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

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…Sheikh al-Faydi To Al Sharq Al Awsat: ‘Losses by the American occupation forces have exceeded the 35 thousand dead’” Iraq-amsi, 19 July 2007. Thanks to B.J. Sabri for translation from Arabic.

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.Kim Petersen, “9-11: The Truth Matters,” Dissident Voice, 13 March 2007. 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.

9-11_DVGriffin 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 (Olive Branch Press, 2007). 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.Manuel Garcia, Jr., “The Fall of WTC 7: Dark Fire,” Counterpunch, 28 November 2006.

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.Kevin Ryan, “Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don’t Exist,”, 27 December 2006.

Peter Webster refutes Garcia’s WYC 7 shock wave explanation weakening integral parts of WTC 7.Peter Webster, “Cockburn and his physicist friend abuse physics and credulity,” THS, 30 September 2006. 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.David Ray Griffin, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True,” 911, based on speech from October 2005.

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.

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at Read other articles by Kim.

103 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Kevin Ryan said on August 29th, 2007 at 6:43am #

    Nice article.

    Those who are just coming to these questions need to understand that we have been given multiple false stories in support of the fire-induced “collapse” hypothesis. And we have been given those false stories by people who work for the government, like Garcia, or those who benfit from the War on Terra.

    What hangs in the balance is, literally, a world of implications.

  2. John Halle said on August 29th, 2007 at 7:12am #


    Can you provide a list of some of the 30,000 U.S. military casualties in Iraq whose names have not been reported by the DoD?

    I’m sure, many, most notably their families, would find such a list very useful.


  3. jaime said on August 29th, 2007 at 7:44am #

    No he can’t. Because there isn’t one.

  4. Kim Petersen said on August 29th, 2007 at 9:20am #

    I do not state in the article that I believe in the 35,000 number. Skepticism to that number should be maintained and also to the approaching 4000 number.

  5. Abu Nurah said on August 29th, 2007 at 10:03am #

    Kim, thank you for this excellent piece. I think too many are afraid of touching the subject for fear of being labeled conspiracy theorists. I commend you for pursuing the truth regardless of what the blind patriot establishment and others may think.

    Peace & Justice,
    Abu Nurah

  6. gerald spezio said on August 29th, 2007 at 10:50am #

    Kim, I am a faithful reader and friend of DV. I respect you, your colleagues, and your work at DV. As always, the truth matters.
    I beg you to reconsider your stated claim about U.S. dead and wounded in Iraq based on B. J. Sabri’s translation of al-Fayyadh’s alleged assertion. I think that you have been taken.

    Two very basic assumptions are imperative before we waste too many of our precious brains cells in the age of rampant dis-information.
    1. The statement attributed to al-fayyadh is accurate and not a dis-information plant.
    2. Sabri’s translation is precise, and not a slick peeyar maneuver.

    Reasoning from the above premise, your position is TOO easily falsified. Although in all probability Jaime is a paid cyber typist for some arm of the Lobby, he is correct to pounce on John Halle’s simple empirical question. Jaime may have been waiting. It’s so easy to bark up the wrong tree at a racoon who doesn’t exist.

    Proceeding, as we must if we claim to be “doing science,” please consider that this entire “story” was glibly engineered in some Israeli peeyar whorehouse. This necessary hypothesis demands a totally different strategy.

    As you well know, the Israel Lobby is the most powerful and SUCCESFUL Lobby in the history of forked tongue mis-information. Indeed, the preposterous assertion attributed to al-Fayyadh and all Muslim scholarship is typical Israeli horseshit on its face.

    The Association of Muslim Scholars (read scholars) didn’t have enough good sense NOT to make such a hopelessly false and stupid categorical assertion – and in ARABIC NO LESS??? In ARABIC – for dissemination to the English speaking world. Requiring translation. Mais Oui!. THE STUPID ARAB BASTARDS DON’T EVEN KNOW HOW TO WRITE THEIR STUPID PROPAGANDA IN ENGLISH.

    The Rubenstein peeyar yuppies are everywhere.

  7. Michael Dawson said on August 29th, 2007 at 11:03am #

    If you’re so outraged about all the lies, why don’t you focus on the real lie, which is the official claim that there is no connection between U.S. foreign policy and 9-11? People only have so much time and so much willingness to listen to the left. Every time you loonies talk about Building 7, you are not just embarrassing us, but also wasting time and attention that you could have drawn to the thing people need to know, but don’t: The real causes of 9-11, a.k.a. the long, bloody history of U.S. opposition to secular democracy in the Middle East.

  8. Binh said on August 29th, 2007 at 12:20pm #

    I agree with Dawson.

  9. Binh said on August 29th, 2007 at 12:24pm #

    Also, if the Army lost that many troops, the military would be in much dire straights recruitment-wise and from a manpower point of view than they are now.

    If American body counts of civilians/insurgents killed are wildly inaccurate, how could Iraqi body counts of American GIs killed be much better? AMA is engaging in wishful thinking on this question.

  10. Macu Naima said on August 29th, 2007 at 1:16pm #

    Re: Jaime’s comment: “Can you provide a list of some of the 30,000 U.S. military casualties in Iraq whose names have not been reported by the DoD?”

    You forget two important facts: Once a medivac plane takes off for Germany, if any soldier dies in flight – his or her death is not entered in the list of KIA in either Iraq or Afganistan. The same is true if they die in Germany.

    The total might not be 30,000 – but it is much higher than the “fake numbers” we are being given here in the USofA.

  11. Robert B. Livingston said on August 29th, 2007 at 1:31pm #

    Thanks Kim for breaking with the “left-progressive” mute and those that defend the Zelikow explanation of 9/11 which David Ray Griffin describes as a 571-page lie– even if that is simply to encourage public discussion which has been fettered almost six years.

    In another excellent book, Bush On The Couch by Justin A. Frank, M.D.– Frank notes a critical distinction between people who are willing to have a dialog, and to be uncertain about their conclusions– and people who substitute verbal tricks and false choices for the honest work of conversation.” pp. 131-2.

    To date I know of few exceptions among those we esteem on the political left (or elsewhere for that matter) to publicly debate with leading figures who do not believe the official explanations of 9/11.

    Unless they do, they put our peace and social justice interests in serious jeopardy just as they did in 2004 when many of the same fled debate and education and promoted Kerry.

    I would dearly love to hear leading representatives Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Robert W. McChesney, John Nichols, Norman Solomon, Robert Jensen, Alexander Cockburn, Laura Flanders, George Monbiot, Matthew Rothschild, and Manuel Garcia defend themselves from the accusation that they are “Left Gatekeepers.”

    I suspect they are not, but rather that they are unwitting victims in greater and lesser degrees of a peculiar group-think that unfortunately has done more to add to the world’s woes rather than subtract from them.

    I believe they fear that by addressing questions about 9/11 they will divide and weaken the progressive left and endanger ongoing objectives they have labored for since prior to 9/11. I believe their concerns though valid, are benighted– because they assume that we are incapable of weighing evidence and drawing our own conclusions without their help.

    If their leadership is to continue to have any relevance– they must stop over-compartmentalizing the issues we face today. No matter how eloquent they may be about the high crimes of war, media reform, election reform, need for impeachment, global-warming, class differences, the Bolivarian Revolution, etc.– their credibility will be diluted and suspect among those of us who are connecting more dots than they are willing to consider.

    Every time Noam Chomsky introduces an argument with “As is well known…” we will shudder and ask, “Is it?”

    And naturally enough, 1) we will look for leadership elsewhere that is unafraid to promote truth, ask honest questions and demand honest answers– and 2) we will stop mistaking smoke for tangible achievement in advancing the causes we care about.

    Indeed, other than a consensus that the American political system is broken, what have we tangibly achieved in these past years?

  12. john polifronio said on August 29th, 2007 at 2:52pm #

    At every juncture in this 9/11 maze, we find ourselves talking about where we ought to place greater attention and focus. But through all these discussions, the media always manage to escape adequate scrutiny, and any serious implication of culpability.

  13. Joshua Frank said on August 29th, 2007 at 3:33pm #

    My biggest problem with much of the 9/11 truth seeking crowd is that so many of them believe, without a doubt, that it was an “inside” job. Griffin, of course, is the leader of this group, which in many ways seems to function in Jonestown-like hysteria when it comes to the event. Asking questions and demanding answers is one thing. Thinking you know all the answers about that day is another. Isn’t Griffin and co. guilty of the same thing that the neo-cons are? Mainly that they contend they know exactly what happened?

    Overall, as I’ve said to Kim Petersen before, this banter and inquiry (which I am guilty of participating in) is diversionary. By attempting to prove the unprovable (and we will NEVER prove anything about 9/11 that indicates Bush was behind it all) we are getting lost in a hay stack of questions so high that climbing out with answers in hand is becoming less and less of a reality. While we quarrel over the ins and outs of WTC 7, Bush and Clinton plan the next war. While Griffin writes his next tome, Palestinians are dying. While I leave this comment the State is planning to execute another black man in Texas.

    So my position, I hope, is clear: figuring out 9/11, regardless of intention, is a losing battle, and in the process much time and energy is exerted in the wrong direction. We have limited resources out here in dissident land, and we ought to use our collective strength in a way that puts the most immediate pressure on the war parties. 9/11 isn’t one of those ways. Let’s move on.

  14. springo said on August 29th, 2007 at 4:54pm #

    Ah, my fellow Americans, it’s good to see you’re not all mindless zombies ….yet (rumsfelds aspartame and all the nazi propaganda hasn’t done the job). We know for a fact 9/11 was an inside job. Google “september clues” and WATCH THE WHOLE THING its the latest and greatest study concerning the events of 9/11. The media was complicit (psycological operations were employed there pre 9/11), this is why we don’t hear about it on the media, don’t expect to, but the cat is out of the bag, and the lie is coming down fast. Love your family do not fear the enemy, act quickly and diligently. Preserve the costitution, love your neighbors, protect the planet. This is how you will know you are on the right side.

  15. Joe said on August 29th, 2007 at 7:03pm #

    Joshua Frank stated: “Thinking you know all the answers about that day is another. Isn’t Griffin and co. guilty of the same thing that the neo-cons are? Mainly that they contend they know exactly what happened?”

    WE only know for certain how it could not have happened. That implies a massive cover up at the very least. A massive cover up implies deception at the highest levels. WE have proof that it did not happens as we were told.

    The controlled false opposition is impotent without 9/11 truth and they like it like that.

    When you get serious about taking our country back you will understand us.

    “We have limited resources out here in dissident land, and we ought to use our collective strength in a way that puts the most immediate pressure on the war parties. 9/11 isn’t one of those ways. Let’s move on.”

    9/11 Truth might be the only way.

  16. simuvac said on August 29th, 2007 at 7:05pm #

    It’s inspiring to see some people in the progressive media demonstrate the ability to reason without being bullied by state propaganda. If I have one reservation about your review, Kim, it’s that you focus almost entirely on controlled demolition, and neglect to mention the myriad other reasons not to believe the 9/11 story. Perhaps this is due to a lack of space (but, dude, you are the editor…).

    You say nothing of Griffin’s deconstruction of the debunker Bible, the Popular Mechanics book, nor do you mention the section on air defenses. You could note, for example, that NORAD generals perjured themselves, and that this is beyond partisan dispute (the 9/11 Commission chair and vice chair admit it in their book).

    What you have done is commendable, but an alternative media outlet such as this should be devoting story after story to this subject matter, dissecting the myth mercilessly.

    As to Joshua Frank’s lame contention that 9/11 skepticism is some kind of diversion, I must call bullsh*t. As long as the 9/11 myth is maintained, progressives will be powerless. 9/11 is the trump card that destroys reasonable debate on any subject. 9/11 is the myth that has sustained two illegal wars and countless domestic abuses. Nothing could be more important than telling the truth about 9/11.

  17. brian said on August 29th, 2007 at 7:19pm #

    Lets be frank, Joshua…where 9-11 is concerned, your critical faculty has capsized. Your use of ‘Jonestown hysteria’ is itself an attempt to smear Dr Griffin, becaus he has what you lack: courage to investigate 9-11.
    9-11 Truth has no leader, because leaders tell people what to think, which is what YOU are doing. Griffin is a very articulate member of the movement.
    Your snide language alone is proof you have no interest in investigating 9-11, which you see as a diversion….well, 9-11 diverted people into supporting wars that have killed > 1 million people…Id say thats pretty important. More than the execution of one man in Texas!
    You and your kind are welcome to focus on the palestinians…a few more people wont make any difference. Indeed, what differnce ahve you made in affecting US policy on the palestinians? I’d wager nothing at all.
    But working on 9-11 truth IS having an effect..on the mass of people who like you were all to ready to believe the official conspiracy theory because it was official. Its not a losing battle…you wish it were….I could say helping the palestinians is a losing battle, when congress agrees to fund the Israeli military again with more US tax payer billions. Youve not prevented that.
    Griffin and the rest of us are not guilty of knowing the answers, just asking the questions.

  18. Arabesque said on August 29th, 2007 at 7:21pm #

    A very well written article, and I appreciate the fact that you are willing to examine the issues without dismissing them. It is a documented fact that the World Trade Center Towers were specifically designed to survive plane crashes and jet fuel fires. For further evidence why the official story is inadequate, take the time to read what the building designers said about the World Trade Center towers surviving a plane crash.

  19. brian said on August 29th, 2007 at 7:25pm #

    On 9-11, its nice to see this topic getting coveage on left wing sites. Something that unites Frank and the neocons is there alarm at this spread of intellectual dissent.
    Id like to add another twist to the 911 screw, and that is the role played by israel. on serpt 11 several israelis were caught laughing and hi5ing in sight of the burning towers.

    ‘Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming “middle-eastern” men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2)

    “They were like happy, you know … They didn’t look shocked to me” said a witness. (3)
    [T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4)’

    ‘The FBI seized and developed their photos, one of which shows Sivan Kurzberg flicking a cigarette lighter in front of the smouldering ruins in an apparently celebratory gesture. (12)’

    which is very odd and damning behavior. Not only that, these same persons phoned the police and blamed the palestinians. Fortuntaely they were caught. Unfortunately the FBI let them go, where back in israel they claimed they were documenting the event….Howd did they know thered be an event t document? There behavior did not suggest shock and horror, but joy….
    911 Truth needs to confront this anomaly.

  20. Kim Petersen said on August 29th, 2007 at 7:27pm #

    My esteemed colleague Josh Frank’s comments are most welcome. However, I respectfully disagree with a number of points Josh has made:

    1. That people suspend skepticism to any questionable information is something I would not advise. Still, people have a right to believe what they want. If 9-11 “truth” seekers want to believe “without a doubt, that it was an ‘inside’ job” that is their right. If some people want to believe that a man named Jesus walked on water that is their right, too. If some people want to believe, or not believe, in aliens that is also their right.

    2. The ad hominem reference to “the 9/11 truth seeking crowd” as “function[ing] in Jonestown-like hysteria” disqualifies itself. The 9-11 “truth” seekers are not, as far as I know, an official organization. There is much dissension among this “group,” (more correctly is groups) and even with views expressed by “leader” David Ray Griffin.

    3. Maybe “Griffin and co. guilty of the same thing that the neo-cons are,” but as far as I know, it is still referred to as a theory. That does not disqualify their right to express their theories, beliefs, or opinions. People do not seem to reserve the same disdain for the mendacious Bush administration expressing its views, and this strikes me as so odd and unbalanced.

    4. Even if 9-11 “banter” “is diversionary,” who are any of us to demand that people cease their inquiry into matters of interest or concern to them?

    5. Isn’t the statement that “we will NEVER prove anything about 9/11 that indicates Bush was behind it all” a belief, without a doubt? Does that not contradict a complaint made against the 9-11 “truth” seekers?

    6. How do you prove that there is “a hay stack of questions so high that climbing out with answers in hand is becoming less and less of a reality”? Even if true, people have a right to determine how they will expend their time and energies for whatever cause.

    7. True, Palestinians are dying, and racist injustice is planning to kill another black man in Texas. That the mandarins in Washington can act with such impunity, that some would shirk off investigating them on what could be their downfall (i.e., running an alleged false flag operation) seems to let the powers perpetuate their crimes.

    8. Investigating 9-11 may be, for some critics, “a losing battle,” but who is to determine what battles people should fight? People who espouse progressive values should rail against any inquiry being shut down, and that is what my articles are focused on.

    9. People may decide for themselves how they will invest their limited resources because when others decide then it becomes tyranny.

    10. I agree that solidarity is a must. Accordingly, I see attacks against the 9-11 truth seekers as solidarity busting. There is no reason that a progressivist movement must be monolithic on all points. Diversity is usually touted as a core progressivist tenet. So let’s not impose one groups’ views on other groups. A movement can pool its energies toward mutually agreed upon goals while respecting the rights that others to hold onto their opinions.

    To join the antiwar movement does not demand that people give up their other interests. The antiwar movement includes a wide amalgam of people, from environmentalists, socialists, religious groups, etc. There is no reason that 9-11 “truth” seekers cannot be part of the movement. So let us all respect the diversity among us and work together to defeat warmongers.

  21. Jon Carlson said on August 29th, 2007 at 7:27pm #

    9/11 was a KISS project by the CIA, US Navy, and the Bush Administration. Send drone aircraft to four locations, crash them, and claim they were UA and AA airliners. Obviously the airlines were willing victims being paid billions in payoffs. Start your adventure to 9/11 truth here:

    Rare Photos Expose
    The 9/11 Flight 93 Hoax

  22. Joshua Frank said on August 29th, 2007 at 7:52pm #


    1: With much respect, I never once stated that 9/11 theorists don’t have a right to their opinions. They absolutely do.

    2: I should have wrote “movement” (their term) instead of “group”.

    3: Again, I think Griffin has a right to his opinion. And I congratulate him on selling as many copies of his books as he has. It’s no easy task.

    4: It is my opinion that all this talk about 9/11 is diversionary. I would never say people don’t have a right to investigate these issues. They do. But personally, I’d rather see them investigating many other issues that seem much more important at the time. Mainly the crimes these nuts are getting away with now while we talk about events of the past.

    5: I hope that the 9/11 seekers of justice prove me wrong. I’ll bet the house on it that they don’t.

    6: Again, yes, they have the right. I never said they didn’t. My statement was an opinion.

    7: If this is truly a “movement” as they say, I’d rather see that movement addressing different issues. Issues that stop war. Issues that protect wilderness. Issues that save lives. Not issues that can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor accepted by most Americans. If revolution (whatever that means) is ever to happen here we’ll need all the people who think lefties are nuts on our side. Moving past conspiracy theories would be a good start. Let’s focus on the crimes we know our government commits for FACT first.

    8: I don’t know what this means. We are always talking about direction of movements, where energies are expended etc. We all have input. That’s my input.

    9: Yes, they will decide for themselves. That doesn’t mean I won’t have an opinion about it.

    10: That’s fine if you think it is “solidarity busting”. I’ve seen the truthers in action, and frankly I wouldn’t want many of them on my side in the times that matter most. That’s my take. And I’m proudly NOT a “progressive”. So I tend not to abide by their tenets.

    I agree that the movement against the war includes many people. But let’s be sure: This is a movement against the war first and foremost. So let’s stick to that. There were enough lies that got us into this mess. I don’t think 9/11 seekers would question that. I’d like to see us focus on the lies that they are using right now to get us in to Iran. But, that’s my opinion. And it’s their right to jack off to Griffin if they want. I just hope it won’t hurt the resell value of his books.

    PS: I don’t know how “esteemed” I am. But I thank DV and Kim for allowing this debate to happen.

  23. Dwight said on August 29th, 2007 at 7:59pm #

    Kim, thank you for this review of Dr. Griffin’s book, and for your defense of people that are concerned about 9/11.

    Joshua, your Jonestown comment reflects only your inability to address the facts. You remind me of Manuel Garcia in Counterpunch, who prefaced his ridiculous arguments on the destruction of the Twin Towers with insulting pop psychobabble. (By the way, Joshua, you mention WTC7, which was obviously a controlled demolition, but which did not kill people. What’s important is the rapid pulverization of the Twin Towers, where thousands died.)

    Brian, thank you for mentioning “September Clues.” The media broadcast false images on 9/11.

    Not only are the images broadcast in real time patently false when viewed critically, the images broadcast later of a plane disappearing inside the South Tower, as well as the simulations of this impact done by Purdue and NIST, are also patently false because aluminum planes don’t disappear inside steel buildings–the destruction of the weaker aluminum means that the load is not transferred to the steel.

    The images used by the maker of September Clues come from these archives:

    Mark Chrispin Miller, whom I greatly admire, is listed among the media experts that contributed to the September 11th Television Archives linked above. I have written Professor Miller to inform him that these images are false. I of course do not think he was aware of this when he lent his name to the project, and do not know what he thinks of September Clues.

    Professor Lynn Margulis recently stated:

    “9/11 [is] the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization.”

    I don’t know if she is aware of the emerging evidence of faked broadcasts, but she is right. 9/11 was not only a televised event. It was a television event.

    Finally, Jon, the planes were not “drones. ” They were false images, just like the false blips on FAA and NORAD radar screens. Drones are subject to the same laws of physics as regular commercial jets.

  24. B. J. Sabri said on August 29th, 2007 at 8:15pm #

    In reading “The Puzzling Suspension of Incredulity to the “Official” 9-11 Theory” and the posted comments, I cannot but advance the following observation: a critical, rigorous analysis that raises reasoned skepticism over certain events to a higher level of awareness does not and should not beg for or need approval, probation, sarcasm, or rejection. And that what Kim did exactly: he pointed to facts, raised doubts, and let the readers draw their own conclusion while not seeking judgmental appraisals except dialectical rebuttals. Kim’s piece, therefore, was not an idle exercise on 9/11 but a call to distinguish between realty, crypto-reality, and elusive realty.
    Having said that, I must point out that some of the posted comments must be challenged as they do not only miss the cardinal point of Kim’s article, which is debating and re-debating 9/11 and its aftermaths, but also confuse the issue of event’s credibility by opening lateral skirmishes without providing substantive counter-argument.

    **** The case of John Hall: John’s question is cogent and legitimate. But, on the other hand, it is also shortsighted, irrelevant, and inconsequential. 1) Kim just reported on news coming from Iraq and asked the readers to consider the realties I have just mentioned. 2) Asking Kim to provide names is a puerile attempt to ridicule the fundamental question: did the US loose 3, 742 soldier or more? 3) Based on the lies of the Bush Administration, why cannot we challenge such a number? Did Hall include all US mercenaries in Iraq who obviously should be included in any body count? Did Hall include all green card holders from Latin America, Africa, and Asia? Keep in mind that when the Iraqis make their body count, they target the coalition as whole. 4) Does Hall think that the United Kingdom is about to flee Iraq because it has lost 158 soldiers in 4 1/2 years of occupation? Does Hall think that the United States is facing a strategic defeat in Iraq because of 3,742 soldiers?

    *** The case of Jaime: Jaime’s comment is worthless — no offense intended or implied. In his categorical assertion as in “There isn’t one…” he proved that self-obscurantism could be a personal choice and that dogma is the overriding ideological force.

    **** The case of Gerald Spezio: My friend, I did not take Kim or any one else for a ride; and my translation was not a slick peeyar maneuver. FYI: I just translated the artcile’s title correctly after sharing its content with Kim . The rest of the article I provided Kim with, was an instant translation by Google; but the Arabic text is reliable as far as it concerns the validity of information, and it comes from the highest echelon of the Iraqi Resistance. Besides, Kim is not that type who falls for spurious arguments, and had he decided that it was worthless, he would never wrote about a key passage, that is the American fatalities in occupied Iraq. Moreover, for us who read and try to understand, assertions could remain such, but their contextual validity could be open to dissection until proven false. Simply, we cannot and should not dismiss the prospect that, in fact, the US invading force may have indeed suffered that level of destruction. And why Not, if you disbelieve that Oswald was the sole killer of Kennedy without accomplices or other participants; and if you disbelieve that Jack Rubinstein killed Oswald just to avenge Kennedy; and if you disbelieve the story of the Administration why it invaded Iraq, then you should or at least try to consider that what the United States is telling us about Iraq is just crypto-reality coated in a million neocon shrouds.

    *** The case of Michael Dowson: with his, “The real causes of 9-11, a.k.a. the long, bloody history of U.S. opposition to secular democracy in the Middle East”, Dowson replicated Jamie’s ideological pattern to the T. and proved the hopelessness of right-wingers and ideological skinheads who do not know how to distinguish between all necessary elements required for comparative historical analysis.

    *** The case of Joshua Frank: Frank is an intelligent write and analyst. But while I will leave the bulk of his remarks to Kim to respond, I cannot let his following statement to go unchallenged

    Frank states: “By attempting to prove the unprovable (and we will NEVER prove anything about 9/11 that indicates Bush was behind it all) we are getting lost in a hay stack of questions so high that climbing out with answers in hand is becoming less and less of a reality. While we quarrel over the ins and outs of WTC 7, Bush and Clinton plan the next war. While Griffin writes his next tome, Palestinians are dying. While I leave this comment the State is planning to execute another black man in Texas”

    1) I do not think that Kim – in all of his writings – tried to prove the improvable. What As I stated, Kim’s approach was raising the threshold of doubt to the maximum suffocating level. This attempt goes beyond 9/11 and involves the entire imperialistic onslaught on the Arab and other Middle Eastern nations. Besides, who said that trying to prove something that is inherently difficult should dissuade us from trying? Did not the Pope order Galileo to confinement because he dared challenging the Church’s dogma on the Universe and gravity?

    2) Frank correctly states that we may never know the truth about 9/11. That may be so; however and hypothetically, should the United States fall as did the Soviet Union, many dirty US bags would begin floating around. Of course, considering the tenacity of US imperialism, that might never happen. However, speculating on and finding a logical but necessarily provable answer to our enquiries is a valid yardstick to investigate suspicious events.

    3) Frank then puts forward a bizarre proposal. He states, “While we quarrel over the ins and outs of WTC 7, Bush and Clinton plan the next war. While Griffin writes his next tome, Palestinians are dying. While I leave this comment the State is planning to execute another black man in Texas.” Well…What to say? Frank seems to prioritize…But this specific prioritization is void of any dialectical sense since the physical movement of current events should never overshadow the continuing analyses of antecedent events that determined and has been shaping the new events that Frank wants us to concentrate one unless he wants to suggest that we should postpone all discussions on 9/11 and Iraq and Afghanistan, and Somalia, and Sudan, until after this or that new event gets resolved first. Sorry, Frank, but past history and the history being written is one and indivisible, and — philosophically — it is like a time vector: it has a beginning but it always goes forward…Therefore, we have to tackle it at all times.

  25. Hue Longer said on August 29th, 2007 at 8:25pm #

    Hello Josh,

    Another way to see it perhaps is that many people would never open their eyes to less “glamorous” crimes of empire, were it not for nine eleven (or JFK?). I feel disheartened (not saying you do) when I see Ron Paul supporters interested in this issue, while being completely oblivious or supportive to the root of empire and all of its little talked of, ignored or under reported crimes and agendas that would even allow for a conspiracy like this to occur…BUT, questions beget questions and little is unrelated, so I can see that at the least, fandom of the topic gets people closer to recognizing the ongoing thankless struggle of the bigger picture. I also think that even without confessions or official legal “proof”, critical mass could expose this thing –and regardless of what else deserves it, this sure as hell does. It is true that proving what didn’t happen is much easier than proving what did, but the fuckers have already been exposed on the former…I say, run with it you crazy libertarians!, and oh by the way, have you checked out, “Dimes Worth of Difference”? Good read!

  26. simuvac said on August 29th, 2007 at 9:14pm #

    Joshua Frank writes: “I’ve seen the truthers in action, and frankly I wouldn’t want many of them on my side in the times that matter most.”

    That’s what this is really about. The gentrified Left wants to pick and choose its allies, and the often overly-speculative rabble that constitute the 9/11 Truth Movement aren’t the kind of people who make for good guests at cocktail parties. Sure, 9/11 skepticism attracts a few crazies, maybe many; a few have offered their adventurous theories on this post. But would you dissociate yourself from environmentalism just because a few “mother goddess” types and their bad poetry makes you feel uncomfortable? Are you really so shallow that you would approve of government opacity simply to disapprove of some uneducated twentysomethings who figured out 9/11 before you did?

    Sometimes I think that is what the Left aversion to 9/11 is really about: pundits like Frank don’t want to be upstaged by the Internet rabble. Chomsky actually said “who cares” if the US government was complicit with the 9/11 attacks. Who cares? That’s unconscionable. But guys like Chomsky used to be useful to us rabble because they could search the alternative media for tidbits of arcane facts and then stitch them together to prove corporate media collusion. Now, with the Internet, everyone can be a Chomsky. When people like Chomsky feel threatened, they cry out, “Conspiracy theory!” Or, “Who cares?” They take their toys and go home.

    Put aside the theories of controlled demolition and remote controlled planes, Mr. Frank. Put aside your pride, too. Just look at the 9/11 Commission and its report. The Commission was a demonstrable fraud packed with insiders and conflicts of interest. The executive director, Philip Zelikow, was a White House insider who authored the Bush National Security doctrine and co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice. Every word in that report had to be cleared by the White House. Cheney and Bush wouldn’t even testify under oath. They met together, in secret, and without recording equipment allowed in the room. Shoot, Bush lied in public when he testified that he saw the first plane hit the tower before entering the Florida classroom (it wasn’t on TV until later that night). On and on we could go.

    If even half of Griffin’s list of “omissions and distortions” are accurate, and I believe they are, then the report produced by this fraudulent commission was equally fraudulent. Why does Joshua Frank find it so easy to dismiss government lies and opacity? Why does he support an obvious coverup? The Family Steering Committee wants another investigation, because 70% of its questions were not answered. Two-thirds of NYC residents want a new investigation, according to a 2004 poll.

    Why does 9/11 matter, Mr. Frank? Because people like you no longer demand a full accounting from their government; or rather, you demand an accounting of most things, but not of 9/11. People like you and Noam Chomsky throw their hands up and say, “You’ll never get the truth about 9/11, so why bother?” And people like you think that buying a Prius, or marching in a protest, or writing more columns about the profiteering in Iraq will actually change the system instead of simply curbing its appetite for a day. That’s where you, Mr. Frank, are wrong.

  27. yyyyy said on August 29th, 2007 at 9:15pm #

    love you so much!!!!!

  28. simuvac said on August 29th, 2007 at 9:17pm #

    One last thing: Notice how the disinfo loonies with their “TV fakery” and “No Planes” stuff flock to forums such as this one. That’s how it works, Josh. People such as yourself get scared when the disinfo loons show up. You don’t want to be guilty by association. It’s that easy to disarm your critical faculty, and it’s a shame.

  29. JE said on August 29th, 2007 at 9:36pm #

    The real surprise with the truth about 9-11 being a cover-up is that anybody is actually surprised by it. I’ve heard people posit the notion that it was too intricate to execute and are government officials are too incompetent to pull it off. That assuming it was pulled off by the figureheads in government and not the shadow government (i.e. the CIA) that isn’t accountable to to congress or the President. It was most likely a false flag operation executed to justify the continued existence of the military-industrial complex.

  30. Christopher Pappas said on August 29th, 2007 at 9:56pm #


    To put it another way: 9-11 has enabled a vast sector of the population to accept and condone an array of highly questionable, perhaps illegal, actions on behalf of defense. Wars have been initiated because of it, new wars are being promoted. Indefinite detention, torture, the de-funding of the public purse in the name of defense spending, domestic spying, TIPS programs, and so much more has become an “accepted” reality. 9-11 has created this acceptance, and support for the official story –which is, essentially, a proxy war on the imagination– and the dismissal of inquiry will do nothing but expand it.

    The truth movement seeks to disarm aggression and promote justice by reminding those who support the official narrative of this fact.

    For many people political consciousness did not exist before September 11th. Let us all remember what happened to that consciousness on on September 12th.

  31. JE said on August 29th, 2007 at 9:56pm #

    “… guys like Chomsky used to be useful to us rabble because they could search the alternative media for tidbits of arcane facts and then stitch them together to prove corporate media collusion. Now, with the Internet, everyone can be a Chomsky.”

    Are you high or just incredibly stupid?

    1). Chomsky’s argument is not that it lacks significance but that it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things because obsessing over it is a bit like obsessing over the Kennedy assassination. People devote their whole lives to studying ever intricate detail of these incidents and to what end. That’s the argument. Get off your fatass, get out in the community and make a difference instead of believing that proving 9-11 was an inside job. Then what? The Bush cartel waves the white flag? Study history and you learn this type of shit isn’t anything new to the US government. Hell, we exterminated 8 million native americans. I don’t see an Native American Genocide Truth Movement sprouting up anytime soon. That’s the arugment and if you are going to attempt to refute it you had better at least represent it properly.

    2). The idea that everyone can be a Noam Chomsky is laughable. The man has an exceptional talent for analysis, he’s a linguist genius, and he has to be the most efficent intellectual at gathering data that you and I would NOT have access to over the internet to support his arugments. Beyond that he is (or at least was for a solid 40 years) by and large the best debater of any intellectual alive.

  32. John Brown said on August 29th, 2007 at 10:18pm #

    Anyone who attacks 911 Truth on grounds other than factual accuracy and/or political tactics are making a prima facie defense of the Zelikow thesis.

    To every apologist for the official yarn – to every critic of 911 Truth: do you accept the findings of the Zelikow commission?

    “You’re wasting your time with this issue,” defenders say. “You’ll NEVER prove ANYTHING about that!”

    In other words, “just accept it.” Rather than seriously confront the evidence (a time committment of a few hours), we get vacilating defeatist contortions of the first order. Nevermind that 911 Truth exists within a larger political world. Nevermind the movement’s embryonic political critique. Nevermind anything that might matter materially in terms of our political struggle against Uncle Sam.

    What matters is what Fox News will say!

    One don’t have to agree with 911 Truth. But seriously: why tear them down in such a petty manner? It says a lot about the impotence of a super-sectarian left that cannibilizes itself. Because they’re afraid, they have chosen to alienate a group of people, mostly new to politics, who have become suddenly and radically politicized and more open to alternative political formations than ever before.

    911 Truth advances a political agenda in a tactically smart way. It offers a frontal attack against the last leg upon which Uncle Sam stands – His alCIAda story.

    911 Truth is the window into everything else. 911 makes every other piece of genocidal and barbaric savagery to which Sam’s been a part comprehensible. 911 helps to make clear how the genocide of New Orleans was exacerbated, at every step of the way, by Uncle Sam through the use of FEMA and other Killers for Hire.

    911 helps to make clear how the genocide of Iraq – the DU and the WP and the torture camps – came about.

    911 helps to make clear Uncle Sam’s Vanilla Justice, criminals run free political prisoners like Mumia Abu-Jamal languish in Concentration Camps on trumped up charges.

    An exposure of 911… not even an exposure – A DIRECT CHALLENGE against the Zelikow fiction has political relevance because of the evidence that exists and the importance attached to the findings. The singular fact that Uncle Sam won’t release any information hardly exonerates Him. Yet that’s what Mr. Frank and others would have us believe.

    They’re waiting on Uncle Sam to stand up and announce an ‘inside job’ plot. Once they have that, then they’ll believe it! Until then – stop with the conspiracy theories!

    In the meantime, let me shower you with flowers and sweets!

    Seriously: don’t become so terrified of being called names by Popular Mechanics and Rush Limbaugh that you refuse to contemplate the beneficial political consequences of such an act.

    Exposing the 911 ‘inside job’ with evidence makes everything else possible, because it takes away the enemy’s sole method of defense. People attack posts like this one because they fail to understand the dialectical movement of history.

    At least on the left, that really has to change.

  33. Hue Longer said on August 29th, 2007 at 10:32pm #

    I agree to an extent JE, but whether it was pride (as simmuvac suggested) or something else, Chomski left his debating integrity on the jet when he he answered questions concerning nine 11 conspiracy in Europe. I loved his timeless debates with Dershy and Buckley because of his calm and strategic adherance to logic sure, but mostly becasue of the logic itself–which no man owns. Interesting that he would engage in such crass fallacy when he does know better.

    Here’s an issue…Michael Vick.
    Some principled animal rights activists are doing what they do despite most the attention and ridicule is only being leveled against Vick because he is a successful black athlete. And what about animal rights itself? Should I condem the cause because I find it petty or a waste of time in a nation of meat eaters? Not to mention (to borrow a point from simmuvac) the ranks of dim wits the movement attracts? Hell, the dimwits may know nothing about selective morality, but many seem to feel a true empathy for the animal at least and it’s not like they should be shamed into taking to the streets for “better” causes, WHEN IT’S UNLIKELY THEY WILL ANYWAYS…if you pitty them, fine…but let them act….would this not apply to “truthers”?

  34. robbie said on August 29th, 2007 at 11:45pm #

    to JE:

    “chomsky’s argument is not that it lacks significance but that it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things because obsessing over it is a bit like obsessing over the Kennedy assassination. People devote their whole lives to studying ever intricate detail of these incidents and to what end. That’s the argument. Get off your fatass, get out in the community and make a difference instead of believing that proving 9-11 was an inside job.”

    if even 100 anti war generic liberal activists were worth the amount of activism that 1 single 9/11 truth activist was worth i would agree with your statement. Unfortunately the generic liberal anti war left has failed and has given their democratic leaders way too many free passes. It’s time for a new more passionate movement of young politically aspiring people to get the real work done. Getting to the truth of 9/11 and exposing the idea of false flag terrorism could have a very powerful and liberating effect on the American consciousness. If all we do is protest to end the Iraq war, what about the next war? Shouldn’t we make people aware that the propaganda to get them into war is usually always false, and that even 9/11 the myth we hold so dear is also a fairy tale used to get us into endless foreign wars? If the people are aware of this divisive tool, it can not be used any longer by the powers that be. Unfortunately most anti war and liberal ‘intellectuals’ think very short-term, they think ending the genocide in dafur and stopping the war in iraq (but not Afghanistan) are the best things we can do for our country right now. The JFK assassination wasn’t used as a tool to get us into a 100 year war with communists or muslims or anyone else. 9/11 whoever has given us the excuse to bomb and militarily invade any country that has dangerous weapons, harbors terrorists, and has even given the American government the excuse to wage war against the American people. Picking apart JFK is one thing, but getting to the truth of 9/11 and exposing the lies of it to the uninformed not important? I couldn’t disagree more.


  35. gabriele zamparini said on August 30th, 2007 at 12:24am #

    Excellent article and excellent comments from Kim Peterson

    Very well done Kim!

    Gabriele Zamparini

  36. Jimbo said on August 30th, 2007 at 12:42am #

    I never come to this site but I just gotta say – I got 7 or so deep into these comments and am saddened at how little people actually read – she never said anything about believing the 35,000 number.. how can you not understand this? I think the quote was intended to nudge people into thinking “is the official number accurate?”…

    but this just goes to show how and why people believe the official story and do not think critically for themselves.. they get confused after the first paragraph.

  37. OilMonkey said on August 30th, 2007 at 2:57am #

    Joshua Frank is tragically and frustratingly but not surprisingly the only discernible voice of reason on this page (as of the date/time stamp on this post).

    May a cure one day be found for the metastasized cancer of nine-eleven-fantasy.

    In light of the rapid and rabid onset of the disease, I expect Mr. Peterson will, in short order, excise all articles which explore global warming, climate change and peak oil — not to mention gravity and evolution — which feature a puzzling suspension of incredulity about the “official” theory.

    In the meantime, embrace the ju-ju everyone!

    “What I have come to realize from my entire 9/11 experience, and also from the tepid reception of my ‘physics explanation’ articles (like New Orleans dikes) is that the public is basically irrational. It is ultimately pointless to worry about Bush and global warming and fascism and the rest, because they will always win. It has to be this way, because people are fully in the grip of fantasies they would rather die to preserve than become aware of factual reality. Those who do have some sense use it to manipulate the public mind for the benefit of the exploitative systems. We are doomed. When I began writing for a public audience, my naive technical idea was that if people understood the facts, they would move out of superstition, and we ‘all’ could agree on the nature of ‘the problem’ and then it would be almost obvious what actions to take to fix it. But, people live for their superstitions. We are no better than the caricatures of natives in 1930s jungle movies, hopping about in crazed deadly frenzy because of our ‘ju-ju’. That is what 9/11 conspiracies are, our ju-ju. As crazy a ju-ju as any of our fundamentalist religions (the non-fundamentalist ones are just clubs). So, it is pointless for me to engage in any 9/11 talk, because there is no other mind there to engage, just a ju-ju crazed being. I could make a lot more money writing ju-ju channeling flak for some neo-con outfit — but I hate those kind of people. Still, they’ll win, because ju-ju is better than sex. Global warming?, no problem, buy coal-burning SUVs to extinction; loss of Constitutional rights?, no problem we’re beating Islamofascism; no health insurance?, no problem, ESPN [sports] on plasma TVs is getting cheaper; no education? no problem, it’s free from the Army; it all doesn’t make sense? no problem, embrace the ju-ju!”

    ~ Manuel Garcia, Jr. (You Are Now Entering a Black Hole: 911 Emergency! Calling Robert Fisk!)

    I proffer nutritious food for thought:

    ( )

    Postscript: I find it laughable, to the point of “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up”, that Mr. Peterson invokes Occam’s Razor — inside the bubble of the conspiradroids’ consensus-trance-ju-ju — without a trace of irony.

    Manuel Garcia couldn’t be more astute if he tried: “there is no other mind there to engage”.

  38. Dwight said on August 30th, 2007 at 3:09am #

    Joshua is resistant to the ideas that you and I share, Simuvac. He made all his points before I made my comment, and you don’t even know if he’s ever heard about the “TVFakery” arguments. He wouldn’t have seen it on the History Channel the other night, which doesn’t surprise me given that NBC News produced that show too.

  39. ConsDemo said on August 30th, 2007 at 3:13am #

    “Certainly, the “official” 9-11 view is not scientific. It is a post hoc explanation designed to fit a preconceived agenda.”

    ROTFLAO! As if the crackpot conspiracy theories are! I saw planes fly into the building and the resulting collapse is perfectly plausible. On the other hand there isn’t one iota of evidence that the buidlings were brought down by a “controlled demolition.” The kooks advance this “theory” based on their hatred of the United States and then invent evidence out of thin air to justify it. People who have no background in science simply announce “it looks like a controlled demolition to me” and then cite a defrocked professor to back up their claims. Sorry folks, that isn’t evidence.

  40. Dwight said on August 30th, 2007 at 3:23am #

    Joshua said: “Isn’t Griffin and co. guilty of the same thing that the neo-cons are? Mainly that they contend they know exactly what happened?”

    The official story and the bits of “evidence” offered in support are slim at best, and often patently absurd. People questioning 9/11 are acting quite reasonably, and “speculation” is not something to be ashamed of.

    The neocons you speak of are in positions of power and have far greater access to and control over information. There’s no comparison.

    I’d much rather be “guilty” of groping in the dark toward justice than of obstructing justice.

  41. Ben S. said on August 30th, 2007 at 5:17am #

    While I think that a difference of 26,000 deaths of US soldiers would be a difficult thing to hide, I wouldn’t doubt that many hundreds of deaths were not counted. And certainly the number of Iraqi civilian casualties is grossly underestimated. Just to get the most outrageous and most discussed claim out of the way first….

    I appreciate that you published this article, and that you mentioned Griffin’s work, WTC7, and controlled demolition of the twin towers. Other anomalies surrounding 9/11 include Dr. Steven Jones’ research, including molten metal found beneath the towers, and his chemical analysis of metal spherules found within the dust that contained sulphur, iron, and other elements that would have resulted from the use of thermite in the towers’ destruction.

    Also, many researchers, including Webster Tarpley, have discovered and are researching 15 military drills that took place on 9/11, some of which moved fighters which would have been on alert protecting our airspace to locations as far away as Alaska. These drills can also be identified in NORAD or FAA tapes, when one member of NORAD in a call asks, “Is this real world or exercise?” The drills likely added to the confusion of our response, and for 15 major drills to be scheduled for that day seems to be quite a coincidence. What would be nice is if all of those, like Joshua Frank, who like to spend their time marginalizing the movement instead spent their resources and intellect on proving whether these coincidences–the drills, hijackers using only boxcutters, 4 hijacked jets getting past the defenses of the most advanced air defense in the world, the collapse of a steel framed high-rise due to fire happening not once, but 3 times in a single day, and on and on…

    What do you think would be the probability of all of these coincidences happening on a single day? I mean, really, we all have a sense of basic statistics and probability here, don’t we? And people like Joshua Frank think that we’re the ones participating in “Jonestown hysteria”?

    There are many groups of professionals researching this stuff: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Pilots, for example, analyzed the flight recorder data of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon–requiring more specialist expertise than you or I could have done–and found that at the point that it should have hit the Pentagon, the data shows it was 80 feet too high to hit it. The flight path does not match the physical damage of downed light poles, nor the eyewitness testimony of Pentagon police officers on the scene. They can’t get an answer from the NTSB on how the data obtained through FOIA could be so wrong. They deserve answers. So do the Jersey Girls, and Bill Doyle, and many other relatives of victims who have had their questions unanswered for almost 6 years now.

    So Joshua Frank believes that Griffin is the leader of this huge movement of “Jonestown hysteria.” That’s news to me. He’s certainly one of the prominent voices, along with Steven Jones, Webster Tarpley, Richard Gage, Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, and many, many other voices, with many different theories and varying levels of credibility. Griffin is definitely not who I would name as “the leader” of the movement. But you offer some perspective on how it looks from the outside, when you simply don’t understand the movement, nor care to, presumably.

    So why is the movement important? How is it any different from JFK? Well, if we had uncovered who killed JFK the day it happened, we would have identified a rogue group of individuals within our government. An isolated incident, easily explained away, some people put in jail, a bit more distrust of government, but not much would change.

    9/11 is different. If we discovered who really killed 3000 Americans on 9/11, we would have discovered that we have to fear our own government, that they are willing to kill us for their own political gain. Look a little further, and you realize that the war in Afghanistan was planned prior to 9/11. That the PNAC document in 99 outlined the goals of an American Empire. That governments have been killing their own citizens in false flag terror for decades, if not centuries. That the media is complicit, or apathetic. That they are not Our Media, and are incapable of performing the role the people require of them, of keeping the government in check. That everything has to change. Everything.

    One thing many of you voices of the Left (I’ll direct this at Joshua as he is one of them, and he’s here) have failed to recognize is the 9/11 Truth movement is much, much bigger than you have imagined. Do you hear kids on college campuses asking, “Hey, have you read the latest Chomsky book?” No, they are recommending 9/11 films like Loose Change to each other. This same movement, these same individuals, are some of the most likely people to recognize the loss of our freedoms from this administration. They’re the most likely to realize that the war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with protecting our country from terrorists, or WMDs, any of the propaganda. They’re the most likely to support a third party candidate, our only hope for a real change in government. They’re the most likely to actually “get off their asses” and protest. They do so on the 11th of every month. And if we are right, what makes you think that this government which has killed its own people, that this media which has ignored it, gives a damn about your environmental cause? What makes you think they care about any positive work you might be doing to improve the welfare of the Palestinians? Even if we are right, you expect us to “move on”? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? If we are right, and that same rogue network within our government perpetrated 9/11 as part of a much larger, empire-building, decades-old plan, and the media has done nothing to prevent or uncover it, the very first things you should be worried about are: 1) what do they plan to do next? 2) how do we remove them all from power, including those who we didn’t elect? 3) how do we stay informed now that the media is just another branch of government? 4) how do we get this apathetic populace to revolt, the only real check to government tyranny that history has ever shown to work?

    Until you confront this issue that many thousands of Americans and others throughout the world deem of the utmost importance, your voice and credibility will only diminish. People are ready to throw out the old media–that’s what has made this movement huge, regardless of the fact that from Sept. 12th on, old media has not given them a single bit of support. And we’re only getting stronger.

  42. Pete said on August 30th, 2007 at 6:04am #

    Thank you for writing this excellent article on a subject that way too many are afraid to approach. Anyone who can take the time to look past the MSM spin and distortion of the events of 9/11, such as watching the excellent documentary 9/11 Press For Truth, will quickly realize that the official story is nothing more than a conspiracy theory that has very little evidence at it’s foundation.

    In order for us to move forward in a responsible and intelligent manner, we must know the truth about that day.

    Looking forward to continuing coverage of this critical subject.

  43. Leo Strauss said on August 30th, 2007 at 6:24am #

    I must say I am dissappointed in Chomsky…when I saw the video where he stated something to the effect that it did not matter???

    Like many burnt out “activists” from previous generations I relied on Chomsky to wade through an ocean of minutia and distill the truth in a manner that was compelling and that “made sense”. Informed opinion.

    I expected Chomsky to rise to this important occassion instead I received an intellectual “smackdown”! Would it have “mattered” if we had known that JFK was killed by elements within our own government? It does matter… 911 truth gets right to the heart of the matter. It is the fountainhead of fear which has flooded our world.

  44. RJ said on August 30th, 2007 at 6:44am #

    Let’s move on? Are you out of your freaking mind? Have you even read the 9-11 commission report ? Have you even read any of the solid refutations by Mr. Griffin?

    It’s sad but true, most of the 9-11 gate keeping fools are zionist pricks afraid of the inevitable backlash against jews when the story goes mainstream. Let’s move on my ass. I’ll never forget.

  45. Verbal said on August 30th, 2007 at 7:10am #

    ConsDemo wrote:
    ROTFLAO! As if the crackpot conspiracy theories are! I saw planes fly into the building and the resulting collapse is perfectly plausible. On the other hand there isn’t one iota of evidence that the buidlings were brought down by a “controlled demolition.” The kooks advance this “theory” based on their hatred of the United States and then invent evidence out of thin air to justify it. People who have no background in science simply announce “it looks like a controlled demolition to me” and then cite a defrocked professor to back up their claims. Sorry folks, that isn’t evidence.

    It is very sad that someone who apparently doesn’t care about what happens in his own country accuses others of ‘hatred of America’.

    Perhaps trying to inform yourself just a tiny little bit might help, because ranting and raving like that with assumptions that are beyond the pale is utterly shameful.

    If you want to live in La La Land, that is your decision (if it is that) and your prerogative. But don’t try to bully people with other opinions, which are actually based on something more than seeing the planes fly into those buildings. It won’t work.


  46. Nunyabiz said on August 30th, 2007 at 7:38am #

    Well as far as the number of US soldiers killed it is not 4000 and I doubt it is as high as 35,000, but what we know for a fact is that it is about 3X what the official government tally is.
    They only count soldiers killed ON the battlefield which is approx 4000, however 3X that many have died from their wounds in hospitals in Germany & the USA. That would bring the REAL death toll to around 12,000-15,000.

    As for the people here touting the “No Plane” hit the towers crap, please go away because you are seriously delusional or you are disinfo agents planting ridiculous straw-men to easily knock down by the Reich wing media.

    Kim, THANK YOU for having the courage and the intelligence to write this article, I can only hope that teh perpetrators of these treasonous acts are put on trial in the near future.
    Right now there are AT LEAST 120 Million Americans that suspect that 9/11 was an inside job and mind you that is even with a total media blackout of the truth, actually more than a blackout the Mainstream media is actively involved in blatant propaganda covering up the crimes.
    Yet still about 45-50% of the American public are now onto their lies.
    Sadly there are about 30% of the public that is totally unreachable completely brainwashed to such a point that no amount of irrefutable evidence will ever make any difference to them at all.
    So there is only a possible 70% that can even accept the truth, we have about 45-50% so I am wondering at just what point are we going to finally say ENOUGH?
    What needs to happen are at least 10% of those of us that KNOW what this administration has done, about 10-20 Million Americans need to start massive protest around all the various News outlets, start boycotting ALL of their sponsors and dismantle these clearly complicit media outlets exposing them for what they are.
    Then IMPEACH Bush/Cheney and let the War Crimes & Treason trials begin.

  47. John Halle said on August 30th, 2007 at 7:49am #

    To those who accept the following proposition:

    “While I think that a difference of 26,000 deaths of US soldiers would be a difficult thing to hide, I wouldn’t doubt that many hundreds of deaths were not counted.”

    I’m sure the families of these soldiers would greatly appreciate having confirmation about where their sons and daughters have disappeared to. Since you have little doubt of their existence, please provide us and them with their names, dates and places of death.

    It seems to me it is your moral responsibility to do so.

  48. Ben S. said on August 30th, 2007 at 8:03am #

    @John Halle: don’t bother to quote my post out of context if you’re not even going to mention 9/11.

  49. Joseph Nechvatal said on August 30th, 2007 at 8:17am #

    Very interesting piece Kim.

    However, I wish to know just what is conspiratorial about demanding a thorough impartial examination of that horrendous event on 9/11 – an event that has been used to justify illegal invasions and have destroyed two countries and killed tens of thousands of people?

    As someone mentioed above, Philip Zelikow, director of the 9/11 Commission, was a White House insider who authored the Bush National Security doctrine.

    Please read this book Kim, et al: Griffin, D. R. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press

  50. sijepuis said on August 30th, 2007 at 8:33am #

    That articles covering anything having to do with the September 11 attacks continue to attract immense numbers of commentators of all stripes [Roberts Fisk’s recent article drew over 500 comments at a popular website!] points to the fact that world citizens — Americans and non-Americans alike, know they’ve been lied to, and they’re piping mad about it. This not a matter of a white lie or an omission, it’s a grave and massive cover-up of the causes of an attack that ultimately greased the slide to military action, leading to the destruction of two countries.

    I agree with Joshua Frank, in a sense. Fuss over the attacks consumes resources and brain power that could be applied to other, urgent matters. He cites Palestine and others. I would add Africa, the Congo [5 million souls massacred in the space of 4 years], Uganda, with deaths on a similar scale, and the wretched souls who are decimated on the shores of Lake Victoria.

    On the other hand, and as desperate and tragic as the plights of these peoples are, rather than focalising uniquely on “favorite” ongoing tragedies, the best way to prevent such things from ineluctable repetition is to identify and to address the underlying causes, the factors that lead to such atrocities. September 11 was merely a symptom of a grave and widespread disease.

    The overwhelming attention that continues to be paid to the attacks on the US unites people across the world, cross-culturally and irrespective of religion. — this is perhaps a ‘first’ in the history of human conflict, a wave of immense energy that ought to be channeled into a common cause, towards the identification and neutralization of the sources of international violence.

    So I recommend that we not knock the “Truth” movement or belittle its efforts, but enfold it into a broader, collective study of the true sources of our problems and how we might work together to change them.

  51. James said on August 30th, 2007 at 8:36am #

    “You forget two important facts: Once a medivac plane takes off for Germany, if any soldier dies in flight – his or her death is not entered in the list of KIA in either Iraq or Afganistan. The same is true if they die in Germany.”

    That is completely false. If you die of wounds received in combat, you are counted as a casualty even if you die later. Due to superb medical care, it does not happen that often, but it does happen and any who makes the most minimal effort to research this will discover that this is an insulting urban legend.

    Staff Sgt. Eugene H.E. Alex
    Died on September 2, 2006, at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries suffered when he encountered enemy forces using small-arms fire in Baghdad, Iraq, on August 30, 2006

    Staff Sgt. George T. Alexander Jr.
    Died at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, on October 22 of injuries sustained when a roadside bomb detonated near his Bradley fighting vehicle in Samarra, Iraq, on October 17, 2005

    Sgt. Ronald W. Baker
    Baker died October 13, 2004, in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries sustained on October 7 when a car bomb detonated near his patrol vehicle in Taji, Iraq.

  52. gerald spezio said on August 30th, 2007 at 8:38am #

    Mr B. J. Sabri, I was considering some mandatory hypotheses about who did what to whom. Coming forward, as you did, explaining that your translation is impeccable eliminates the hypothesis. I thank you, as I thank Kim.

    Here is a short and sweet piece of political wit about peeyar, surfboards, dis-information, and obfuscation. It will help us lighten up, but keep us focused on the Palestinians and Iraqis who are starving and dying. Once again, the Rubenstein peeyar yuppies are everywhere.
    Bravo to Richard Nasser.

  53. J porilli said on August 30th, 2007 at 8:53am #

    To all of you who have doubts the real number of coalition death. I would like to point out that the are over 100,000 “Contractors” (foreign & American mercanaries –Blackwater et Al ) in Iraq and this are on top of the US’s 160,000 troops. The Iraq resistance has been very successful in against these guys. Many are foreign and their numbers are not reported by US military. I have been reading about these casulties for a while and I would suggest that 30,000 is probably a low estimate.

  54. Theodore Trout said on August 30th, 2007 at 10:01am #

    The last seven years have been depressing in the extreme, as if one suddenly awoke the only adult in a world full of five-year-olds, all screaming,”because BECAUSE!”
    How anyone could witness the bizarre mid-air self-pulverisation of the WTC and not think “WTF? Who the Hell do they think is gonna buy this?”
    My God… it’s a planet of apes.
    And now: the spectacle of over-educated idiots decrying the obvious truth more and more loudly, trying to deny the onset of reality like Pincher Martin hallucinating his way around the grim spectre of Death.
    The fact is that these chimpanzees, typing away in an almost infinite number, missed the boat to begin with and have since magnified their uselessness to society exponentially with each passing day.
    They will all soon be out of work, perhaps even treading lava in the Lake of Sulpher, if Biblical prophecy is any guide.
    “Revolt, you thick-skulled idiots!” – Fritz the Cat

  55. robbie said on August 30th, 2007 at 10:29am #

    i am shocked and very saddened that when you question the Bush admin on their story of 9/11 you get called a conspiracy kook, but when you question the bush administration on any other issue you get praised. I have no idea how liberals can give Bush a free pass on 9/11 but it seems to be a very common thread.

    you can quibble about demolition theories all day, but the fact remains that there was never a true investigation of what really happened that day. The 3 women that pressed for the 9/11 commission to even exist said that it was a ‘coverup’ and that they didn’t answer most of their questions. Anybody remember that Bush and Cheney wouldnt testify under oath and they needed to do it together??

  56. gerald spezio said on August 30th, 2007 at 10:34am #

    Paisano Porelli, your point is right on target and received.

    Ditto for James. This is inescapably important, and I did not consider it. I do now.

  57. dwight said on August 30th, 2007 at 10:49am #

    Nunyabiz, “no planes” is a bit misleading, as there may have been planes in the area. The point is that faked images of planes were broadcast, and plane debris was planted.

    You say the “Reich Wing media” could easily knock down this “strawman.” Why, then, didn’t they do so on the History Channel the other night? The show was produced by NBC, which is owned by GE.

    ‘Seems this would have been their big chance to show how ridiculous it is to suggest they broadcast faked images on 9/11.

  58. gerald spezio said on August 30th, 2007 at 10:57am #

    Lawyer Zelikow, lead author of the 9/11 report, is a notorious Israel Firster and rabid Zionist. Another rabid Zionist and Harvard law professaor, lawyer Noah Feldman, was sent to Muslim Iraq to craft the new Iraqi Constitution. Lawyer Chertoff, mad dog henchman of the Israel Firsters and Zionist before all else, may be appointed as Attorney General. Chertoff will be charged with protecting us from high and low crimes and deception by lying scoundrels. We are a nation of laws with a Constitution, right?

    These lawyer boys are full of the law and live for Israel. Israel First!

  59. springo said on August 30th, 2007 at 1:46pm #

    For anybody that hasn’t please watch september clues, on google video. I also wanted to point out that There was a grand jury indictment of George bush and Co. If you do a quich search yuo can find it on the web and it seems pretty good.

  60. John Brown said on August 30th, 2007 at 2:15pm #

    Does anyone else notice how, as the vacuity of the Zelikow groupies’ argument becomes more and more evident, their rhetoric and name-calling gets louder and louder?

    We’ve moved from the simplified apologetics with an undercurrent of name calling by the likes of Frank to a much simpler strategy of vitriolic name calling marinated in stupifying ignorance.

    How much lower can they go to defend the indefensibile?

  61. ConsDemo said on August 30th, 2007 at 5:26pm #

    “It is very sad that someone who apparently doesn’t care about what happens in his own country accuses others of ‘hatred of America’.”

    When you accuse this country of killing 3K of its own people on 9/11 ON NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, you are spreading hatred for the country. I’m sorry, Steven Jones doesn’t overrule the rest of the scientific community. He also claimed to have proved Jesus Christ came to North America. Like so many other conspiratoids he believes what he wants to believe .

    As for the Iraq War, granted it is a fiasco of monumental proportions. However, I’m hard pressed to see how they would keep 30K deaths a secret. Many newspapers have published the lists of the deceased. If someone’s son didn’t come back and didn’t appear on one of those lists, I think they would notice.

  62. B. J. Sabri said on August 30th, 2007 at 5:33pm #

    Hi Gerald,
    First, I do not why the formality by calling me, “Mr.” BJ would perfectly suffice! Second, I understand your dilemma about how to confront and sieve information in the age of lies and deception; and whom to trust in the preliminary phase of evaluation. Do you know why I understand? Because most (if not all) of us face the same problem.

    In our present times, there is not one single source of information that we can consider trustworthy. That is why our job is to not only read between the lines, but also to judge the syntax of thought, the hidden agenda, evaluate the punctuation, the author and background, and million other things…

    In addition, I would like to remind you that in the current atmosphere of hatred toward the Arabs and Muslims, a majority of analysts including so-called progressives tends toward discarding any news or analysis that comes from Arab sources… The reasons are multiple and could be psychological (i.e. hidden prejudice), ideological, political, religious, or whatever. About reading news: read, for example, this piece of news (garbage).

    According to the Associated Press: “ UNITED NATIONS – U.N. weapons inspectors discovered potentially hazardous chemical agents in their office near U.N. headquarters that were probably taken from Iraq’s main chemical weapons facility 11 years ago, officials said Thursday. (

    Well. How would you read this nonsense? Why did UN inspectors store such chemicals in or near the UN building? Who ordered them to store them? Why after 11 years this comes to the surface? What to make of the timing? And what does the phrase, “that were probably taken from Iraq’s main chemical weapons facility” Exactly what does “Probably taken from Iraq” mean? What facility the writer had in mind? Why Iraq is again in the bull’s eye? Could it be that some one put these chemicals according to plan?was that all lie any way, and there were no chemicals whatsovere? Is it possible that the US still insists that Iraq had WMD to justify its invasion? Was Iraq the only country to possess such weapons that is why the given assumed “probability”? Because the answer is no, then why the imperialist AP points the finger to Iraq’s chemicals and no one else?

    Now I believe that I addressed the question that you and all of us have been asking: Can we trust the news we read? The answer as by Kim’s trademark: it is not a matter of trust; rather it is a matter of cogency, analysis, and a great dose of skepticism.

    Take care


  63. free71 said on August 30th, 2007 at 6:16pm #

    It is amazing that otherwise intelligent and conscious progressives can be so dismissive of the 9/11 truth movement. The Joshua Franks, Noam Chomskys and Alexander Cockburns feel as if focussing on who is really responsible for 9/11 is of no significance? Are you fucking serious?

    I guess they are. They’d rather deal with all the many over-reaches of the Bush regime and his fascist backers rather than kill the disease at its source. Now is the time. If we screw this up and allow the true perpetrators of 9/11 to escape unscathed after having realized their vision of instituting outright fascism in this country, then we all fucking deserve what we get.

    This US government insulted our collective intelligence in a big way(by getting most of us, including myself, to disbelieve what we’ve seen). They had full faith in their system of propaganda and control of the public’s perception using the mass media, and goddamit, this shit worked for a while. The government’s official theory of what happened simply cannot stand up to any scientific scrutiny, but there are many on the left who absolutely refuse to believe the earth rotates around the sun.

    Now is the time. The realization that our own government would callously murder its own would cause the people of this country to really sit back and take stock of what we really are, where we’re really headed. It would be a humbling that we sorely need after our leaders have allowed their already substantial craniums to swell even further since proclaiming itself the “sole superpower”.

    “Free your mind and your ass will follow, the kingdom of heaven is within…” –George Clinton

  64. Kim Petersen said on August 30th, 2007 at 8:42pm #

    Thanks for the kind words Gabriele! Also Pete, others, and yyyyy.

    Yes Jimbo, “ the quote was intended to nudge people into thinking ‘is the official number accurate?’…”

    ConsDemo you argue tu quoque and ad hominem. You never disputed the notion you cited — namely, “Certainly, the ‘official’ 9-11 view is not scientific. It is a post hoc explanation designed to fit a preconceived agenda.” One, therefore, assumes the unchallenged notion is correct.

    Nunyabiz, a massive protest of corporate news outlets and their sponsors is something that I wouldn’t argue against.

    Not sure if I got your drift correctly Joseph Nechvatal. I do not think demanding a thorough impartial examination of 9/11 is conspiratorial.

    robbie, that I am called a conspiracy kook for questioning the bush administration on 9-11 means little to me. There is no substance to name calling. It merely belies the inanity and lack of intelligent reply by the commenter.

    ConsDemo, I am not sure who you refer to in post on August 30th, 2007 at 5:26 pm, but I never accused the US of killing 3K of its own people on 9/11. Also, I never mentioned Steven Jones in the article.

  65. JE said on August 30th, 2007 at 9:58pm #

    What rubs me the wrong way about Joshua Frank is how sanctimonious he comes across. I’m not sure if he has taking any writing courses on rhetoric but his ability to tactfully compose an argument is wanting. Furthermore, He thinks because he is a contributor to this site he is some how more enlightened than his readers. I believe if you are smart enough to cut through all the lies of the pseudo-left gate-keeping websites/blogs like DU, DailyKos, Eschaton, ect. then you are at least more determined to look for alternatives to the dominant ideology in this facsist plutocracy and in all probability are much more intelligent than the average american. That being said Joshua Frank is desperate to be inducted into the club of first tier of leftist intellectuals like Cockburn and Chomsky. The only problem is his analysis is rather banal. Yes we get it Josh. The Democrats are in bed with the Republicans who are in turn in bed with corporate power. To any objective observer this becomes readily apparent after about five minutes of critical thinking. You are trying to make a name for yourself by pointing out the obvious. How noble of you. Sadly your talents don’t seem to extend beyond tearing others down. And as for your expert Cockburnian regurgitation err I mean opinion you’re “expertise” doesn’t appear to extend into the fields of chemistry and physics. In fact I doubt you know a damn thing about either for if you did you’d find your regurgitation/argument is as ludicrous asI find the pomposity with which you present it.

    As for 9-11 the best way I’ve seen it put is that the only real conspiracy is “that a bunch of cave-dwelling fanatics managed to defy the laws of physics.”

  66. Kim Petersen said on August 30th, 2007 at 10:36pm #

    Please. Joshua gave his views on 9-11, and it may rub some people wrongly, but we should respect the different views that each other hold.
    Josh is an enlightened colleague who I can learn much from. I also respect Dr Chomsky for much of his insights and analysis. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with either of them all the time.
    I submit that it is sufficient to state our disagreement with the views of the other person and our reasoning behind our views and disagreement without disparaging the other person — despite if they do.
    Peace and solidarity.

  67. John Brown said on August 31st, 2007 at 7:47am #


    No evidence, eh?

    Someone who believes a fairy ale spun by John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld on the basis of nothing whatsoever accuses us of failing to examine evidence.

    I’ll say it again: the refusal of ‘dissidents’ to look at the evidence has far more to do with their fear of being called names by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh than anything else.

    That’s why they hide behind the Zelikow line (without ever defending it, of course).

  68. Jon E said on August 31st, 2007 at 7:57am #

    Nice work. Keep up the great website! JE

  69. JE said on August 31st, 2007 at 11:50am #


    It’s simple. Josh srcutinizes and picks people apart all the time. That doesn’t grant him immunity from having that same microscope turned around on him. I read his columns on a daily basis and find some of them informative; however, part of being a truly bottom-up website is opening yourself up to criticism–even if it hurts Josh’s ego. He didn’t do his homework on this one. Not only is the position he is defending baseless but it’s not even in the realm of reality. I think it’s telling that he would put his credibility on the line just to posit an uninformed argument and it makes me skeptical of his motives. Just like Cockburn he is displaying leftist intellectual hubris and it’s pathetic. I believe that anyone who calls themselves a dissident and would defend the official 9/11 conspiracy theory has an authoritarian streak and might just be the next David Horowitz.

    I’ve taken Calc-based physics, inorganic chemistry, and structural engineering courses and I’ve followed the Truth Movement for years. Ergo I feel annoyed that Josh won’t pick up a book or two or three or four before he forms an opinion.

    Whether the movement’s conjectures are correct as to the “who did it” question is matter of speculation (obviously). Regardless, The movement’s analysis is based on sound science and not willful ignorance. The law of parsimony points towards the people who stood to benefit from the attack. Again I don’t find any of this particularly controversial or conspiratorial about this.

  70. Steven said on August 31st, 2007 at 2:39pm #

    Thanks for coming out with this excellent article, unfortunately it is too late for some people to see what is obvious regarding 9/11. Sure they’ll say that mentioning WTC7 makes you sound “kooky”, and that those drills on 9/11 were routine, and they will blame the government’s fuzzy memory and revision of the times they found out about the hijackings as “incompetence”, but you are right to raise these important questions, while other liberals will challenge the administration’s lies and deceits in any other area but 9/11 (Where they are again proven liars, see Norman Mineta’s testimony, which contradicts the claims that they did not know about flight 77). What these people are really saying is that they cannot believe in a conspiracy or cover-up on such a scale, but neither could I, but the evidence does speak for itself, and demands answers, as do so many other lies and deciets of this criminal group, why let them off the hook for 9/11? What are they trying to hide about it? I don’t quite know exactly, why would they classify video of the plane hitting the Pentagon? Why would they try to classify firemen’s transmissions? Where is the security camera footage of the hijackers? What was Mohammed Atta doing on Abramoff’s yacht?

  71. Dwight said on August 31st, 2007 at 3:07pm #

    JE, I agree that the movement’s analysis is based on sound science in relation to the question of whether the rapid pulverization of the Twin Towers can be explained by planes cutting columns and stripping fire insulation, the heat of jet-fuel fires, and gravity. Even structural engineers arguing whether the NIST report should result in changes in building codes have stated in Engineering News Record that the Twin Towers were not examples of “progressive collapse.” This shows that when money is involved structural engineers state the truth about the NIST report. Fire engineers have also NIST’s findings on fire, while not outright questioning the official collapse theory.

    However, the movement’s analysis is not based on sound science in relation to the issue of whether aluminum planes could penetrate the steel and concrete Twin Towers as shown in videos. Here, the bulk of the movement accepts without question the absurd claims of the government, and attacks people who argue that these claims are as absurd if not more absurd than the claims that gravity was the energy that brought down the Twin Towers. For this reason, I can’t say I’m part of the “movement,” because I think it is acting to reinforce the core lie of 9/11, planes hitting the Twin Towers.

    NIST claims that videos, some of which were broadcast on television, show the South Tower plane travelling at over 500 mph, and the North Tower plane travelling at over 450 mph. The 767’s top speed is about 550 mph at the cruising altitude of over 30,000 feet, where the air is much thinner. Aeronautical software engineer Joseph Keith, who says he worked on a “shaker system” for Boeing for testing of planes’ reaction to vibration, has just pointed out that the planes at that low altitude would have shaken themselves apart at over 220 mph, and that the power plant would have maxed out at 330 mph. He also says that in thicker air at low altitude, the engines at high speed would have acted as brakes.

    Keith knows the fragility of the air frames very well, having worked on the shaker system. He compares the planes to “aluminum beer cans,” and says the planes would have ground themselves against the buildings, throwing pieces all over the place, and would not have melded into the buildings.

    You can listen to his interview by linking to here:

    An interview with Keith from last year is also posted.

    The substantive points begin at about 8:00 minutes. Please listen to it. I will be posting a transcript at this link later.

    Toward the end, he also talks about the ground effect of the aircraft’s lift that shows that a plane at over 500 mph could not have hit the Pentagon at ground level.

    Since I have been called crazy, loony, delusional, and/or spreader of disinfo, I hope that my comment is posted. This is a very serious issue.

  72. Malooga said on August 31st, 2007 at 4:25pm #


    Thanks very much for the thoughtful article.

    I have spent a good deal of time studying all manner of theories of 9/11, and I can’t say with 100% certainty exactly what I do believe happened. But I can say with certainty that I do not believe the official explanation one bit.

    It does seem to me that believing that a guy in a cave on the other side of the world could get 19 guys to do what is claimed they did is the ultimate conspiracy theory. I’m amazed that anyone has fallen for it, especially considering the dearth of evidence put forth by our government.

    Two specific points always stood out to me. One, anyone who has ever worked in a grocery knows what boxcutters are (a holder for a razorblade designed to cut only the depth of a cardboard box, 1/4” or so, without damaging the contents within that box), and you can’t hijack a plane with boxcutters; what is always shown are much larger and more dangerous utility knives, which are always labeled as such in hardware stores. This obvious contradiction has always struck me as very strange. Second, I simply could not believe that we spend half a billion dollars a year on “defense,” and there was no protection for the center of our national defense, namely, the Pentagon. Something is wrong with that picture.

    I am simply nonplussed at the many left intellectuals who critique the government on so many of their rationalizations giving the same people a free pass on 9/11.

    I do believe that stopping the forces of imperialism are important, but so are the neo-liberal policies that kill within this country.

    I do believe that the 9/11 movement is very valuable in getting people who, up to now, have trusted their government implicitly, to begin to question the motives and actions of that same government. This is crucial to building a movement and should not be overlooked. I am saddened whenever I hear an activist forgo strategic alliances because he does not share 100% of the others views. This is an obvious tactical mistake, even if it is done out of emotional reaction.

    Chomsky has been my idol for many years, and I have learned a lot from his books, especially “On Power” and “Manufacturing Consent.” But I learned years ago that you can think the world of someone and still disagree with them. Chomsky has always advocated a two-state solution for Palestine, as what was “politically do-able,” a questionable notion in itself these days. I have favored a single-state solution, as one which is just. I am not sure if either is doable, but I am clear where I what to put my energies: towards justice.

  73. ConsDemo said on August 31st, 2007 at 5:53pm #

    “ConsDemo you argue tu quoque and ad hominem. You never disputed the notion you cited — namely, “Certainly, the ‘official’ 9-11 view is not scientific.”

    To the contrary, the onus is not on me to disprove conspiracy theories, rather it is on those who believe them to prove them. The premise of the conspiracy theories regarding the WTC are a series of assertions lacking evidence (i.e. controlled demolitions brought down the towers) so they must argue that the obvious conclusion, the weakening of structures from the impact of the planes (or in the case of WTC7 falling debris) and the resulting fires, couldn’t have caused it. To bolster this claim conspiracy theorists offer what is nothing more than a series of highly disputed opinions, which hardly qualify as evidence. Simply claiming the collapse of the towers was contrary to science doesn’t make it so.

    It often doesn’t do much good to argue facts with conspiracy theorists because they tend to reflexively reject anything that doesn’t fit with their predetermined conclusion. However, here is an example with isn’t even mentioned in this review: David Ray Griffin’s credibility is very weak on any number of issues. For example, he claims a technology that didn’t even exist on 9/11/2001 (voice-morphing) was what victims’ families heard when they thought they were talking to their loved ones just before they died on 9/11. In other words, he simply makes up a claim to fit what he wants to believe.

    Your notion that what you call the “official story” is based on claims from neocons is also weak since I know of no elected Democrats who claim anyone but Al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks. Nor does the Administration’s recklessness and stupidity on Iraq in any way invalidate the evidence pointing to an Islamist attack on 9/11 because most of the evidence doesn’t come from the Administration but what thousands of people saw with their own eyes on that horrific day. Many of the conspiracy theorists come to their theories on the basis of convenience. Many have a long standing hostility to the United States or are have made a profession out of pushing conspiracy theories. I applaud people like Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn and George Moinbot because they are interested in facts, not what just might be convenient to their point of view.

    “ConsDemo, I am not sure who you refer to in post on August 30th, 2007 at 5:26 pm, but I never accused the US of killing 3K of its own people on 9/11. Also, I never mentioned Steven Jones in the article.”

    First, if you think 9/11 was an “inside job” then, by definition, you are claiming the country killed its own. Perhaps you are one of those who claim they are just “asking questions” but I notice people who make this claim tend to reject evidence that contradicts the “inside job” theory out of hand. Even if you are truly open-minded, you seem to be intrigued by stunningly weak evidence. Secondly, you may not have mentioned Jones but he is the most often cited advocate of the claim that the towers’ collapse defied the laws of science.

    Finally, Josh Frank is spot on. This is a distraction. On 9/11 the Islamists were sending the American people a message “if you persist in making war on us, we will bring the war to you.” While I find the tactics repulsive, fundamentally, I’m no more enamored with U.S. involvement in the Middle East than they are. I think that is a widely held view among progressives, but by focusing on weak conspiracy claims, you alienate potential supporters and even worse, ignore the larger issues. Should the United States continue to back Israel without question? Does a U.S. military presence in the region guarantee a stable supply of oil and even if it did, would that be a justification for waging war in the region? These aren’t just neocon fantasies, they are widely held views among the American public that aren’t questioned enough because too many people want to focus on easy and/or ideologically convenient side shows.

  74. Dwight said on August 31st, 2007 at 6:13pm #

    ConsDemo, I’m not defending Griffin’s argument about voice morphing of phone calls and the NORAD tapes, but voice-morphing technology existed in 1999, according to this article in the Washington Post.

  75. brian said on August 31st, 2007 at 6:31pm #

    As noticed, many on the Left will distrust and challenge Bush and his regime on any issue BUT 9-11, when the official conspiracy theory becomes an accepted and self-evident truth. That is very interesting from a psychological perspective.
    Thie shows the power of traumatic events, to create a consensus.

  76. brian said on August 31st, 2007 at 6:35pm #

    The Wicked Eunuch…and article on Chomsky and 9-11:

    The Wicked Eunuch: Chomsky on 9/11

    by Tom Breidenbach

    Noam Chomsky has bridled at the idea that 9/11 could have been to any significant degree the result of a state-level conspiracy, expressing his irritation at a recent presentation where he held forth for several minutes on the topic. Chomsky is a figure worthy in certain respects of the esteem accorded him, but his views on 9/11 reflect a common and dangerous mis-appraisal of the techniques of contemporary statecraft and, more shockingly (coming from him), of the long-worsening psychosis afflicting and increasingly characterizing the US military/industrial complex. The point made by Chomsky during his talk that 9/11 was a boon for authoritarian governments the world over is well-taken (if hardly original), yet beyond this his opinions regarding the attacks range from foolish to insidious.

    Even cult heroes have feet of clay and blind spots.

  77. Hue Longer said on August 31st, 2007 at 6:44pm #

    ConsDemo said on August 31st, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    “To the contrary, the onus is not on me to disprove conspiracy theories, rather it is on those who believe them to prove them”.

    “conspiracy theories” being two words bastardised together aside, Why is it conspiracy theory when non-government/corporate media nut-jobs proffer them, but not when government /corporate media offer the same?

    I’m all for not stating without proof absolutes- no matter where they’re coming from, so when I point out -as have others- that the governemnt/corporate media has done a piss poor job of proving THEIR conspiracy theory to me, why would any onus be on me?

  78. simuvac said on August 31st, 2007 at 8:35pm #

    Days later, I’d just like to say that this line of posts unfolded exactly as I said it would. Reasonable comments about 9/11 Truth get drowned out by the nuts who blame “Zionists” for everything, and somebody launches into a discussion of “TV fakery,” even claiming me as an ally, even though I just referred to “TV fakery” arguments as crazy.

    9/11 Truth cannot escape disinformation techniques like this. This is exactly why it gets smeared as anti-semitic and unscientific. 9/11 Truth is neither of these things, but on the Internet with an open comments forum one cannot control the flow of nuttery and deception. Everywhere reasonable people like Kim Petersen try to discuss 9/11, the disinfo clowns follow along with their bigotry and theories about holograms.

  79. Angie Tibbs said on August 31st, 2007 at 10:25pm #

    When it comes to adhering to the tenets of progressivism in his writing, few do it better or more consistently than Kim Petersen. In his review of David Ray Griffin’s book, Mr. Petersen has highlighted some of the critical areas, examined same in a reasoned manner, and allowed the reader to form an independent conclusion. Good stuff!!

    I am not an engineer, a physicist, a demolition expert. I don’t have to be. I am, however, capable of independent thought, and I have never accepted the “official 9-11 story”, not ever, and today, almost six years later, I am still asking what really happened? Will I keep asking? You bet I will.

    9-11 did not happen in a vacuum. The documented desire to attack Afghanistan prior to should have raised concerns, and the consequences have been reprehensible. In light of the death and destruction ongoing in Afghanistan, the death and destruction in Iraq, the erosion of freedoms within the United States and around the world, it is imperative that questions are raised and answers s0ught.

    I support the dedicated individuals who are fighting to separate truth from fiction. Seeking the truth is not something to sneer at nor to dismiss as a diversion.

    Also I’m troubled by some of the comments written by Mr. Joshua Frank, who stated in part: “. . . but personally, I’d rather see them investigating many other issues that seem much more important at the time. Mainly the crimes these nuts are getting away with now while we talk about events of the past”.

    Is he suggesting that because we are now six years on, it doesn’t matter who is responsible for 9-11? That we should accept the “official story” and quietly disappear? I can’t do that. If there is a possibility that a heinous crime was committed, all nicely played out as if it were a movie, for God’s sakes, everyone playing his/her role right down to removing critical evidence from the scene, then if it takes a lifetime, those responsible must be brought to justice.

    And, furthermore, what exactly is being done right now in “dissident land” with respect to the “crimes these nuts are getting away with now”? “Nuts”? (Surely a more appropriate term would be lying war criminals?)

    If those of us who are seeking the truth about 9-11 were to give up the fight, it would mean that evil has triumphed. We cannot, and must not, let that happen.

  80. Dwight said on September 1st, 2007 at 12:53am #

    Simuvac, I said nothing about holograms. My argument is that faked images were broadcast on television on 9/11 and thereafter, not that real images of holograms were broadcast. The difference is direct media involvement. You can’t respond on the merits, so you call it “disinfo” and “holograms.”

  81. Hue Longer said on September 1st, 2007 at 2:36am #

    “As a New Yorker who lost loved ones on 9/11, I find much of the conspiracy foolery insulting. I have friends who watched the planes crash in to the World Trade buildings”

    I find unfortunately that most debate has little to do with what’s being discussed…if a truth is presented eroniously, it does NOT remove the truth…watch this…

    “Oh but JE took organic chem and quantum physics in jc. Thank goodness. Now this conspiracy bullshit is legitimate”.

    But as an example, this doesn’t mean that the ironic example presented by skunk flushes the baby too…that is handled elsewhere

    Fuck, if we could all trash our team colors and think without emotional needs

  82. Kim Petersen said on September 1st, 2007 at 4:06am #


    With all due respect, you need to read more closely what is written. I never stated 9-11 was an inside job. I call for an open mind and appropriate skepticism for all views and conclusions. It is up to each person to critically assess the information and draw their own conclusions.

  83. John Brown said on September 1st, 2007 at 4:56am #


    Thanks for your admission that you’re looking for help to understand 911 Truth from elected Dixiecrats.

    Quite a dissident you are!

    When the wagons circle as they are on this issue, take note.

  84. ConsDemo said on September 1st, 2007 at 7:59am #

    Dwight, I stand corrected, the technology did exist but its own inventor said it couldn’t have been used the way Griffin claims it was.

    Kim, you are trying to have it both ways. You have written a puff piece on a book that claims it was an “inside job.” Sorry, the evidence is not equal here, there is none on the conspiracy side and ample that Al Qaeda did it.

    James Brown, I’m sure people like Nancy Pelosi and Patrick Leahy would be surprised to learn they are “Dixiecrats.”

  85. Dwight said on September 1st, 2007 at 10:59am #

    Thanks, ConsDemo – that’s interesting. Faked calls are not part of my theory of what happened that day. I have to say, though, with recent revelations about wire-tapping, this is not very convincing:

    “Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyone’s pillow talk? ”

    Dr. Papau also suggests he is the only one that could use the technology he developed.

    But collecting voice samples of many people in the time after they made reservations on the flight is quite an undertaking, and as I said, I’m not arguing this was done.

    But Revolutionary91 raises a fair question:

    “Why develop voice morphing technology in the first place. I cant think of a wholesome use for it. He is developing technology to allow us to impersonate each other, its a gift for criminals.”

    Arkin’s discussion of video morphing is part of my theory, as are the capacities discussed in these articles:

    and here.

  86. anon said on September 1st, 2007 at 11:00pm #

    I wouldn’t bother continuing to debate ConsDemo, or even take him seriously. The fact that he used the word “Conspiratoid” kind of gave him away as a Screw Loose Change blog regular. They basically coined that term. He spends all his time going around to 9/11 Truth sites (and articles like this one) exclaiming that we have “NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!!!” and proceeding to call names, many worse than the aforementioned.

    18 pages of Screw Loose Change and 911ConspiracySmasher and more goodness for your reading pleasure:

    So what great cause do people like him have that compels them to make thousands of posts attacking what he likes to call “twoofers”? These people are everywhere. Simply mention 9/11 and they’ll be there. Truthers at least have a cause they believe in. I’ll ask again, what do you think the great cause of these distractors like ConsDemo is?

    You’re all replying to him now, rather than having a more intelligent conversation. Just wanted to make you all aware of that. Sad that it is impossible to have a civil discussion without their presence. But I guess that’s the downside to a free and open internet discussion.

  87. Dwight said on September 2nd, 2007 at 10:26am #

    The question, anon, is what compels these people — called “truthlings” among those of us who claim to be closer to the real truth — to attack me as crazy or intentionally spreading lies. These truthlings are everywhere. Simply mention that you think the planes are faked and there they are, not responding, just attacking.

    I want to say one last thing to Joshua Frank:

    You say this is diversionary, and that we’ll never prove that “Bush did it.” First, I’m not convinced Bush did it, though he’s obviously gone along with it. But this is not necessarily about proving who exactly did it — it’s about proving that it was done so that the American people are not subjected to this kind of psychological operation again.

    If you knew that faked planes were broadcast on 9/11 — which you can see for yourself — are you really saying that this is not important and is diversionary? A loaded mind weapon is sitting in every house in America, used in support of very destructive policies and actions, and that’s not important?

  88. JE said on September 2nd, 2007 at 1:20pm #

    Dwight– Thanks for the information. I enjoy reading a comment from someone who is actually hear to contribute. Rock n’ Roll.

    Malooga — I’m on the same page as you are in regards to chomsky. Reading his books at the age of 20 is what set me other path towards radical politics; however, I don’t agree with his position on 9/11 or his advocacy of a two-state solution in palestine. Regardless of his genius he is still human–all too human. He openly asks for people to not worship him as some infallible hero. Despite this I idolized him for a long time as well. Now I just look at him as an Anti-hero.

    Consdemo – actually when someone claims something counter to the laws of physics the “onus” is on them. Sorry, I’ve heard that pathetic stance so many times and it is truly assbackwards. At level you are correct in that no one has “proven” who-done-it. But you are incorrect in that people haven’t already disproven the official conspiracy theory. They have. If you’re too much of an unwilling ideologue to look at the empirical evidence then you have no grounds for even taking a position in the matter.

    “Simply claiming the collapse of the towers was contrary to science doesn’t make it so.”

    That implies that people are simply making claims. They’re not. I suppose if you wanted a substantive debate you’d not be building strawmen.

    “It often doesn’t do much good to argue facts with conspiracy theorists because they tend to reflexively reject anything that doesn’t fit with their predetermined conclusion.”

    That’s again completely backwards and pathetic. I highly, highly doubt the moment the planes hit the twin towers the majority of people who are now in the movement concluded it was an inside job. It was only after hearing the government’s explanation that people began to look at the facts and see they don’t match up. So if anything you in fact are starting with a conclusion you didn’t even come to and then trying to justify it.

    “he claims a technology that didn’t even exist on 9/11/2001 (voice-morphing) was what victims’ families heard when they thought they were talking to their loved ones just before they died on 9/11. In other words, he simply makes up a claim to fit what he wants to believe.”

    Actually the pentagon, thanks to the military-industrial complex, is in possession of technology long before itis made known to the public. again you obivous don’t know alot about how our state-planned economy works.

    Hue Longer John Silver —“his doesn’t mean that the ironic example presented by skunk flushes the baby too…that is handled elsewhere”

    Wow by implication I’m a skunk huh? For what? Being educationed? That makes about as much sense as your god-awful metaphor. Don’t belittle me for knowing things you don’t you intellectual midget.

  89. David G. Mills said on September 2nd, 2007 at 8:32pm #

    About six weeks ago Kim, I sent you an email about the latest scientific work on 911 but since I never heard back (quite unusual for you) I must assume you never received it.

    I have been a “911 truther” from day one and have followed the movement in great earnest ever since. For the uninitiated, or for those that have not followed the movement closely, the 911 truth movement has gravitated into two distinct camps.

    In the 911 truth movement there are those that believe there were “no planes” and those who believe the official story about the planes is in essence correct. I am of the second camp. My personal view is that those who believe there were “no planes” are self-deluded and/or government disinformationists who prey upon the truly naive. The “no planers,” as the rest of us derisively call them, are the ones who always get interviewed because they are so easy to debunk and so downright delusional. They seriously undermine the real science supporting the 911 truth movement.

    Those of us who are in the 911 truth movement who are not “no planers” believe that The World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition and do so based upon genuine science. This newly published science about controlled demolition is what my email referred to.

    Professor Stephen Jones (now retired), a PhD in Physics, who was at Lawrence Livermore for many years, and whose specialty is metal catalized fusion, has now proven conclusively that the WTC’s were taken down by controlled demolition. He did it with science. His paper proving it came out May 15, 2007.

    Here is how he did it. He was suspicious of several things that made him believe all three towers were taken down by controlled demolition. First it was WTC7 that looked like a controlled demolition and which was never hit by a plane. Then there were reports of sulfur being found in some of the steels. Then there were videos showing several streams of molten metal pouring from the towers prior to collapse. There was the fact that all towers came down at near free fall speed. There was also the huge very high dust cloud that was full of pulverized concrete and rose high in the air suggesting high heat and explosive power. These things and a few others all pointed to controlled demolition. But all of these factors still could be dismissed, and often are, by those who support the official theory.

    So Jones wasn’t satisfied. After giving a talk and having written a paper about his suspicions and theories, he asked for anyone who might have saved dust from the WTC’s collapse to contact him. He wanted to test the dust to see if there were any tell tale signs of controlled demolition in the dust. Shortly after he made the request, a woman, who lived only a hundred yards from the WTC on the fourth floor of an apartment building, got in contact with him and brought him dust samples which she had kept.

    Jones tested the dust with two electron microprobe methods called WDS and X-EDS. He first observed that the dust contained microspheres of iron. some of the microspheres are visible to the naked eye, but many are so small as to require electronmicroscopy to see them. Microspheres of iron are only made by melted steel or iron when it “freezes” in the air, proving that the dust was full of iron particles made from melted steel.

    The official story recognizes and is based upon the fact that jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel. Consequently, the official story claims that the steel did not melt but it didn’t have to; the official story claims the steel only had to get hot enough to weaken. But Jones found proof in the dust that something got hot enough to melt the steel. And he proved what it was with X-EDS testing.

    His X-EDS testing proved that the dust had the telltale signature of thermate, a chemical used in the demolition industry to cut steel.

    Jones’ analysis of the dust proved high temperature cutter charges had been used to melt the steel, cut the steel, and that after it had been cut, the melted steel sparks had frozen in the air creating microspheres. He further proved the cutter charges were thermate.

    You can read Jones’ full report here:

    And his presentation on the subject can be viewed on Youtube here:

    His micropshere write-up begins on page 77 of the Journal which corresponds to page 22 of this pdf file.

    It is of note that neither the 911 Commission nor NIST ever bothered to check the dust for proof of arson or for incendiaries. The tests Jones used are the very ones normally used to determine whether there has been arson or incendiaries when either are suspected in a building fire or explosion.

    It is also of note that traditional media chooses not to interview Jones and other scientists who have written papers for the Journal of 911 Studies. These are genuine scientists solving the mysteries of 911.

    For their articles and letters see:

    Apparently, the last thing the traditional media wants the population to hear about is a scientist who knows his stuff, or group of scientists who know their stuff.

    But Jones’ article is circulating all over the academic world. So are other articles in the Journal of 911 Studies. More are forthcoming. I have received an email from a retired PhD professor of metallurgical engineering who is submitting a paper to be published in the Journal of 911 Studies. It is presently being reviewed prior to publication. He has told me privately that his initial calculations showed that steel would have had to be heated for about 14 hours to weaken significantly at jet fuel temperatures.

    There is also a very fine paper published in the Journal concerning the seismic data. This paper proves the seismic data indicate that explosions went off in the buildings 9 seconds and 14 seconds prior to the plane hits.

    These scientific papers will keep coming. Jones has promised more. It may not be long before the scientific community reaches critical mass about controlled demolition of the towers. We shall see what happens then. Maybe even Chomsky will have to reconsider if someone can pull him away from the “no planers” long enough to show him the controlled demolition proof.

  90. Kim Petersen said on September 2nd, 2007 at 9:15pm #

    Sorry David, I am unsure that I received such an email about the latest scientific work on 911. I usually reply to every email sent my way, but sometimes things go awry (i.e., I forget).

    I shy distantly away from the theory of “no planes” on 9-11, but I do not feel derisive toward the people drawn to such a theory.

    That professor Stephen Jones draws so much flak and invective from adherents to the “official” 9-11 theory suggests to me that maybe he is on the right track. My understanding of science, however, is that a scientist does not conclusively prove something, but rather disproves something. Jones’ research (which I have not studied deeply) on the surface, seems to point to the WTC’s being taken down by controlled demolition.

  91. Hue Longer said on September 2nd, 2007 at 11:46pm #

    Christ JE, put the crayons down and read what I said …In your defense, I suppose the guy I quoted (named “skunk”) dissapearing from the pages didn’t help you come to your eronious conclusions concerning what I said, but maybe if you saw that I wasn’t attacking you, you could put my god awful metephor to the ad hom test and see if it still sucks (there are layers of irony here that would confuse the average country music fan–one has to remember his audience to be considered great by them, so if I sing slower will you throw your bra at me?)

  92. David G. Mills said on September 3rd, 2007 at 11:28am #

    Perhaps “derisive” was a harsh word to express my feelings toward the “no planers” who many times are people just trying to keep an open mind because they wouldn’t put anything past the present administration. The problem they create, however, is that the people who seem to be of this camp also seem to be people who buy the most outlandish theories.

    Eric Salter on the Journal of 911 Studies does an excellent job of debunking the “no planers.” The “no planers” strictly rely on video for their conclusions and Salter explains why their conclusions are misguided.

    Jerry Lobdill, Dr. Crockett Grabe, Kevin Ryan (co-editor with Jones), Tony Szambotti, Gordon Ross and Craig T. Furlong have all written excellent articles for the Journal. I particularly like the Gordon Ross and Craig T. Furlong article on the seismic data. The Lamont-Doherty Observatory (Columbia University’s seismic observatory 20 miles from ground zero) seismic data confirms what a number of eyewitnesses have said; i.e. that there were explosions even before the planes hit. Curiously observatories from near the Pentagon show now seismic activity corresponding to the Pentagon plane strike which also points to explosive devises in the WTC’s. If anything the Pentagon strike which was just above ground level on a cementous building should have created a mush stronger seismic wave than the plane strikes at the towers. But the Pentagon plane strike never registered.

    By the way you might reconsider your thinking about Kevin Ryan. This guy is very straight up and was the whistle-blower at Underwriter’s Laboratories. Ryan blew the whistle when NIST and UL attempted to cover-up UL’s test results which clearly demonstrated that the steel would not weaken when subjected to jet fuel fires for over two hours. His complaints and his refusal to shut-up cost him his job at UL.

  93. Dwight said on September 3rd, 2007 at 1:34pm #

    Kim, thank you for allowing me to make my arguments here. I realize this is very controversial. I just want to say that I was not drawn to the no planes theory, I was led there by the evidence.

    Here is where I was in June of 2002:

    I just want to make it clear that I am not saying that real people did nt get on real planes that day. I have no idea what happened to those people. An example: Peter Hanson was reported to have called his father frm UAL175 at 9:00 am. At that time, New York air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia says UAL175 was in a 10,000 feet per minute dive toward New York, and says this would have caused “unbelievable” forces on people in the back Hanson reports jerkiness, but nothing like this. He also said he thought the plane was heading toward Chicago. So the call could very well be real, and from UAL175 — that doesn’t mean the plane was where it was said to be.

    The crash physics and the flight limitations of a Boeing 767 make the videos physical impossibilities. Some say that means the plane was not a stock 767. Perhaps, but that does not account for the crash physics. This issue is not going away, and it is certainly not a “delusion.”

  94. Dwight said on September 3rd, 2007 at 1:41pm #

    I don’t want to overstay my welcome, but one more thing – Eric Salter has not made his case. By email, I have invited Mr. Salter, and physicists Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins, to continue our debate, but they have not responded. Dr. Jenkins has told me he started a new position and is too busy, which I accept.

    The invitation, and description of the debate to date, is described here.

  95. David G. Mills said on September 3rd, 2007 at 4:52pm #


    Your comments sound so familiar. Calling a scientist out for a “debate” is not the way science advances in this age. You do research. You write a paper and submit it for review. You should do the same. If Salter, Jones, or Jenkins think your paper needs to be critically reviewed, they will do so if they think it merits their attention. If they don’t think it does or they don’t have the time, someone else will.

  96. Dwight said on September 3rd, 2007 at 7:01pm #

    Asking a scientist to explain his arguments is not how science advances? That’s not my understanding of science.

    The argument is apparently that I should submit a paper to Journal of 9/11 Studies. I have not, because they have not treated the issue fairly, and because I want the timely give-and-take of a forum. This fraud has gone on for 6 years, and time is of the essence.

    I have long questioned editorial decisions of Journal of 9/11 Studies, as stated here.

    I then specifically questioned Jones and Salter for not citing the full literature related to their argument that the plane’s deceleration was consistent with modeled loss of kinetic energy, here.

    Dr. Jones largely relied on the findings of Eric Salter, and I specifically criticized them both for not addressing the NIST finding of 0% deceleration and Akron’s Karim/Hoo Fatt’s finding of much higher loss of kinetic energy than found by MIT’s Wierzbicki.

    It’s important to realize that the comparison of observed deceleration to modelled kinetic energy was adopted by Salter in his paper at Journal of 9/11 Studies, and by Jones citing Salter. Therefore, the literature I said they should cite directly related to the problem as they posited it.

    Subsequently, two letters were published by Journal of 9/11 Studies, by Eric Salter and Greg Jenkins.

    Salter’s letter addressed only my criticism that he and Jones failed to address the NIST finding of 0% deceleration, and completely ignored my more important criticism, that they ignored the Karim/Hoo Fatt finding of much higher kinetic energy loss, which would be inconsistent even with the higher observed deceleration used by Salter.

    Salter says I accused him and Jones of intellectual dishonesty, which was not true. Failing to address my main argument, which I clearly stated as my main argument, is intellectually dishonest.

    Jenkins’ letter was addressed to Morgan Reynolds’ arguments, but also applied to mine.

    His argument was that Reynolds failed to account for center of mass, and that it was natural for the plane’s tail not to decelerate outside the building, since the plane decelerated inside the building.

    Jenkins’ letter relied on a comparison with the Sandia test, where an F-4 was dashed against a reinforced concrete wall, and the tail did not decelerate.

    This has led to further development of my understanding, because the reason the tail is not decelerating in the Sandia test is because all the kinetic energy is being consumed by destruction of the plane from the nose back. This is the very problem — Jenkins treats the external columns as cardboard and says all the deformation occurs on impact with the core columns. This cannot be, even if, as you claim, some bolts popped at juncture of columns panels.

    There are significant differences, such as comparative wing length/plane length ratio, that make the Sandia test not directly comparable, but in general, the Boeing 767 plane would react the same way to being dashed against the steel columns of the WTC, a much more durable material than the aluminum airframe. Jenkins has debated this issue with me, and argued that it is perfectly natural for the plane’s fuselage to penetrate the towers. My argument is that this is absurd, and that both MIT and Akron papered over this absurdity by ignoring the fuselage or assuming its penetration.

    Yes, I could write a letter or paper to Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that would take time and more importantly, prevent the give-and-take available in a forum.

    Also, I saw how Morgan Reynolds was prevented from publishing there by more strict review as compared to Salter. Some of their criticisms were valid, but I agree that Reynolds should not have been forced to give an “encyclopedia of proof on behalf of every proposition and conclusion.”

    Salter, for example, was not required to prove any of his assertions related to the number of witnesses and what they saw, nor was he required to document which videos he claimed proved planes.

    I see nothing wrong with asking them to defend their arguments in a forum where, as you know, there are some people with scientific expertise. I am just a lawyer, and am better at evaluating and interrogating proofs than making those proofs myself.

    Given your participation at Progressive Independent, I think you would agree it is a high-quality forum. Salter, Jones, and Jenkins should have no problem defending their arguments in the give and take of that forum, unless, as I think, their arguments are spurious.

  97. David g. Mills said on September 4th, 2007 at 6:49am #

    Dwight typifies the “no planers.” He thinks he deserves a response from scientists. Yet he will not publish a paper of his own. He refuses to use the convention of science which is to do research and publish a paper. He expects scientists to “debate” him in public.

    His approach is a little like walking into the classroom of a college professor, uninvited, when you are not a student, and asking the professor to debate. You won’t get the time of day from the professor. All you will get is thrown out of class.

    As for the PI forum, I no longer participate since the “no planers” took it over. It’s “quality” has gone to shit. I presume you are one of the lawyers who usurped the forum.

    I see today that lawsuits are going forward now for 911 victims. Some of those victims were on the planes. But the “no planers” refuse to acknowledge their existence.

  98. ConsDemo said on September 4th, 2007 at 9:03pm #

    Steven Jones hasn’t proved or disproved anything.

  99. Dwight said on September 5th, 2007 at 1:34pm #

    ConsDemo, Professor Firmatage may be a practicing structural engineer of 57 years, but he makes a very disingenuous argument here:

    “The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires.”

    He ignores the core columns, which supported 60% of the building’s load even when there was no lateral wind load on the perimeter columns. These core columns had redundancy built in.

    The lie that the towers were tubes with all the weight carried by the external columns was also made by MIT, here.

    p. 8

    “The twin towers were built as a steel tubular structural system that differed radically from other structures of that time. The external walls were built as closely spaced steel columns to perform as load bearing walls and the interior columns were located only in the core area containing the elevators. The outer walls carried the vertical loads and also provided resistance to lateral effects such as wind, earthquakes, and impact. ”

    Further down on page 8, MIT says the core was “designed to share part of the gravity loads . . . [and] was designed to resist vertical loads and was not assumed to resist lateral loads. ”

    MIT does not say how much of the vertical load was shared — 60% when there was no lateral load. When there was lateral load, the core would carry more vertical load, as redundantly designed.

    I understand the argument that the plane impacts caused damage that disrupted load transfer (though of course Boeing 767s can’t travel 500 mph at low altitude as claimed by Firmatage). Even if some kind of collapse could be initiated, that does not explain how the much lighter upper block could hammer down through the progressively more massive building, with much thicker external and core columns on each floor going down, so that the building could be pulverized in 12-15 seconds or less.

    It’s absurd, which is why we get the disngenuous “tube” argument. Sure, the design was different, but the core carried most of the load and was redundant both as to its own vertical load and in order to carry more load when the building was subjected to lateral loads.

    It’s not easy to find this information on, as most structural engineers purporting to explain the “collapses” conveniently leave it out.

    Therefore, I will quote this comment by someone who agrees with the official story, and is disputing whether an argument that great redundancy was built into the external columns:
    “10. Trumpman asserts, “The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%.” Who says so? Why? Where did he get or derive this figure? This one, I am even more uncomfortable with than #9 above. Minoru Yamasaki, the architect, stated on multiple occasions that his design was intended to have the core carry most of the vertical load, and the perimeter columns carry most of the lateral load; in other words, the perimeter columns were to handle wind loads, and the core to handle gravity loads. At worst I would expect a 60/40 distribution; keep in mind, making a column stronger to handle more load requires more column, and that means it’s heavier, and that means the column below it has to be stronger too, and is heavier too, all the way down the building. To have more reserve capacity in the perimeter than in the core makes no sense, since there is a lot more OF the perimeter than there is core, and it therefore has an inordinate effect on the design.”

    The 60/40 ratio, and the lateral v. vertical load concpet, is also explained on page 1 and 8 here:

    Szamboti also cites an engineering manual requiring the core columns to have a minimum safety factor of 1.67.

  100. David G. Mills said on September 5th, 2007 at 4:47pm #

    Consdemo: I guess you don’t know science. Jones proved the dust was full of iron microspheres which could have only been caused when the steel was melted and then frozen in the air. He used the techniques used by arson and incendiary investigators. Neither the NIST team nor the 911 Commission even checked for arson or incendiaries, something done in every legitimate arson or incendiary investigation.

    But he was not the only one to find these microspheres. The USGS found them as well in numerous places. They just didn’t bother to figure out or tell anybody how how they came to be. ( They posted them on their website and Jones found them there). Then the USGS researchers played dumb when Jones called them and asked them about it.

    Even if one assumes that it was possible to knock the buildings down with planes and fires, that does not rule out that incendiaries were used as insurance to bring the buildings down.

    No one ever bothered to prove that incendiaries were not used. Jones found that they had been used, just as he suspected.

  101. Dwight said on September 6th, 2007 at 5:01am #

    I mispoke:

    “with much thicker external and core columns on each floor going down, ”

    I meant that the building got more massive and had thicker columns toward the lower floors, and was much more massive and had much thicker columns at the bottom. I don’t know the exact progression of column thickness, but some mass figures are provided here, on page 3:

    According to these figures, the 1st floor was 15 times as massive as the top 110th floor, and the 30th floor was 11 times as massive as the top floor.

    Assume it was possible to knock the buildings down with planes and fires? Sure, who’s to say pigs can’t fly?

  102. ellend2 said on November 12th, 2007 at 9:01pm #

    And I thought I was the only one to see the collapse of the 3 buildings
    as an inside “American” job. I theorize that by blaming it on al Qaeda
    it gave the US an opportunity to occupy Iran and Afghanistan to do basically 3 things:
    1. Establish military bases in the region
    2. Solve our national energy crisis by mining oil and other products
    3. Give poor blacks and other races who were confined to a life of poverty and crime, a way to make a name for themselves and establish an “honorable” way to die.

  103. nootpad said on January 4th, 2008 at 9:35pm #

    If one seeks only that evidence which fits the official explanation, then that is what you will find. That’s not science, it’s not objective thinking, it’s not even good common sense. Contrary to NIST & the US Government, there is overwhelming evidence that the planes were the result of SFX TV fakery. Many try to suppress this obvious fact, but to exclude other theories out of hand w/o examination is to be foolish and only results in a misinformed, biased opinion.

    Esoteric knowledge and symbolism aside, there were no planes entering the WTC Towers on 911. Perhaps all the related films produced before and since were made to condition the public into acceptance of the official “planes” fantasy.

    Believing the government’s fairytale of planes colliding with the Towers is the main problem w/ fully understanding 911. The media was broadcasting fake, manipulated images of planes. Superimposing a plane on 911 was done w/ Wescam technology; it provided a single “live” feed from which all the TV networks broadcast. Other videos & images started to appear in the days, weeks & months following 911. All of them have anomalies & impossibilities which can only be explained by excluding planes.

    Real planes would have been a potential liability for the perps on 911. It was easier to control the outcome of the event with much less risk by using the media to broadcast fake imagery. Real jets might miss their targets, get shot down, suffer pilot or computer errors, destroy or prematurely detonate any explosives, passengers could have overtaken the hijackers, and/or the plane might not inflict enough perceived damage to make a collapse believable.

    A single fact which cannot be refuted is that a hollow aluminum plane (especially fragile wings) cannot slice through steel beams and concrete without any damage to the plane. News footage showing an airliner gliding into a Tower without any resistance is a cartoon. Aluminum planes are not built for impact and crumple immediately upon contact with solid objects; even a small bird can rip through a jet’s wing.

    Furthermore, a large speeding jet’s vortex trails behind it creating a highly active atmosphere which follows in its path. Had a real plane impacted a WTC Tower, real film footage would have recorded the airliner’s vortex interacting with and violently dissipating the smoke from the alleged crash and the adjacent North Tower. No vortex literally means no planes on 911 (TV fakery).

    During the South Tower “impact”, fake TV footage shows a WTC Tower sealing itself around the plane during the alleged penetration. Still another too incredible to believe anomaly is the width of the plane’s purported gash didn’t match the width of a Boeing 757’s wing span. Another widely publicized video shot by Scott Myers shows the forward fuselage of the “jet” exiting the South Tower, though other shots later reveal no exit hole.

    To consider the media footage showing a plane slicing thru steel and concrete as reality is ludicrous. There were no planes; only spoofed images, manipulated witnesses and falsified evidence. America please wake up; the media was a complicit partner that was in on the crime from the beginning. In fact, the TV psyop 911 couldn’t have been pulled off without the mass media’s assistance.

    Actually “no planes on 911? is the only explanation that makes any sense. There are far to many disturbing questions left unanswered which only TV fakery can address.

    Besides all the other impossibilities I mentioned, why are there several “hijackers” still alive; some are even suing the US government to recover their reputation and good name.

    Why have so many of the purported plane “victims” not been listed in the Social Security Death Index? …and their families not claimed the death $$benefits?

    Why are there missing passenger lists and zero so-called Middle Eastern hijacker names on the flight manifest?

    Why in the entire history of aviation has a plane never disappeared from a crash – yet on 911, four of them did in a single day? All plane parts are numbered; not one plane part from 911 has been identified by its number.

    How could supposedly inexperienced “pilots” who couldn’t even fly a Cessna…

    * threaten and subdue everyone on board
    * break into the locked cockpits w/ their hands
    * kill all the pilots and copilots

    …then navigate a large Boeing jetliner above the clouds all over several states without airport tower assistance, with nav systems & radios turned off, and fly with pinpoint accuracy into a building that they couldn’t even see?

    Not to mention that a Boeing 757 can’t fly at 500+ MPH at sea level – the air is too thick. Call Boeing; even they admit that – and they have been recorded in phone conversations recently.

    Exposing “no planes on 911? is probably the most important story to people beyond chemtrails, depleted uranium poisoning and nanotech genocide.

    Americans are TV hypnotized, drugged up, dumbed down and so utterly dependent that in general they are incapable and disinterested in discovering how the media is adversely affecting their lives.

    No planes on 911 and deception by the media is the Holy Grail of 911. It marks the beginning of an Orwellian double-speak mind-set which is now accepted as normal by the populace.

    No-planes on 911 is highly important as it exposes the real perps behind this mass murder and offers justice to the thousands of people killed that day.

    Without the covert deception by the media in collusion with the enemy in control of America’s military intelligence, 911 could not have happened.

    The media was directly involved in 911 and together with a criminal government has helped diminish Americans’ freedoms and launch unending wars against innocent nations.

    # # #