Popular Mechanics 9/11 Conspiracy Research and Findings

[Wizard Fuck]

^Hiding bombs is pretty dangerous as well, and it would take some time.... Wouldn't someone noticed it?
Think about how elaborately drawn out this plan had to be. There would've been A LOT of people involved, and there were so many other routes that wouldn't get the government questioned and possibly caught. Do you think that they would risk getting caught for killing thousands of American's lives, just to go to war? There are ways where it wouldn't have killed American citizens to go to war, and they wouldn't have the risk of getting caught.

[Commercial D]

There were power-downs & building evacuations before 9/11, and work was done "on the elevators." As well it was reported that bomb-sniffing dogs were removed. Not an extraordinarily difficult covert operation, especially when Marvin Bush (G.W.'s brother) and Wirt Walker III (his cousin) are on the board of directors of Securacom, the company that handled security for the WTC complex.

Pretty suspicious also, wouldn't you say, how they were fingering OBL for this before the towers even fell?

The evidence here is so overwhelming but the way human psychology works is that many of us, such as The Gipper, refuse to acknowledge facts that do not fit within our belief systems. Still, when considered objectively, the reality is apparent to anyone with an open and curious mind, which is why the 9/11 Truth movement has grown to the degree that it has.

Mark my words: within this century the "inside job" interpretation of this historical event will feature prominently in American school textbooks. And it's still not too late for prosecutions.

[ice nine]

do you consider yourself ´awake' dallas? are you one of the enlightened that will be spared when 80 percent of the earths population is killed? do you wear your mask outside to protect yourself from the chem trails? are you a raging homophobe like alex jones too?

[Wizard Fuck]

There were power-downs & building evacuations before 9/11, and work was done "on the elevators." As well it was reported that bomb-sniffing dogs were removed. Not an extraordinarily difficult covert operation, especially when Marvin Bush (G.W.'s brother) and Wirt Walker III (his cousin) are on the board of directors of Securacom, the company that handled security for the WTC complex.

Pretty suspicious also, wouldn't you say, how they were fingering OBL for this before the towers even fell?

The evidence here is so overwhelming but the way human psychology works is that many of us, such as The Gipper, refuse to acknowledge facts that do not fit within our belief systems. Still, when considered objectively, the reality is apparent to anyone with an open and curious mind, which is why the 9/11 Truth movement has grown to the degree that it has.

Mark my words: within this century the "inside job" interpretation of this historical event will feature prominently in American school textbooks. And it's still not too late for prosecutions.

I've yet to see "overwhelming evidence" proving that the government, in fact orchestrated 9/11. There's no way you know the absolute truth, and either do I. You can believe that the government did it, through what other people over the Internet has told you. But for now, I'm going to stick with terrorists causing 9/11, and our government sat back and watched with their pants down.

[TheFrontSeatLife]

do you consider yourself ´awake' dallas? are you one of the enlightened that will be spared when 80 percent of the earths population is killed? do you wear your mask outside to protect yourself from the chem trails? are you a raging homophobe like alex jones too?

How is Alex Jones a homophobe? I'm not calling you out, but asking.

[NickDagger]

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

[wake and bacon]

that was fucking golden

[Dr Newton]

Expand Quote

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

[close]

Please post this on every new page. I'm considering printing this out and just hanging it all around the city.

[Commercial D]

Dr. Newton, you're a lamer—that shit wasn't funny the first time it was published in Rolling Stone, and it's not acquiring any further hilarity with each subsequent posting here.

The way secrets are kept is compartmentalized and pyramidal. The NYPD, TV networks, FEMA, the military, etc. as a whole needn't be "in on it" to keep a lid on things. The way chain-of-command works, even on a covert operation, is that information is disseminated on a need-to-know basis, with the official story and explanation being all that most need to know (evidently it's all you & Gipper feel the need to know).

Anyway, the evidence is indeed overwhelming, so much so that to outline it here, even in brief, would cause me to run the risk of creating a posting resembling one of the rambling, run-on single-paragraph posts that Gipper himself likes to chime in with. Regardless, let me highlight some major points of importance:

—NORAD stand-down, with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testifying that Cheney ordered a DC-bound plane to be left alone¹

—near free-fall collapse of 1, 2 & 7, the latter in the classic style of a controlled demolition²

—military build-up in the Persian Gulf just prior to 9/11³

—PATRIOT Act written prior to 9/11⁴

—Twin Towers required expensive retrofits such as the replacement of exterior cladding and the removal of asbestos, costly work whose price could exceed the buildings' value⁵

—Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, and his daughter, who also worked at WTC, were "running late" on 9/11.⁶ Silverstein reaped billions in profits from the insurance settlements.

—Hundreds of Architects & Engineers have joined politicians such as AZ State Senator Karen Johnson, former Rep. (and current Green Party presidential candidate) Cynthia McKinney, former Governor Jesse Ventura, former Italian president Francesco Cossiga, Japanese Member of Parliament Yukihisa Fujita, and entertainers such as Mos Def, Charlie Sheen, Paris, Immortal Technique, Ed Asner, Ed Begley, Jr., Rosie O'Donnell, Daniel Sunjata, Woody Harrleson and many others who've stated their belief that 9/11 was an inside job.⁷ Surely if there was nothing to these "conspiracy theories" they would stay on the fringe where they belong and not have entered the realm of mainstream discussion.

—chemical evidence of incendiary explosives used at the WTC site, specifically Thermate, as revealed by BYU physics profession Steven E. Jones⁸

If you're willing to do the research and get outside your emotional comfort zone, you too will arrive at the unfortunate truth.

do you consider yourself ´awake' dallas? are you one of the enlightened that will be spared when 80 percent of the earths population is killed? do you wear your mask outside to protect yourself from the chem trails? are you a raging homophobe like alex jones too?

Calling someone a "homophobe" on the Slap board is like going to a country bar in Oklahoma and accusing someone of being a redneck.

[artichoke]

Oh man, Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell and a member of the Japanese parliament all believe this nonsense too?

Shit, my eyes are wide open now.

[Wizard Fuck]

Dr. Newton, you're a lamer—that shit wasn't funny the first time it was published in Rolling Stone, and it's not acquiring any further hilarity with each subsequent posting here.

The way secrets are kept is compartmentalized and pyramidal. The NYPD, TV networks, FEMA, the military, etc. as a whole needn't be "in on it" to keep a lid on things. The way chain-of-command works, even on a covert operation, is that information is disseminated on a need-to-know basis, with the official story and explanation being all that most need to know (evidently it's all you & Gipper feel the need to know).

Anyway, the evidence is indeed overwhelming, so much so that to outline it here, even in brief, would cause me to run the risk of creating a posting resembling one of the rambling, run-on single-paragraph posts that Gipper himself likes to chime in with. Regardless, let me highlight some major points of importance:

—NORAD stand-down, with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testifying that Cheney ordered a DC-bound plane to be left alone¹

—near free-fall collapse of 1, 2 & 7, the latter in the classic style of a controlled demolition²

—military build-up in the Persian Gulf just prior to 9/11³

—PATRIOT Act written prior to 9/11⁴

—Twin Towers required expensive retrofits such as the replacement of exterior cladding and the removal of asbestos, costly work whose price could exceed the buildings' value⁵

—Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, and his daughter, who also worked at WTC, were "running late" on 9/11.⁶ Silverstein reaped billions in profits from the insurance settlements.

—Hundreds of Architects & Engineers have joined politicians such as AZ State Senator Karen Johnson, former Rep. (and current Green Party presidential candidate) Cynthia McKinney, former Governor Jesse Ventura, former Italian president Francesco Cossiga, Japanese Member of Parliament Yukihisa Fujita, and entertainers such as Mos Def, Charlie Sheen, Paris, Immortal Technique, Ed Asner, Ed Begley, Jr., Rosie O'Donnell, Daniel Sunjata, Woody Harrleson and many others who've stated their belief that 9/11 was an inside job.⁷ Surely if there was nothing to these "conspiracy theories" they would stay on the fringe where they belong and not have entered the realm of mainstream discussion.

—chemical evidence of incendiary explosives used at the WTC site, specifically Thermate, as revealed by BYU physics profession Steven E. Jones⁸

If you're willing to do the research and get outside your emotional comfort zone, you too will arrive at the unfortunate truth.

Expand Quote

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

[close]

[Commercial D]

Funny how skateboarders, who tend to have first-hand knowledge of the abuses of authority, would accept wholesale the government's account of a highly suspicious and unprecedented historical (and physical) event while sarcastically dismissing the investigative work of others who have shown said explanation to be demonstrably false.

You suckaz must live in the suburbs and watch a lot of TV.

[Wizard Fuck]

Yeah, you sure hit the nail on the head with that one.... So since we are skateboarders, we should believe that the Government was behind 9/11?

[artichoke]

Yeah, you sure hit the nail on the head with that one.... So since we are skateboarders, we should believe that the Government was behind 9/11?

I'm reminded of the clip with Billy Rohan heckling the pot rally people when that one guy yells at them how if they were real skaters they'd be in the crowd.

[Wizard Fuck]

Hahahaha, I love that clip. "Marijuana is a drug" "Marijuana makes you hungry!"

[Bipsmound]

The problem I have with this stuff is that any legitimate questions get over shadowed by such garbage, it's like you're swimming in a river of shit.  I mean seriously, the cruise missile pentagon biz is the biggest crock I've ever heard.  If the "government" was flying planes into buildings, what would be the point of shooting some missiles across the DC freeway?  How can you take people seriously when they're claiming this is true?

I get bummed when people come up with an idea of what happened and then try to look for any little piece of nonsense to prove it (and ignoring everything else), instead of the other way around.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Funny how skateboarders, who tend to have first-hand knowledge of the abuses of authority, would accept wholesale the government's account of a highly suspicious and unprecedented historical (and physical) event while sarcastically dismissing the investigative work of others who have shown said explanation to be demonstrably false.

You suckaz must live in the suburbs and watch a lot of TV.

1)I don't believe anything spoonfed to me, whether it is by the government or by its skeptics, I always do my own research. In this case, the conspiracy theory is FAR more filled with holes than the government story, and even the skeptics, people who have made their entire lives based on the idea of calling the government out on its bullshit, say that the conspiracy theory is the bullshit in this case.
2) Using the "everybody is lying but me" argument makes me think everybody is telling the truth but you.
3) You are starting to use too much name-calling. It weakens your overall point and just shows that you are frustrated. Calm down dude.
But with your last dig, it made me wonder, where do you live Commercial D? I live in a city with a population of 800,000 and work in a city of 400,000. I would be willing to bet that I have gone further with my education and have read far more books than you have, and get a higher variety of media from independent and mainstream sources- though I have found indy media is WAY more biased than the mainstream

[NickDagger]

Speaking of Woody Harrelson and conspiracies, a lot of people think his dad and a few other people we're involved in JFK's assassination.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Harrelson

[bill hates]

and entertainers such as Mos Def, Charlie Sheen, Paris, Immortal Technique, Ed Asner, Ed Begley, Jr., Rosie O'Donnell, Daniel Sunjata, Woody Harrleson and many others who've stated their belief that 9/11 was an inside job

[Commercial D]

But with your last dig, it made me wonder, where do you live Commercial D? I live in a city with a population of 800,000 and work in a city of 400,000. I would be willing to bet that I have gone further with my education and have read far more books than you have, and get a higher variety of media from independent and mainstream sources- though I have found indy media is WAY more biased than the mainstream

I guarantee I have read and do own more books than you—not that it's a contest. As I explained to you months ago, I read all the Chomsky I could get my hands on in 1993, when I was an intellectual n00b, kinda like you are now, and wanted to become informed about "the most important intellectual alive." But 15 years later I've sufficiently wizened to recognize the man for what he is—a world government shill. Regardless, your line of argument (Chomsky=credible) is so absurd it doesn't deserve a response. And if you must know, I live in a city of 2.5 million (metro 5m+) people and don't own a TV.

But this isn't about me or you—this is about what really happened almost 7 years ago, and by refusing to confront or refute such evidence as foreknowledge, naval pre-positioning, chemical evidence of explosives, physical characteristics of controlled demolition, etc. in favor of mindless Chomsky-worship, you're doing a flimsy job of defending your vehement position.

If you live in the SF Bay Area, why not get in contact with Richard Gage and attend his next presentation? He speaks to audiences of (often skeptical) architects & engineers and has a very high conversion rate—so much so that over 400 architects & engineering professionals have signed his petition calling upon Congress for a new investigation with full subpoena power.

[NickDagger]

The way secrets are kept is compartmentalized and pyramidal. The NYPD, TV networks, FEMA, the military, etc. as a whole needn't be "in on it" to keep a lid on things. The way chain-of-command works, even on a covert operation, is that information is disseminated on a need-to-know basis, with the official story and explanation being all that most need to know (evidently it's all you & Gipper feel the need to know).

First you have a problem if you want to make a convincing argument that the world trade center was demolitished, as setting up such a procedure would take months and you have not a single witness, picture, or security video of anyone settting up what would surely be one of the largest demolitions in history and anyone that knows how demolations work would know that there would be wires and cables and dynamite EVERYWHERE, to perform a successful collapse of such a huge building. And again you have the problem of why the government would risk flying planes into the buildings(they could have very easily missed...then it would have been pretty awkward if the building were to blow up, like in comedy movies where the car explodes for no reason), a simple bombing scenario would however make much more since for the government to frame as the building site had already been bombed previously-so if they did intend to blow it up it makes no sense what so fucking ever that they would bring in giant airplanes to the mix, again risking their plan coming uncovered, as-if the passengers on flight United 93 showed, it was very possible.

A simple structure like a chimney can be prepared for demolition in less than a day. Larger or more complex structures can take up to three months of preparation to remove internal walls and wrap columns with fabric and fencing before firing the explosives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion

—NORAD stand-down, with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testifying that Cheney ordered a DC-bound plane to be left alone¹

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

Claim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

Intercepts Not Routine
Claim: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

—near free-fall collapse of 1, 2 & 7, the latter in the classic style of a controlled demolition²

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

Widespread Damage
Claim: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel — and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

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

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

WTC 7 Collapse
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

[NickDagger]

—military build-up in the Persian Gulf just prior to 9/11³

Mhm, it's clear George Bush wanted to go to Iraq, and the attacks provided the kind of blind support that he needed...but, as Chomsky says, that alone tells you nothing. And again, if the attackers identities and the whole thing were staged, wouldn't it make a bit more since to say they were Iraqis? Instead of Saudis, our 'friends?'

—PATRIOT Act written prior to 9/11⁴

See above, legislation is constantly written, and passed in times of opportunity like disasters and when the country is focused elsewhere, this alone tells you nothing other than the awful opportunistic nature of the neocons.

—Twin Towers required expensive retrofits such as the replacement of exterior cladding and the removal of asbestos, costly work whose price could exceed the buildings' value⁵

Again, you have an example of possible motivation, but not an example of evidence of any action.

—Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, and his daughter, who also worked at WTC, were "running late" on 9/11.⁶ Silverstein reaped billions in profits from the insurance settlements.

Again, you have an example of possible motivation, but not an example of evidence of any action.

—Hundreds of Architects & Engineers have joined politicians such as AZ State Senator Karen Johnson, former Rep. (and current Green Party presidential candidate) Cynthia McKinney, former Governor Jesse Ventura, former Italian president Francesco Cossiga, Japanese Member of Parliament Yukihisa Fujita, and entertainers such as Mos Def, Charlie Sheen, Paris, Immortal Technique, Ed Asner, Ed Begley, Jr., Rosie O'Donnell, Daniel Sunjata, Woody Harrleson and many others who've stated their belief that 9/11 was an inside job.⁷ Surely if there was nothing to these "conspiracy theories" they would stay on the fringe where they belong and not have entered the realm of mainstream discussion.

That's fine, let them come up with more evidence and better theories to disapprove all of the above. I'm all ears and support any of the efforts for the government to release more information.

—chemical evidence of incendiary explosives used at the WTC site, specifically Thermate, as revealed by BYU physics profession Steven E. Jones⁸

How much? I'm sure you could find evidence of small amounts of nearly any substance when buildings that gigantic come down, but it would take a lot of explosives to bring a building that big down, and with the world watching-it would have been the dumbest risk in history to take. For instance if the bombs went off in a way they didn't plan, like if they overestimated how much to use then it would have been very obvious, and if they didn't use enough explosives to bring the building down their plan would have been exposed- and something like that could frankly not have been planned out so perfectly when nearly all other previous demolition history used gutted buildings with explosives in key places that would have had to been in plain site in a building such as this.

If you're willing to do the research and get outside your emotional comfort zone, you too will arrive at the unfortunate truth.

Anyone that calls Noam Chomsky a "left gatekeeper" or a "shill" can't be taken seriously at any level.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

But 15 years later I've sufficiently wizened to recognize the man for what he is—a world government shill.

Oh I get it, you are one of those paranoid "world government" infowars conspiracy theorist types.

This makes you only two things
1) An Idiot
2) A sucker.

I feel no further need to argue with you.

You are a fucking idiot with no grasp of reality whatsoever.
Charles Webster Baer for President! right?

[NickDagger]

Check out when esteemed historian Alex Jones interviews LEFT GATEKEEPER AND SHILL Noam Chomsky:








You'll notice a few things:

1.)Alex Jones can barely string a sentence together that dosen't involved the same key phrases he always uses to keep his audience listening.
2.)Noam Chomsky is the smartest person on earth.

Also, apparently Alex Jones must also be part of the gatekeepers as he appears to be a fan of Chomsky or something-certainly at least dosent' call him out on whatever it is claimed Chomsky has done to be apart of these GATEKEEPERS. Its crazy how devoted Chomsky must have been to the cause of serving the one world leaders, that is, he was so devoted he lived this double life of constantly detailing our governments corruption, brutality and history of such around the world, JUST for the one moment that was planned in 2001 so that Chomsky could say it probably wasn't a conspiracy....I guess? I guess that's what his life of doing the exact opposite of what any neocon would want him to do, being the most quoted person alive detailing our atrocities and manipulation and propagandists throughout the world.....just so that he would be trusted by the SHEEPLE so that he would help GATEKEEP the people from knowing about the 9/11 conspiracy....


Or something.

Then, look at the very end of the interview how fucking childish Alex Jones acts:



"Say hello to David Rockefeller for me"


What a fucking faggot.

I will seriously kill you people.

Incidentally Chomsky was correct about the gun control laws in the UK and the murder rates-there has been a blanket ban on ownership of semi-automatic hanguns in the UK since 1998, and even before then they were very stringently licenced and permitted for sporting use only, not for self-defence. The most widely owned firearms in the UK are sporting shotguns and rifles used for hunting and pest control. You can't just wander into a gun shop and buy a gun over the counter here, and that hasn't changed in recent times.

[Sony MDR V2 headphones]

Jesus Christ on a crutch, I can't believe this thread has gone on for this long.

[Commercial D]

Between Gipper & Dagger & Sleazy I see I'm grappling with some anti-2nd Amendment, pro-world-government, RFID-implants-for-everyone types. Don't construe this as a retreat but I too am disengaging from this discussion, since persuading a couple of punk rock know-it-alls isn't an efficient use of my leisure hours.

I will say, however, that Alex Jones has done much more to chronicle, oppose, and draw attention to the emerging police state, government abuses of power (both contemporary and historical), and the atrocities of our current wars than Prof. Chomsky has.

And if you don't believe there's a conspiracy to create a world government, you need to take a look at David Rockefeller's own memoirs.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

I can't wait to get my RFID! Dagger, I know you always talk about how you pray at night for more government control, this guy has some good points!

[NickDagger]

I will say, however, that Alex Jones has done much more to chronicle, oppose, and draw attention to the emerging police state, government abuses of power (both contemporary and historical), and the atrocities of our current wars than Prof. Chomsky has.

No.

[max power]

jet planes crashed into two buildings and caused their structural integrity to fail, thus causing them to collapse. the "explosions" on the lower levels were due to the pressure build up from the collapsing upper levels as the building was hermetically sealed. i don't know why it's so unbelievable that this happened.

[Wizard Fuck]

^omg, the government has obviously brain washed you. You need to totally get out of your comfort zone and you will see the truth!!!!!