely on ANY physical evidence -- and probably shouldn't -- because any of that is probably impossible to prove at this point. It is nothing more than seductive quicksand.

Just the many facts on the hijackers coupled with the administration's ever-changing stories about what they knew is enough.

Anyone who studies what has been reported and doesn't realize this is being willful ignorant.

Oops: This is the kind of

Oops: This is the kind of stuff that NEVER gets mentioned in the debunking articles and NEVER gets mentioned by people like lars.

They can't bring up stuff like this either because they haven't done the research or they know the information is damning.

The debunkers rely on demolition, no-planes, holograms, elf magic, etc. to make fun of the movement (and many people give them plenty of ammo), but they ignore the real evidence -- the "official story".

Absolving yourself from responsibility

"We do not need to rely on ANY physical evidence -- and probably shouldn't -- because any of that is probably impossible to prove at this point. It is nothing more than seductive quicksand."

This indicates that your theory is nothing more than wishful thinking. All of the physical evidence, which is necessary for you to prove that Bush caused 9/11, is 100% against you. Indeed, it is quicksand for you.

Thanks for the admission that you are completely wrong.


The "Demolition" evidence is quite strong unless one does not believe their lying beady little eyes.

But besides that, all the circumstantial evidence ALL leads to just one answer and that is that the Bush administration was clearly complicit.

I find it hard to believe any rational human being could possibly swallow the Governments insane conspiracy theory.

Actually, you're wrong

No evidence of explosives has ever been found. That's fact.

No one has to beleive the government since it has no possession of the evidence.


The videos are evidence dumb ass.

The data is evidence.

Continue your denial all you are doing is making a fool of yourself

The evidence proves your wrong

What a dumb thing for you to claim. You don't even know that no evidence of explosives was ever found.

God, the idiocy and denial of you guys is amazing.


Nobody found any evidence that the air was dangerous to breath at Ground Zero either. That's fact.

Oh wait. Sorry, now that people are dying from exposure, it's no longer fact. Turns out the EPA decided not to tell.

How irrelevant

All the independent studies of the dust also showed absolutely NO evidence of any kind of explosives, including thermite or thermate.

Maybe you should do some research for a change.

The very fact that there was

The very fact that there was a giant pyroclastic flow of dust a priori indicates the use of explosives.


Let's see your source for that claim?

What, you don't have a source? You made it up?


As anyone will see once they

As anyone will see once they start reading about 9/11, the government has told us many "official stories".

NORAD, NEADS, and the FAA have given us SEVEN distinct stories of the military's response in the last five years. These came in press conferences, Senate testimony, books published by the military, audio tapes released by NORAD, and the 9/11 Commission hearings.

No tinfoil required -- we have their words on tape and paper. All SEVEN "official" accounts cannot all be true. And it's not like they have said the other stuff was wrong, now we know what happened -- they just throw a new version out there as if it is what they've been saying all along. It's quite amazing.

And as I mentioned, Rumsfeld and Myers have given -- in public comments and testimony -- three different versions of where they were and what they did in the early hours of the attacks.

Those who slavish stick to the Cheney administration's version(s) of events need to explain all these contradictions away.

(I stay away from CD and bombs and missles because I think they are (in many cases) made by people who which to divide the movement. Someone has written that a lot of them have right-wing backgrounds. That may or may not be true. I prefer to stick to verifible statements and reporting in my research. Your mileage may vary.)

De-emphasize the Physical Evidence

Why do debunkers consistently bait the 9/11 truth movement with the physical evidence? It's because they realize it's a hopeless argument. Quite simply, there isn't any physical evidence because Bush quickly destroyed it (also a crime, by the way). It's actually a hopeless argument for either side. The 9/11 truth movement would do well to shift its emphasis to the circumstantial evidence, which is where we are strong. For example, why do debunkers not want to discuss the war games, Griffin's deconstruction of the 9/11 Commission's report, the oil-drugs-money nexus, or other powerful evidence? Think about it.

It's to divert your attention and keep the conversation directed

toward "controlled demolition" or "what hit the pentagon".

It's been this way for years. It's getting a bit old.

"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."

You hate physical evidence?

So Rice Farmer, you are admitting to us that the physical evidence refutes all of your claims.

You know that neither Bush nor anyone else destroyed any physical evidence. It was all examined as the record shows.

Thanks for admitting the deceit of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Most of us were on to you 5 years ago.

Poor, poor Lars.....

Is posting a hit piece from Austin Bay the best you can do. Are diatribes and ad hominems the best you can do. (I've seen your other posts). As a neuroscientist, I actually prefer empirical data and logic. Can you provide some? Ah, I thought not. And neither does poor, poor Austin's ramble. Oh, and by the way,


The simple facts of temperatures:

1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

So you see, poor Lars, as just *one* example of Austin's dissembling, he misleads the uneducated (you) by stating a falsehood that *appears* truthful. Yah, jet fuel burns hot - in a jet engine - but not in an open fire. Like, duh, in a building.

Now, I guess that you feel some indignity that anyone would question the government's conspiracy tale. Just why are you so loyal to a government that has been shown time and time again to lie, obfuscate, and, dare I say, murder innocents. Are you just a shill? Or are you a representative of the current version of Operation Mockingbird. Or are you simply - and I am being generous here - just so 'righteously' indignant that anyone would question the motives and actions of 'your' government?

Well, if the last is the case, I suggest you get over it.

You're no qualified scientist

It's always instructive watching people claiming to be scientists that come here and claim they know what they are talking about then proceed to stick their feet in their mouths.

You certainly are funny, medicis.

I mean what scientist would come here yacking about melting temperatures of steel when no steel melted but only weakened from the heat of the fires?

I mean...duh.

You just outed yourself as another uneducated 9/11 conspiracy duffus, medicis. Go get yourself an education and don't pretend you don't know you were debunked years ago.

I highly suggest you get over your childsh denial.

Learn something intelligent and rational for a change:

ImplosionWorld analysis

Somebody referenced a link to ImplosionWorld.

ImplosionWorld paper:

"One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration "pancake-like" effect down the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out."

In a footnote, IW claims this is not exactly a "pancake effect" but rather it is a radically distinct "pancake like effect". They do not explain the difference.

Here is what NIST wrote, a direct contradiction to the above:

"the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

Here's what they say about the new party line on WTC7, that it actuall sufferend massive face damage from falling debris :

"There was also significant damage to the building's south face, although dense smoke present in most photos hinders an exact assessment."

Where are these phantom photos? And if they can't do an "exact assessment" how is anybody supposed to trust their conclusions?

Here is what FEMA said on this question, from on-site professionals:

“The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.”

- FEMA’s BPAT report (Chapter 5)

one does need

To be a "qualified Scientist" in order to understand what is basically 8th grade physics.

Just like one does not need to be a qualified meteorologist to tell which way the wind is blowing.

The fires themselves did not reach anything close to 1500 degrees F, this is proven by the copious amounts of black smoke and the testing of the steel, plus no single floor was entirely engulfed in flame, only one floor ever had more than 60% of it touched by flame and most floors affected were less than 25% touched by flame.
The Fireman that radioed from the 78th floor stated clearly that only small fires were seen and that just 2 lines would be needed to knock them out.

Thus there is no way even possible that the steel in these buildings ever weakened significantly at all, let alone enough to cause complete catastrophic, simultaneous & instant collapse which that in and of itself is technically impossible given the SPEED of the collapses.
A vacuum would be needed PLUS ALL structural support from all of the 80 floors below the fire would have to 100% negated in order for those buildings to have collapsed at anywhere even remotely close to 10 seconds and there is only ONE thing that answers that bit of proven data and that is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Not to mention the energy that would have been necessary in order to turn the vast majority of the reinforced concrete into talcum powder fine dust would not have been possible by just simple gravity collapse.
Nor would massive steel columns weighing 1000s of lbs been ejected OUTWARD up to 300' away from the building from simple gravity collapse..

Then of course we have the problem that never in all of history has a high rise steel structure EVER collapsed due to fire, yet on 9/11 magically 3 do?
The odds of this happening are greater than one person winning the lottery 3X in a row.

Plus the FACT that firemen

Plus the FACT that firemen actually reached the floors damaged by the plane and said that the fires could be PUT OUT just before the collapse!
What about the photograph of the woman standing where the plane entered the building? If the fires were so hot, shouldn't she have been vaporized? What about the molten pools in the basements that smouldered for weeks following the collapse? All I know is at the VERY LEAST our government knew in advanced and DID NOTHING! So screw all the debunking sites and all of you that have your friggin head in the sand and still believe that BushCo is innocent!

In your fantasy world

"Plus the FACT that firemen actually reached the floors damaged by the plane and said that the fires could be PUT OUT just before the collapse!"

Nonsense. They only reached the 78th floor before the tower collapsed. ALL of the major fires were ABOVE that floor.

How can you come here and pretend not to know that well-established fact?

Tell us why you would repeat known fallacies?

I would really like to know, Hunyabiz.

How is it possible after everybody has known for many years that temperatures did not have to reach anywhere 1500 degrees F for them to soften substantially? How is it possible that you would not know this basic fact?

How is it possible that you would deleiberately try to con us about the firemen reaching the 78th floor and saying exactly what they saw on the 78th floor just before they were killed in the collapse when WE ALL know that they never reached the floors above the 78th floor where the MAJOR uncontrolled fires were burning?

It is simply incredible that you would come here and repeat known nonsense and think you would be believed.

Let me give you a clue. As long as you try to perpetuate such fraud you will continued to be laughed at as the complete nut you are.


If temps reached even close to anything over 1500 degrees then black smoke would not have been present, would have been white smoke and much less of it, that is common knowledge.

and there is no way possible that a heat source that doesn't reach 1500 degrees over LESS than 50% of the steel on those floors would have remotely heated that steel enough to weaken it significally.

the steel itself did not come close to reaching the temp of the fire because of the heat sinking ability of several tons of thick steel, especially not in just an hour.

you can go phuck yourself .

what id like to know

Is why such obvious shills or idiots in denial such as Lars and abg here are allowed to post on this site.

Is it comic relief?

I think it's important that we allow them.

At one time, I asked for similar limits to be imposed, but on further thought I feel much better allowing them and their 'puerile' howling to constantly remind us of what they DO represent; a non-too-small number of Americans who can not accept the ugliest truths, and/or those who continue to actively try and hide them. Lars, abg, and the like, are disturbing for good reason (and these two pups most likely know it), but I'd sooner what to know what they are saying 'live', than simply blocking their dribble from public view they same way consolidated media has done to We The People.

We're better for it.


"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Another amusing denier

It's interesting that you have all stated that you are in absolute opposition to anything that does not adhere to your religious beliefs, to hell with evidence, structural engineers, chemists, physicists, and all the evidence in the world that refutes your childish beliefs.

No wonder you all go around in a stupor chanting "9/11 was an inside job", but when we confront you with the requirement to support your claims, you just whine endlessly that you "don't know what happened - we are just asking questions."

We're really tired of your inability to support your beliefs and your whining to Americans and the world and those of us who have respect for reason and the truth will never let you forget the utter absurdity of your actions and claims.

You guys were definitively refuted by the evidence for years yet by your example here, you continue to lie about the evidence. No one does that except for politically motivated goons, Holocaust Deniers, the KKK, and frauds.

You'll thank me one day for waking you up to the reality of your absurd nonsense.

Abbys "jokes"

So with my other patented Abby's Jokes Via Powerpoint being so successful (read: not at all) on this blog, I've decided to keep flogging that dead horse with another one. Enjoy:

As some of my readers know, I've been on Paxil for quite some time. There are some side effects. For example, it takes me a long time to orgasm.

But I was suicidal before...

It would take me a lot longer to cum if I was dead.

According to researchers, boys with some music tastes, such as techno and pop, are more likely to contract HIV than other styles.

Least likely to be infected? Fans of Weird Al Yankovic.

Most likely? Listeners of the hit song "Come on Everybody, Lets Get Together and Share Heroin Needles".

heres another comedic gem from Abby- A woman in Beijing suffered a car accident after trying to teach her dog to drive.

He is already set up with a license from the New York Taxi and Limousine Commission.

wow Abby. do those jokes really work in the clubs you work in? why are females almost never funny? also, are you really as pasty as you look in those pictures? eck.

I disagree

I fail to see the importance of allowing a bunch of Neofascist brainwashed assholes to constantly spew their bald faced lies on this site.
It serves no purpose whatsoever.

They should be banned.

Faster And Fuller Than Lead And Passwords.

The 'up-side' I would enjoy with you, such as we would be able to better focus and waist less time writing responses or pulling hair in disgust. However, just like viewing that load of shit "Obsession" and seeing how deranged is such thinking, we who say we are dedicated to truth, are far better served by NOT banning their brainwashed lies.

As they come here, and try dropping their little tidbits, personal attacks, and cyclical repetition..... We see in their very words, the necessary (unavoidable) need to shift ground and modify their own rhetoric. Watching, listening, and reading the way they do this is of extraordinary value to We in the search for truth. They give themselves away, as we grow faster by witnessing it.

Banning them would only make them howl louder, not in our own ears but into others ears where we can not counter argue and point out their fallacies. By saying all this, they may wish to stop giving us so much ammunition and crawl away of their own volition... not to worry, Bush keeps opening his mouth too.

Yes, we wish they would open their eyes (ironically just the same as they call for us to do), yet one very important difference remains (so long as WE do not "ban" their voices).... our means.

Rummy, Dick 'n the Bush... all insulate themselves for the most part... from dissenting voices. By doing so, they seem rather bent in their thinking, as their actions appear to be motivated by psychotic rationales. Many of their rationales, so say We in the truth movement, stem from their insular and phobic mind sets. They seem incapable of common human words, phrases, and sentiments. Thus, they see the world as dark and foreboding under every bed, and around every corner (unless we grant them full authority to protect us, "we're all doomed").

It is fucked-up thinking of the worst kind. The only real way another great war will commence, is by the spread of this mind set (at this, it makes no difference whether someone is motivated by "belief" or "profit").

Yes, we want them to crawl back into their cave, or evolve to stand up-right with civility and human equity... but as the guns and bombs are ever more hoarded by imbeciles, force (just like banning) only begets more force. Shame and embarrassment will move their thinking faster and fuller than lead and passwords.

Let these nitwits spew what they can.... they're nitwits plan as day.... and I would want my own children to be exposed to such niters with my guidance in a place like this, to immunize and permanently expand their thinking... so they may faster recognize, and produce a heartier belly laugh... when people like Lars and abg stumble around in the dark of their own accord.

I hope that read ok, Nunyabiz. Lars and abg bother me less with every word. For in every word, they tip their hand to revel emptiness, moral malleability, and intellectual bankruptcy. The sham is all their own, for they always have the power to fix their own lot.

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

I love it

I love it when you idiots in denial go right ahead and contradict yourselves.

You ought to read something intelligent for a change instead of your comic books.

Of course, we all know you have absolutely NO authoritative source for your assenine claims. Zero.

All steels lose strength

All steels lose strength with increasing temperature. By 600 °C, most structural steels have lost more than half their strength. At intermediate temperatures the strength is independent of time, but above 500 °C, creep, or time-dependent deformation, further reduces the load-carrying capability. To combat this loss of load-carrying capability, structural steel in buildings is insulated to keep it cool in fire. (black smoke, look closer fire expert) (but still hot enough to destroy steel strength)

Only lemmings are on to the CT game of idiots.

So after the aircraft hit with the force of 2 tons of TNT, how much of steel do we have to heat?

And for you energy freaks, there is over 248 tons of TNT energy stored in each WTC tower just from gravity! Like 1000 500 pound bombs!!! More then enough to destroy itself when the towers failed from 10,000 gallons of fuel that released 315 tons TNT equivalent energy in heat as it burned. Now we get to paper and stuff on each floor, more energy.

Oh, all you idiots, the Madrid building in Spain!? The portions like the WTC, just steel structure all fell in few hours, and there was no 10,000 gallons of fuel, or a 500 mph aircraft to help! Just steel falling. The core was concrete reinforced, you know concrete, an insulator and help the building stand until it was demolished cause it was too weak to use!!! Fires destroy steel buildings all the time, it is just lemming CT followers are too lazy to find them! But please do not study or learn I have a lot of kids who will be taking you jobs since CT lemming guys are too dumb to compete. (you guys are too dumb to be shills for the CT movement, you are just lemmings)

Black smoke from the ground cause there was so much, more smoke means much more fire! Like a big thunderstorm, black cloud, lots of them?

What a bunch of CT crap!

Go join Dr Thermite Jones and be thankful you CT guys have not open minds, just empty ones!

Bet you CT guys are incapable of calculating simple energy! No wonder you believe junk science, and idiots like the CT fire fanning Alex Jones and Griffin hearsay books of junk (he tells you it is hearsay, and you still believe it as facts)!

One fact about the CT movement: 0.00067 percent of all engineers in the United States have joined the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which means only a few schools have turned out clinically insane engineers. Not bad for the real truth side!!!! LOL (the only real fact in the whole movement)


It just keeps getting harder for you. Best of luck holding that leaky boat together.

Mockingbirds fly away, fly away...

It truly is amazing how many 'Mockingbirds' we have slouching about on the blog today. Very good they are at making the ad hominems... but woefully inadequate when it comes to actual science. So little birds, (excuse me, I mean little trolls - I wouldn't want to defame birds) I doubt that you'll ever look at the data provided on or Steven Jone's articles or even David Griffin. When you've done that (tho' I know you never will) and can come and present well-reasoned positions based upon empirical data and logic then you might achieve some credibility (doubtful). Until then, you are irrelevant.

We're way ahead of you irrational amateurs

The fact that you would use unqualified and debunked frauds, Jones and Griffin, as your heroes gives you away in addition to the other nonsense you've written.

Grow up and learn to think rationally, not like kids playing Dragons and Dungeons.


dear abg,

please explain how griffin's conclusions regarding the military's response(s) have been debunked.

i'll be waiting.

thank you.

the term "conspiracy theory"

having studied the history of language, i try to keep track of these things

i don't believe the term "conspiracy theory" came into general use until the kennedy assassination in the united states. at that point, it became expedient to marginalize those whose independent investigations ran contrary to the "justice" that was administered. prior to that, most investigations ran the normal course, convicting those who were obviously guilty, or, perhaps in cases like the mckinley assassination, were effectively covered up without general public debate or the feeling that there was great travesty

so, every time i hear the accusation "conspiracy theory," i think about arlen spector's magic bullet, wheedling its way around the limousine, into kennedy, into john connally, into and out of the upholstery, and the fact that the zapruder film, despite all its obvious doctoring, still shows kennedy being hit, quite plainly, from the front, whereas lee harvey oswald would have been in the texas book depository building to his rear, and all the kings horses and all the kings men never did a goddam thing about it

enough with your "conspiracy theory". let's talk about high treason. i love the ring of that phrase.

thank you, redsock

for that excellent response to the Rothschild hit piece. So glad you wrote this response. I feel exactly the same way about the majority of "progressives" -- people I used to feel were on my side, but have let me (and the country) down over and over again.

Oh, and don't worry about lars and the other trolls -- they're only here because they realize the government's story is falling apart in the mind of the public.... and losing ground every single day. The truth WILL out.

Very good read. Thanks for

Very good read. Thanks for writing this.

Guess they couldn't take the heat

Has anyone noticed the article is gone from The Progressive site?

Maybe the comments section got a little too hot to handle?

I think I hear the pipes skirling another victory.

All of their articles seem

All of their articles seem to be gone and replaced with just the number "2", which seems somewhat appropriate. nyuck nyuck

It might have been this

Rothschild cited Corley as his government expert, mentioning that he handled the OKC investigation.

So I simply offered these links:

Big Media tells us the truth, eh? Government can't keep big secrets, eh?

These arrogant left "journalists" clearly have no idea what exists in internet archives.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Btw, one reason these lefty "intellectuals" (and certainly the Democratic Party) won't lift a finger to prosecute the perps of 911 is that it's a short walk from the WTC to the Murrah Building.

These people are protecting murderers. Don't play rhetorical games with them. Humiliate them.