digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Response to Conspiracy Theorist Attacks

nypost.com — Popular Mechanics author responds to attacks from 9/11 deniers concerning his book that totally refutes all the popular 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -20/+62This is good stuff. Pro-Bush or Anti-Bush is not the issue here. Facts are the issue and Popular Mechanics are all about unbiased facts. My favorite section in this article:

    " Here's one example: Meyssan and hundreds of Web sites cite an eyewitness who said the craft that hit the Pentagon looked "like a cruise missile with wings." Here's what that witness, a Washington, D.C., broadcaster named Mike Walter, actually told CNN: "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."

    We talked to Walter and, like so many of the experts and witnesses widely quoted by conspiracy theorists, he told us he is heartsick to see the way his words have been twisted: "I struggle with the fact that my comments will forever be taken out of context." "
    • Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -19/+16True, we have some very faulty pro/anti-Bush thought going on here. If you told me that 9-11 was staged, misrepresented, or overblown, the first finger I'd point would be straight at Halliburton. People just don't follow the money anymore these days.

      It's like he's so bad at doing things he kills all other intelligent conversation in completely unrelated fields.
    • jbus, on 10/12/2007, -54/+54The article was written by Michael Chertoff's cousin... You do know who Michael Chertoff is don't you??? He's Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for the Bush administration. So the author Ben Chertoff was paid to write an article supporting a seriously flawed explanation that is based on a nearly non-existent investigation of the 9/11 attacks, which happened to lead to the creation of the department of homeland security that his cousin now heads.

      This is "yellow journalism" at it's best.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -37/+34Seriously. I am fiercely against the Bush administration, but the conspiracy theories just do not add up. I consider them all to be total *****.
    • 4Runner, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34Debate between the Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rT8GwBe5cg
    • leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -17/+32Aside from all of the conspiracy theories, more than half of all Americans believe they are being lied to about 9/11.
    • cwill341, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10@ jbus

      Is there any way you could cite that information? I just don't seem to be finding it anywhere...
    • Rothschild, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14How do you explain the US previous plans?
      http://digg.com/politics/US_Military_had_plans_to_attack_US_Cities
    • cwill341, on 10/12/2007, -20/+11That is is marked for being inaccurate.
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Qui Bono?
    • cphuntington97, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6http://www.reopen911.org/hiddenhand.htm

      that's all I could dig up
    • rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -20/+29Follow the money, and it will lead you to the culprits. The Pentagon happened, the trade centers happened. The conspiracy theories that say otherwise are mostly out for people to use critical thinking, and understand what "could" have happened, and then arrive at a un-biased opinion. For those who say ALL conspiracy theories about 9-11 are bunk because a few of them are proven inaccurate by Popular Mechanics, then you are missing the point.

      There are most definitely parts of the stories which are true; there is most definitely facts which are missing from the public record. There are most definitely facts which are being covered up by the government. Most crimes have elements which never reach the public, because law enforcement needs to have the upper hand while investigating the crimes. There is also the element of CYA, in which facts will be buried simply because you don't want to look like an idiot. Then of course are the small numbers of facts which are buried purely out of a need to run your own secret agenda for the future.

      It is clear this administration has capitalized heavily on 9-11. I don't think that will change. Documents coming out of PNAC clearly pointed to a catalyzing even like a "new Pearl Harbor" so, go figure. We don't have all the information, but just follow the money, which in fact is power.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -27/+31Lol, you people won't listen to scientists, scholars, experts and professionals explain why they believe the 9/11 explanation is *****, but you will listen to the hacks at Popular Mechanics? Jesus, we really are doomed.

      Hey PM. Stick to reviewing lawn mowers, you dumb *****.
    • sathias, on 10/12/2007, -15/+15Follow the put options placed on United and American Airlines 2 days earlier... it is clear that there was a group of people that had pre-knowledge of the attacks, and sought to profit from it.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20Have any of you people been to the PNAC website and read any of it? Christ just look at the home page and don't click any links. It speaks volumes.

      http://www.newamericancentury.org/

      [Queue Imperial March]

      "The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."

      Notice "military strength" is the first mentioned requirement in the PNAC world view. Why would it be anything else?

      After you read that statement, go find out which members of the current administration are/were a part of PNAC.

    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8MindTrigger wrote: "Lol, you people won't listen to scientists, scholars, experts and professionals explain why they believe the 9/11 explanation is *****. . ."

      Name these "scientists, scholars, experts and professionals" and their degrees. Please tell us how said degrees are relevent to a 9/11 investigation.

      @sathias: http://911myths.com/html/put_options.html

      @MindTrigger: And you can deduce motive from the order of words in a list of items? You're just superhuman, man.
    • transfire, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13Popular Mechanics is owned by the Hearst Corporation, which also owns the History Channel. Perhaps, you will recall that when "President" Bush was pushing his wondrous Social Security plan the History channel served up an convenient piece of propaganda on FDR that not only casted social security in a bad light, but highlighted accusations of a martial affair, i.e. to associate FDR with Clinton, and then strongly suggested that FDR knew and allowed Perl Harbor to occur in order to lead us into war.

      Conspire when it suites you? Well, I guess it takes one to know one.
    • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11@ jbus

      http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html

      Please cite something to counter this if you're not just speaking out your ass.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Cl1mh4224rd:

      Use this link. Learn.

      http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14MindTrigger:

      I noticed there is not a single Architectural Engineer on that list. Hmmm ... wonder why?
    • bobzibub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think that the US government could have quelled much of the conspiracies by releasing information. Such as the black box information and all the security camera tapes that were confiscated. This could have done a lot to dispel some myths.

      You'll never stop all conspiracy buffs (and perhaps there is something to some of the issues) but at least when the evidence is out there, people can make an informed opinion.


    • ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17" THE COUP AT POPULAR MECHANICS

      In the months leading up to the Chertoff article in PM, a brutal take-over occurred at the magazine. In September 2004, Joe Oldham, the magazines former editor-in-chief was replaced by James B. Meigs, who came to PM with a deputy, Jerry Beilinson, from National Geographic Adventure. In October, a new creative director replaced PMs 21-year veteran who was given ninety minutes to clear out of his office.

      A former senior editor at PM, who is forbidden from openly discussing the coup at PM, told AFP that the former creative director was abruptly told to leave and given severance pay of two weeks wages for every year spent at PM. Three or four people have been similarly dismissed every month since, he said. He said he was astounded that the coup at PM had not been reported in the mainstream media.

      PM has long been a supporter of the U.S. military. The magazine ran a full page ad in support of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in May 2003. Since the purge last September, however, PM readers have noticed that government propaganda has replaced scientific writing. A letter to the editor in the current issue says, I think you guys are just another tool in the governments propaganda machine. "



      The president and CEO of Hearst Corporation is one Victor F. Ganzi.

      Victor F. Ganzi is a member of B.E.N.S. - "Business Executives for National Security"
      http://www.bens.org/what_threats_intel.html#intel - wherein we learn that "When it came time to evaluate In-Q-Tel, the CIA's innovative technology development enterprise, Congress turned to BENS"

      In October 2002, B.E.N.S. received a "CIA Agency Seal Medallion" for its work on the In-Q-Tel program.
      http://www.bens.org/highlights_InQTelMedal.html

      In-Q-Tel? It is described as "A new partnership between the CIA and the 'private sector' [my apostrophes].", making it a classic front for traditional fascism and other American-style old-fashioned family values. http://www.in-q-tel.org/


      CIA and the Press:
      http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/8425/CIAPRESS.HTM

      "Ninety-five percent of the work of intelligence agencies around the world is disinformation and deception," Andreas von Bulow, former parliamentary official responsible for the budget for Germany's intelligence agencies.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2If I supported the troops, does that mean I support the government?
    • doddilus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@Mind trigger
      The first 10 names on that list:

      Michael M. Andregg (FM) - Domestic intelligence, Justice and Peace Studies
      Kevin Barrett (FM) - Folklore, Founding Member, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth
      Anicha Bay (FM) Visiting Professor of English
      Philip J. Berg, Esq. (FM) - Attorney at Law,
      Tracy Blevins (FM) - Bioengineering
      Robert M. Bowman (FM) - Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program
      Robert S. Boyer (FM) - Philosophy
      Clare Brandabur (FM) - Assistant professor of English Literature
      Andreas von Buelow (FM) Former assistant German defense minister
      Larry Burk (FM) - Radiology, Medical hypnosis

      bioengineering? Philosophy? Radiology? FOLKLORE?
      how do any of these relate to structural dynamics?
    • pr0t0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@Goodoldharris

      I think the background you were looking for was 'Structural Engineer', not 'Architectural Engineer'. As such, you missed these guys:

      Joseph M. Phelps (FM) - Structural Dynamicist Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers

      Doyle Winterton (FM) - Civil Engineering Structural Engineering

      and maybe these guys

      Ted Muga (AM) - Naval aviator; Commercial pilot; Structural engineering
      RC Oliver, Jr. (AM) - Chief Engineer

      There were quite a few other engineers whose backgrounds undoubtedly consist of at least some structural engineering.
    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10pr0t0:

      Your point is taken. So, 5 years after 9/11, out of the thousands of architectural and structural engineers in the US, and the many more thousands in the UK, Canada, France, Germany, etc, only a handful can figure out that the WTC job was a demolition?

      Here's an explanation from a blog for the first guy on your list:
      "I did find Joseph M. Phelps, and he does appear to be who they claim. They are leaving out the fact that he is also 82 years old, and running a 9 hole golf course in Florida. Probably a nice enough guy, but he might be a little past his prime."
      http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/scholar-scorecard.html
      http://www.algagolf.com/Phelps.htm

      The bottom line is, conspiracy theorists who know ***** about structural engineering claim to have figured out that it's a demolition from watching TV news clips, so if they are right, then the engineers of the world must be really ***** stupid.

      I'll keep my money on the engineers, thanks.
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The real issues are how people are downplaying the questions in the minds of those who are starting to believe these theories. Take for instance, using that quote as the only reason why people think that a cruise missile hit the pentagon. There weren't any real scorchmarks on the lawn (united, No body parts, no husk of a 747 (they do not disinegrate on impact) the sheer fact that the window around the impact crater of the pentagon were intact. They are blast proof, but to believe that no debris shattered the windows around it is a stretch. The video that was released ,in terms of scale, doesn't look like a 747.
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Pentagon_crach_site.jpg
      If you have seen the video the plane looks like it hits the ground then hits the side of the pentagon. Does the damage in the picture look like a 747 hit the side of a building?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pentagon_precollapse.jpg
      The lawn looks pretty good after a 747 just slammed into it.
      The size of the holes were also in question. Granted the walls are made out of super duper renforced cement backed by ultra plyable play-doh so the wings wouldn't have made a crater.. but are we to believe that the just desinegrated into thin air as well? But also we are to belive that the small crater on the inside of the pentagon walls were created by the landing gear but the engines that were on the wing couldn't damage the outside of the building?

      There are alot of questions but so far all these people trying to debunk them are doing less than a half-assed attemped to aknowledge them. They just further try to discredit these theories by insunating to those who have not heard some of them by saying that these question only arise because of misconstrued official statements or preaches from eyewitness who think they-saw-what-they-may-not-or-could-have-seen. Its even funnier when people jump to help dismiss the theories without really hearing the other side.
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@goodoldharris

      Get a copy of a video in which the buildings fall. Take note that the fall pretty much at free fall speeds. Go find yourself a structural engineer and inquire how likely it is for a building to fall (even if damaged) at free fall speed without demolitions. And before you even try to go the route of jet fuel traveling down elevator shafts inquire to an expert about JET A-1 fuel (which the 747 were carrying) and ask them whether or not that could have happened.
    • doddilus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@staticneuron
      No broken windows:
      How does this support your theory? How can you tell none of the windows are broken? Looks to me (from that picture) a lot of windows are missing.

      Lawn:
      Who ever said the plane hit the lawn?

      Damage:
      The plane approached from an angle, it didnt hit head on. The engines most likely did damage to the building.

      All the Conspiracy Theorist questions to have logical answers that are much better than, OMG ITS WAS A MISSLE or OMG EXPLOSIVES

      and why dont you show a copy of the video to a structural engineer and have him explain to you what gravity is and how it affects objects.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5> "Take note that the fall pretty much at free fall speeds."

      Uhh... no they don't. Time it yourself. Seriously.

      Loose Change fudges the timing by starting the counter *after* the tower has already started collapsing. The timer also stops at a seemingly arbitrary point. This has to be nothing more than Avery's "best guess", because no one can see the bottom of the tower through the foreground buildings. It's a pretty blatant deception, and I'm surprised so many people fall for it.

      The debris also disproves the "free fall" claim: http://www.radarheinrich.de/disaster/04-01-09-11-usa-terror-atack/48/80.jpg

      How fast is that debris falling, if the towers fell at free fall speeds?

    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3yes doddilus

      angle


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0yF7NAt8es

      you might not want to watch it since national geographic is known for broadcasting misleading stuff.

      people believe what they want to i guess.
    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4staticneuron:

      No, that's your job. If the explanations are as simple as conspiracy theorists say, then they should have no problem getting a significant number of structural engineers to join their "truth" movement. But engineers aren't interested - because it's just a nutball theory based on CNN clips and pseudo-science.
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2
      @Cl1mh4224rd

      This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the earth's surface increases in speed by 9.81 m/s (around 22 mph) for each second of its descent.

      Disproves claim?
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=WTC+collapse&hl=en
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=857154317067257405&q=WTC+collapse&hl=en
      I like many other people have watched this replay over and over. The building does not show any stacking or delays. They both fall closely around 10 seconds. This is getting silly now. What are you going to say now. The people on the street included delays just to prove some wacky theory?

      looking at the diggs on this one is making my head hurt.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3> you might not want to watch it since national geographic is known for
      > broadcasting misleading stuff.

      Wouldn't you know it, this time they did. Pretty shamefully, too. "Seven and a half feet of reinforced concrete. . ." That's false. First, only the outer wall of the Pentagon had been reinforced. Second, look at this picture: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/17.jpg

      Notice that where the "punch out" hole is, you can clearly see that the Pentagon is 5 stories tall. Now, head back toward the impact, to the next gap. What's that; only 3 rows of windows? Yep. The bottom two floors of the outer 3 rings of the Pentagon are an open floor (it's all one floor, not separated like the top 3 floors are).

      It's pretty obvious the landing gear didn't need to punch through "seven and a half feet of reinforced concrete."
    • staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3http://911truth.tripod.com/hole2.jpg

      http://physics911.ca/org/modules/myalbum/photos/24.jpg

      http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/marker.jpg

      http://www.serendipity.li/wtc3.htm

      http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html( site that tries tto debunk theories)

      http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

      anything more would just be a waste of time. The defense here is that all these educated people know what they are talking about and the other scientist and people are idiots.By your logic I would be led to believe A 747 has never crashed before/ or has never crashed into a building before. So we must accept whatever answer is given to us when we notice the absence of notable damage and debris. Whatever makes you feel safe at night. But I prefer logic and I am open to any site that has a logical expanation about why things happened the way they have and that site I posted above comes close but still leaves me uneasy. I would rather be a skeptic than one who believes just because they say so.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4> "The defense here is that all these educated people know what they are talking about and the other scientist. . ."

      What scientists? The "cold fusion fiasco physicist", the "I can't tell the difference between a slab of steel-reinforced concrete and solidified chuck of previously molten steel" Prof. Jones? I don't believe he's ever said anything about the Pentagon. He's out of his league either way. How about all those philosophy, folklore and language PhDs, hmm? Yeah... *laughs*

      > I would rather be a skeptic than one who believes just because they say so.

      And what makes you think I do? There you go, believing things you have no evidence of. Going for the ad hominem instead of refuting my point. Logic, huh? Skeptic? Hah...
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Before you buy the official story:

      Do you think the Gulf of Tonkin incident went down like LBJ said it did? Or was Viet Nam started on a lie?

      Do you think Israel did NOT bomb the crap out of the U.S.S. Liberty and try to blame it on the Egyptians?

      Do you think the WMDs are still buried somewhere in Iraq?

      All those lies. And the official story of 9/11 is the truth? Yeah. Whatever.
    • hstitan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Another 9/11 review article focuses on photographic evidence, as being stronger than reported eyewitness testimony and other hearsay.

      The link for that report is: http://bogusstory.com

  • MyHappyClam, on 10/12/2007, -20/+33I can hear it already, "Popular Mechanics wrote this because the Bush administration told the to."
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18Yeah, because nothing like that has ever happened in history before, now has it?

      Oh... Oh... here's one from a few days ago:

      10 Miami journalists take U.S. pay
      At least 10 local journalists accepted U.S. government pay for programs on Radio Martí or TV Martí. El Nuevo Herald fired two of them Thursday for conflict of interest.

      http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/15466239.htm
    • brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Please read the post by ISIfunded911 above discussing unusual happenings at PM.
  • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -17/+38btw, one of the popular mechanics editors is named ben chertoff, he is actually not related to michael chertoff

    That is an example of another fact the conspiracy theorists fabricated.

    http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html
  • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -28/+60All I know is the PM piece was full of half truths and avoided the most serious issues. The lead editor and primary author of the article have been on radio shows lately debating leaders from the 9-11 truth movement and boy do they back-peddle when faced with an interactive audience.
    Someone should tell Michael Chertoff's mom they aren't related, she did a great job of bragging to the media how close the two are in the family.
    Hearst publishing is factually known for participating in CIA propaganda campaigns aka "yellow journalism".
    You guys keep putting up web sites and articles claiming to "completely debunk" the 9-11 truth movement yet none of these sites do anything other than make unsubstantiated statements. The 9-11 sites on the other hand are full of supporting links to mainstream press articles. The PM piece doesn't address the 85 FBI reports ignored by superiors, the dozen warnings from intelligence services of other countries nor the fact that an unprecedented number of drills were run that day, some even re-scheduled to take place on 9-11. They mention a couple of drills and leave out any mention of the others.
    Where's the "debunking" of UL engineer Kevin Ryan's year long study which determined the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have occurred according to the official story? Why did they leave out the fact their source on the number of air intercepts over the east coast made a statement that "hundreds" of intercepts of suspicious aircraft took place in the months prior to 9-11 and only focus on the one golf pro tragedy?
    I highly doubt any of you have listened to the interviews where the PM folks change stories, try obviously to follow the script and attempt to wiggle out of intelligent questions.
    • liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -33/+22Your sources are sketchy at best. I've looked at them all and they are all theories. Just that. You have no conclusive evidence to back up anything you assert. I'll tell you what, since you are spamming the internet with your sketchy "9-11 Truth" theories then explain to me one simple thing. How does this statement end up being used for your evidence that an airplane did not hit the pentagon:
      "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."

      If you can't explain this in SIMPLE terms without going on a rabbit trail of FBI reports, bomb explosions, etc. then ***** off.

      Let me also add, all of you conspiracy nutjobs have not shown a lick of remorse for ANY of the victims. Instead of mourning the loss of lives on 9-11 you spend your time pushing your political agenda in the form of conspiracy theories.
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -28/+16"Someone should tell Michael Chertoff's mom they aren't related, she did a great job of bragging to the media how close the two are in the family."

      Because she didn't? See, thats what you people do, you make claims like this and just assume they are fact, but it turns out that your sources are misleading you and are untrue. This is the same for all the other "facts" you just listed. There was none of that, and I challenge you to provide hard evidence that anything you say is true.



      "All I know is the PM piece was full of half truths and avoided the most serious issues. "

      This is another persistant bit of faulty reasoning. In the magazine piece they had limited space. So they could only take a few of the more popular theories. But since they didnt debunk conspiracy theory #345 out of the thousands of conspiracy theories and corrolaries, they "avoided the most serious issues". Try reading the book, it's a much more thorough work of dubunking.

      But then asking you to read Popular Mechanics 9/11 conspriacy theory dubunking book would be like asking a fundamentalist christian to read Darwin's Origin of Species.
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -23/+17Let me just also comment on that "yellow journalism" charge. I believe you are trying to refer to hearst newspaper publishing from the Spanish American war, which was in 1898 or so? So you are slandering the highly respected Popular Mechanics magazine with acts committed 108 year ago? Does this seem logical to you? Is that your only defense, to attack the messenger with meaningless accusations?
    • steeel, on 10/12/2007, -18/+25How about PM ignoring all of the many witnesses claiming to have seen molten metal in the basement?

      Why were the windows in the lobby blown out? why was there white powder in the lobby? why were the walls cracked in the lobby?

      PM wastes most of the time debunking crap instead of concentrating on the stuff that they could not answer.
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -15/+13the whole problem with the 9/11 attacks is that it was just too damn good.

      Currently, our military can't pull of operations that "neatly" without huge support staff. Even Seals may be that good, but the paper trail and suppport is huge. We caught nobody of concequence related to the attack, a few "hangers on" but not the attackers or planners. The attack itself was right out of a hollywood movie. Who could could expect a dozen or so guys with trivial weapons to pull off such a coordinated, effective attack... that just doesn't happen in real life.. but it did?

      Being a "cold war" baby, it's sad to see how the millitary has broke down over the years... during the "cold war" we kept B52s armed with nukes and in the air 24x7 (the next flight was in the air before the last round was allowed to land!) for nearly 40 years , but we can't scramble a couple of our shiny, new, billion dollar stealth fighters to catch a couple of slow moving shiny jumbo jets. We have NSA and CIA black ops wiretapping the "bad" guys and using satallites that can read papers from orbit, but had no idea this was comming?

      The thing that makes most consperisy theories take hold is how soon and how easily the political manapulation began... it was like the sycophants started ahead of time! And everything since then has been nothing but hyper-patriotic, party line spin. Anybody attempting to dispute, argue, restrict what they want has been "tared and feathered" publicly. The war in Afganastan was justified by the evidence, but you never hear about that anymore.. we still have troops there! They took advantage to start another war and again didn't stop to listen. From how the President's Administration acts and how the Republican party is toeing the line, it's hard to believe that they WERN'T involved.. again, the attacks were TOO good, and looked TOO easy...

      And that's the facts, with no spin.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10steeel wrote:
      > How about PM ignoring all of the many witnesses claiming to have seen
      > molten metal in the basement?

      Perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly what number "many" represents. I've only seen that information come from a single source, who himself had said he heard it from someone else. Your only source for the "molten metal" claim seems to be second-hand. Not very reliable.

      > Why were the windows in the lobby blown out? why was there white powder
      > in the lobby? why were the walls cracked in the lobby?

      Elevator shaft + fuel-air explosion = damage.

      But, really, the onus is on you to *show* that none of these things are possible under "normal" circumstances. Implying, without evidence, that these signs are suspicious only says that *you* find them suspicious. What expertise do you have that many of the professionals investigating 9/11 do not have?
    • GregR, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11If the 'official' version is true, they why are were all the surveillance tapes not made public early on?
      Since it's fairly well documented that the terrorists were not good pilots, how did they hit the towers? Watch this http://ja.metacafe.com/watch/232384/cockpit_view_of_aa_flight_11_on_9_11/ and see if you can even see the towers before it's much too late to fly into them - let alone even find them!
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Do you know anything about evidence in a criminal investigation? Why do you think this is supicious; because *you* think they should be released just to appease some baseless paranoia?

      Also the pilots had their commercial licenses. You don't have to be a good pilot to line up with a large building from a distance, then fly into it.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Cl1mh4224rd

      Are you kidding? One of the most significant events in world history takes place, thousands of people die, and you don't think we have the right to see the security footage from the hotel and gas stations near the Pentagon that were confiscated by our government?

      Good god man, listen to yourself.
    • M4tt3r, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@ Cl1mh4224rd

      Well I don't know about how "many" sources, but will these do as a reference.
      http://i6.tinypic.com/4g7a241.png
      http://i4.tinypic.com/2nqv98h.png
      -
      And about the elevators- they were built in 3 different sections and were hermetically sealed to prevent fire from spreading.
      http://i2.tinypic.com/2nqzb0y.jpg
      --
      And this picure is disturbing, look at the column behind the firefighter. What looks like a perfect 45-55 degree cut in the steel.
      http://i3.tinypic.com/2iqg6c2.jpg
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@M4tt3r: The passenger elevators were in 3 sections. The freight elevetors ran the entire height of the towers.

      Also, that last picture... Do you have a date for that? Because it looks to me it's into the rescue operation. The beam was likely cut by humans on the ground as a part of the effort. Or do you believe they just stood around with their thumbs up their ass?
  • thepeacemaker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21I havent read the PM book yet. Of all the conspiracy theories I find the "put option" or insider trading allegation most intriguing. From what I read even the 9/11 commission could not explain it. I would be very interested in finding an explanation for this.

    http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html
    • pancakebatter, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8It says that the put options were out of the ordinary. And the reports of unclaimed profits are from less than a month after 9/11. The money was all claimed eventually.

      What if you looked in the previous years records and found that it had happened several times before? What if larger number had happened before? What if some airlines had just put out earnings warnings?

      These are the kinds things that are verifiable and required to make any inference about the abnormality of the put options.

      You can watch the opposite side of the coin (notice I didn't say the definitive unshakable truth) at http://stage6.divx.com/members/106205/videos/1010644
    • cphuntington97, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What if you looked in the previous years records and found that it had happened several times before? What if larger number had happened before? What if some airlines had just put out earnings warnings?

      Ok so.. DID it happen several times before? Did some airlines just put out earnings warnings?

      I don't even know where to get this info.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Yes, it's happened before. Also, American Airlines had announced a string of bad news, which explains their put options. United Airlines stock prices were also dropping at the time.

      http://911myths.com/html/put_options.html
  • Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -28/+17Today we salute you, Mr. Tinfoil Hat Wearer. (Real Men of Genius) After countless hours of research on 9/11, you emerge from your parents' basement to alert the world of your massive discovery. (Osama's really Buu-uush) With a Michael Moore autographed pen clutched firmly in your hand, you refuse to let a dash of common sense get in your way. (2+2=5) And despite all that hard work, you still find enough time at the end of the day to finish the last half hour of V for Vendetta. (Ooo-oh Natalieeeee) So crack open an ice cold Bud Light O' Titan of the Tinfoil; for when it comes to being ***** crazy, you really see the light.
    • MarkCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21Most of the comments stayed away from cracking jokes until yours. Making idiotic comments like that hurt discussion on an important topic such as 9/11. We can not come to terms with our beliefs if both sides continue to attack eachother. Is it not in our best interests to figure out EXACTLY what happpened on 9/11? Conspiracy or not? I don't understand how both sides stick blindly to their talking points, shielding themselves from criticism and explaining their points more.

      Let's keep to serious, non-hateful discussions, and figure things out.
    • IronDioPriest, on 10/12/2007, -19/+11It's already figured out Mark, that's the point. Radical Muslims have declared Jihad against the West. They are determined to see us all dead or converted to Islam, but preferably dead. Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohamed(sp?) directed a bunch of fanatic disciples to kill themselves and as many Americans as possible by flying jet aircraft into the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House. One plane missed its mark because of the heroic actions of a few brave Americans.

      This conspiracy rhetoric is so childish, so very "Oliver Stone", and it plays right into the hands of those who wish to see us all dead. It strikes me that the American Left and bin Laden and al Zawahiri are speaking from the same talking points memo.
    • justinmt7, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5That was truly funny. I don't care what MarkCiccone says. You must've hurt his feelings because he can't bash Bush with it. More comments like this should be posted.
  • ELiTe185, on 10/12/2007, -23/+14This is the most intelligent article that I have read on digg in a while.
    Those conspiracy theories make me sick. It isn't about Bush, or politics. It is about those people who died that day. Saying it didn't happen is disrespectful to the people who died and their families (and the entire country, for that matter).
    • Kev585, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26None of the conspiracies claim it didn't happen. They claim it didn't happen the way officials on the subject say it did. Will all respect to the dead (and their families) conspiracy theorists, I believe, wholeheartedly seek to bring to justice those they believe are truly responsible for these acts.
    • hovester, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Pull your head out of your ass man! What's disrespectful to the people who died and their families is "NOT" getting to the truth. There's more people in this country that question the 9/11 commission's "line of *****" then you think. What about WTC7?
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3What the ***** is respectful about mocking the last words of Mark Bingham? "Who addresses their mother that way? *hyuk hyuk*" Mark Bingham does, Dylan Avery, and his mother knows this and has said so.
    • SpoBo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5It sure happened. Nobody is saying it didn't. But what if the bush administration actually was behind all of this. What if killing thousands of innocent people was just an excuse for Bush to go ahead and do whatever he wants? To create the actual fear.. to guide his Little Christean sheeps to a war on terror, huh? After seeing the loose change movie and the defense from Popular Mechanics I still believe the government is behind all of this.

      there are SO many things that are questionable. The government is being so vague about all of it. I believe with 99% certainty that Bush is a mass murderer and a war criminal. He himself should be put in Guantanamo and get tortured by the relatives of the deceased in 9/11. All within "the law" that Bush is trying to get out of.

      I think that 90 to 95% of the rest of the world believes that Bush is completely incompetent and probably behind all of it...

      Also, did they really debunk every single "myth" in the loose change video? How the hell did they do that huh... did they got to see the videos from the building nearby the Pentagon?

      These experts they talked to .. they wouldn't accidentally have been paid a large sum of money to change their minds? Did they find out how much money was present in the WTC and who is enjoying it right now? Did they figure out how the titanium in the engines disappeared? There is just so much wrong with it .; and if they explain all of that in the book in a logical way .. hooray/ But I don't believe for a second that by simply asking "experts" you'll figure out exactly what happened on 9/11 and the weeks before.

      Also, you should believe witnesses. Dozens and dozens of people witnessed explosions BEFORE it started collapsing. The professor himself said that they found irresputable evidence that bombs had been used to bring down WTC. And the fact that the government lies about something as obvious as how long it took for the buildings to fall down? wtf ... Don't you agree that they should at least provide the people of america with the truth and not with a set of lies?

      And its not like the creators of loose change didn't use the opinions of experts. They did so multiple times... The writers of the debunking book should be ashamed for trying to defend the worst lie in history. Also, the reporter from FOX ... what a complete *****.

      Oh well ... I'm not going to bother anymore trying to convince people who are still backing someone like Bush.
  • steeel, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27Reply to Popular
    Mechanics re 9/11:

    http://serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

    Now check out this video:

    http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/squibview.7.qt

    That is WTC7 falling.

    I want to know why Popular Mechanics wastes so much time debunking the ridiculus theories like the "pod" or the "missile" or the "ghost planes".

    Popular Mechanics should investigate and find out how WTC7 went down.

    Also, I want to know why WTC 1 and 2 went down at almost free fall speed. Is not the core supposed to slow down the fall? Not even the "pancake theory" could do it at almost free fall time.

    Check this article

    "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

    http://www.rinf.com/news/nov05/World-Trade-Center.html
  • psimaster, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation a major Republican contributor.
    • cphuntington97, on 10/12/2007, -11/+153 words:

      1. follow
      2. the
      3. money

      Oh, and if it's not about money - it's about money.
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Prove it.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It never ceases to amaze me how coincidences just don't seem to exist in the conspiracy theorists' fantasy world. It also seems to escape their massive intellect that politicians merely take advantage of bad situations. It's what they do; they're opportunists.

      Republicans jumped all over the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. You wouldn't argue that Monica was a Republican stooge, placed in the White House for the sole purpose of seducing Clinton, though, would you?
  • friend18, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23For all the "experts" whole heartedly defending the official story there are just as many experts doing studies and tests and pointing out the faults in the official story. I get sick of these "911 conspiracy theory debunked once and for all" stories and find that the debunking is putting someones words back in context. It is even more angering and stupid when I see people like penn and teller just showing some wackjobs who believe the conspiracy theories to discredit it instead of directly responding to them. It's a cheap shot.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6". . .there are just as many experts doing studies and tests and pointing out the faults in the official story."

      Name them and their degrees.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Cl1mh4224rdl:

      Have you bothered to visit this site, yet? I'm guessing no.

      http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Yeah, I've seen it. It's trash. Music and philosophy degrees? Give me a ***** break...

      Oh, and, yeah. One physicist who pretends to be a structural enginner and chemical analyst, was involved in the cold fusion fiasco of the 70's, and has just recently been put on leave for unethical conduct.

      I figured maybe it would get you to actually look yourself, but apparently not. You're being the sheep you believe others to be.
  • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13i watched loose change and i'll admit, at first, it concerned me.

    after that, i started to look dig more into the people behind the documentary. you can find tons of personal interviews from these guys on youtube. i can say, factual, that these guys are assholes. they're not trying to pursue truth, they've fabricated a self-serving agenda, that being infamy.

    the fact that they had to go back and re-edit their "documentary" removing outright falsehoods and mis-stated facts, should make any reasonable person question the validity of the information. if information, of this magnitude, isn't checked and rechecked before distribution what good is it?
    • friend18, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8I agree with you, I saw some videos that surpised me how insensitive the Dylan guy was with a 911 widow. But I still think the popularity of loose change and the peoples its reached is still impressive on their budget and experience.
    • steeel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14So because he is an *****, that is good enough for you not to go and educate yourself.

      Go educate yourself now.
    • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6596630292015140276

      loose change video with a point by point COUNTER to many of the "documentary's theories". is this video 100% accurate, i'm guessing not but it punched enough holes in the LC claims that it allowed me to completely discredit the video and it's creators.
      ------

      "i'm sorry ma'am but i have to tell you, the united states government killed you husband." you gotta have some balls to say that ***** to a grieving widow at ground zero, but hey the camera was rolling, made for a good soundbyte.
    • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4"But I still think the popularity of loose change and the peoples its reached is still impressive on their budget and experience."

      you could be the worst public speaker but if you yell "bomb!" in a crowed theatre, you're gonna have everyone's attention.

      (or maybe you were just talking about the latest kevin costner flick)
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Here's the original site for that video (it's called "Screw Loose Change"): http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
    • Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8""the fact that they had to go back and re-edit their "documentary" removing outright falsehoods and mis-stated facts, should make any reasonable person question the validity of the information.""

      Sounds like good logic, but in all reality, the official explanation of events has changed several times, too. By your logic, everyone must be lying?
    • oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3you haven't even watched the LC video or the video illustrating COUNTER POINTs.

      I'm not going to propagate, if you're content with LC's rendition of the "facts", so be it.
  • lazydrumhead, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3But guyz dint u see the bulding fel like a splosion!
  • gjleyba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This article didn't really refute any of the things that the movie loose change pointed out. I hope the full article in the magazine goes more in depth with how they can debunk such claims.

  • IronDioPriest, on 10/12/2007, -24/+10Yup. Elvis lives. Hitler was alive in South America until a few years back. John Lennon was killed by the government. We never went to the moon. JFK was killed by the FBI, as was Martin Luther King Jr. Bigfoot is real. The Loch Ness Monster is real. Blair Witch Project really happened. Jim Morrison lives, AND he's really buried somewhere besides his grave. Aliens have contacted our leaders, and they don't tell us because they don't want us to panic. FDR knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time and did nothing so that he could justify entering WWII. Henry Kissinger, The Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Skull & Bones are puppeteers that run the entire world under the table while the populations sleep. Chuck Barris of the Gong Show was an assassin. Cher was a transvestite. Bat boy born to 90 year old nun. Nostradamus predicted 9/11...

    ...Al Gore actually won Florida in 2000. Kerry actually won Ohio in 2004. Sandy Berger wasn't covering anything up about Clinton administration f**k-ups that led to 9/11 when he snuck classified documents in his pants and socks and then destroyed them. Gore didn't take campaign contributions from the communist Chinese. Ted Kennedy didn't kill that girl, and he's not a raging alcoholic. Michael Moore tells the truth. George Soros loves America and wants to change it for the better. Jennings, Brokaw, and Rather were all replaced on the evening news within a year not because of lack of credibility, but because they wanted to move on (except Jennings, who died, but I don't believe he's dead anyway.) Cindy Sheehan is just a grieving mom, not a far-left political opportunist capitalizing on her son's heroic death. Hugo Chavez is a shining example of how "good" communism can be. Our economy is in a shambles, despite what all the leading economic indicators say. Clinton's impeachment was all about sex, not about lying under oath to a federal grand jury...

    ...Bush blew up the WTC. Along with the Jews, of course. He was listening to all kinds of domestic calls without a warrant. He ordered the torture of peaceful Muslims. Bush doesn't care about black people. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do care about black people. Karl Rove is a puppetmaster, and the real brains behind Bush's evil schemes. Dick Cheney is a puppetmaster, and the real brains behind Bush's evil schemes. Bin Laden works for the CIA. We went to Iraq for the oil, even though we have an unstoppable military presence already in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and we continue to purchase the oil at fair market value. Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton. America is the source of all the world's major problems....

    ...I'm beginning to see it all quite clearly now... Hey stop bogartin' the doob, would ya?
  • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -12/+21Tower 7 anyone? Not to mention what are the odds that the pentagon was running a terror drill the same day on the same scenario.

    Sorry 'popular mechanics' is flying car *****, its not a peer review journal.
  • cwill341, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3www.jewsdidwtc.com

    Serriously people, what more do you need?

    This has all the facts about WTC that you will need.
  • steeel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Look at this picture:

    http://www.rinf.com/news/nov05/World-Trade-Center_files/9-11Picture8sotower.jpg

    See the angle that the building was collapsing? the top of the building should have fallen to the street while leaving the core up. Do the calculations and you will see.
    • steeel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+79/11: The Controlled Demolition of WTC 7?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHQUHCCSLe4
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4well I have been a skeptic on this whole thing since early 2002 and thats a pretty weak argument imo.
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6my post above was in response to the parent post. WTC7 I do not dispute.
    • doddilus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9ok so how does this picture support your theory? how did it "defy" the laws physics? lets see your math on the rotational motion of the upper floors of the tower based on that picture alone...

      ...no really if you can do that you might win a nobel prize or something
    • steeel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7"We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I'm still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)"

      By Steven E. Jones
      Department of Physics and Astronomy
      Brigham Young University
      Provo, UT 84604

      Link: http://www.rinf.com/news/nov05/World-Trade-Center.html

    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The *engineering* department of Prof. Jones' own institution says his paper is crap (paraphrased, of course). BYU has distanced itself from any of his work on this subject.

      And don't go on about how "of course they would, or else they'd lose funding from the government." BYU is a private institution, owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ( http://ce.byu.edu/ed/ )
  • psimaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Don't forget THE LONE GUNMEN'S 'Pilot' Episode six month's before the attacks. On Fox Network ironically.

    http://killtown.911review.org/lonegunmen.html
  • lostspyder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Democracy now has an excelent debate about the makers of "Loose change" and someone from popular mechanics. It was realy good and inspired me to download the movie.

    http://democracynow.org/
  • spisska, on 10/12/2007, -16/+15To anyone who believes in this conspiracy nonsense: You are being used.

    And the more loudly you proclaim events that clearly happened to have been different from how they clearly happened, the more you play into the hands of those whom you seek to discredit.

    The Bush administration has been an absolute disaster. But suggesting that the events of Sept 2001 were planned and orchestrated by those close to the president weakens the standing of everyone who opposes this cabal for legitimate reasons.

    By ignoring the real problems -- like starting an unjustified and unwinnable war, bankrupting our treasury, lying to the American people, treating the law and the Constitution with contempt, reducing the legislature to a rubber stamp, instituting kangaroo courts that violate 200+ years of judicial tradition, ruining the reputation and prestige of the US in the world, and generally ensuring that our military is unprepared, unable and unwilling to respond to legitimate threats for being bogged down in an overblown police action -- you make everyone who has good reason to oppose this administration the equivalent of a mouth-frothing, nonsense-spouting conspiracist who lacks the ability to see what is plainly in front of their face.

    That won't play in Peoria, and Karl Rove could not have scripted it better.

    Call Bush to task for what he did (Iraq), and what he failed to do (Afghanistan, New Orleans).

    Don't let yourselves be played like fools (again).
    • Bansuri, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Well said!
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11interesting, that would imply there is a conspiracy about a conspiracy!
    • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5so long as the TV's are on, nothing will happen. Haven't you seen the matrix yet?
    • spisska, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If y'all want to mod me off the page, that's fine. But please be so good as to explain why.

      Seems to me what I said was rather sensible, though I realize sense is a rare commodity when talking about these things.
    • miguel077, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The kind of people that uses the government to start impossible and unjustified wars, reduce the legislature to a rubber stamp, disregard more than 200 years of judicial tradition, treat the law and the Constitution with contempt, lie to the American people, ruin the prestige of the US in the world, spend billions of dollars of your tax money buying from their own private corporations, bankrupting the treasury of the world's most powerful nation, would never dare of doing something like that just for personal interest.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1PNAC said we needed a "New Pearl Harbor"

      WHAM! We get one. And the official story does not add up.

      The only people who will get burned by the growing 9/11 skepticism are the neocons, and they ***** deserve to burn.
  • Bansuri, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Information used to be filtered and distributed by newspapers and TV. Slowly, and heavily edited.
    Now everything gets out instantly and no one believes it.
    Our government can barely keep its head above water, there are no conspiracies. There are movies about conspiracies that people try to shoehorn real life into.
    The Internet has ruined us.
    Skepticism is good, I don't know what this ***** is.
  • IronDioPriest, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4This conspiracy rhetoric is so childish, so very "Oliver Stone", and it plays right into the hands of those who wish to see us all dead. It strikes me that the American Left and bin Laden and al Zawahiri are speaking from the same talking points memo.
  • IronDioPriest, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4It strikes me that the American Left, bin Laden, and al Zawahiri are all getting their rhetoric from the same talking points memo. Osama must read dailykos.com.
  • DarkPilot, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2I think I just stopped caring about what caused the towers to fall. I don't care whether Bush ordered the attack. I don't give a flying ***** if they were downed using controlled demolition or not. Was it a missile? Was it actually terrorists who hijacked commercial jetliners and crashed them into the buildings?

    I DO care about the people who died during the attack, and those who still suffer as a result of the attack. In all the debate about what caused it, the victims have been forgotten because some dick weed feels the need to point out "Continuity error" every 5 minutes.

    So lets just remember those who died, and try as best we can to get on with life.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Ignorant.

      Let's just ignore how it happened and remember the dead? Jesus, you are drinking the cool aid big time.
    • TexMexMatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5That is giving up and giving into the terrorists. Why on earth shouldnt I ask questions why they died? Saying you dont care how and why they died shows that you dont care about those that died. People should be punsished for that crime and justice should be served and so far not a bloody thing has happened. Bush doesnt care about Bin Laden and called off the hunt. Just for that alone Bush should be impeached. Bush and the Right dont care about americans so why do americans care about them??? Voting right is giving the terrorists what they want.
    • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Sorry to screw up your assertion but the victim's families want a new investigation. The largest of the groups representing some 7000 members goes so far as to call 9-11 an "inside job". I'm seriously tired of the pro-Bush crowd, politicians and media speaking on behalf of the victims and their families while ignoring the numerous calls from those families for a real investigation.
      May be you should check out this site and the movie they've made to see where the victim's families stand on the issue:
      http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
    • DarkPilot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Okay, I will take that and I probably worded that wrong in hindsight, but it must be said that all this fighting is obscuring any real truth that gets uncovered. Also, I didn't say I don't care how it happened I said I didn't care what caused the towers to fall. And, I may very well be drinking the Kool-aid. (I Do own a Mac)

      What we do know is that 5 years ago, people at just about every level screwed up and people died and 5 yer as later we are still fighting over who takes the blame and how to really deal with the problem.

      I do apologize if I offended anybody with my comments.
  • Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think there is a better chance Bin Laden himself is a CIA operative than there is that the Bush administration was able to pull off the 9/11 thing without any leaks/mistakes.

    It's much easier to have a tiny group of people funding and helping Bin Laden plan the attacks than it is to have the military involved in a massive attack on American citizens.

    Unfortunately even the words conspiracy theory conjure up ideas of lunacy and unbelievability. Hollywood has done such an amazing job with overplaying conspiracy theories in movies that it makes it impossible for anyone to be taken seriously when trying to bring one up. Which is a conspiracy theory of it's own... the government fed Hollywood silly conspiracy movie plots just to make them appear as implausible as they appear to be now.

    Heh. That's what make conspiracy theories great... even if you disprove them, the act of disproving them is just another layer on the conspiracy. Or it is a previous conspiracy that was undertaken just to allow the future conspiracy. There is no way for either side to possibly convince the other because the harder you argue, the more the other side considers you to be crazy/evil.
    • CarzorStelatis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Shadar:

      bin Laden IS (or at least, was) a CIA operative - who gave him all that training and Stinger missiles in the 80s? Oh yeah...
  • Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9He claims to have done such good research, yet it is obvious that he has wholly dismissed the conspiracy theories, with no consideration to whether they _might_ contain some truth.

    This isn't fair journalism.

    If he really wants to dismiss the conspiracy theories, he should start with the conspiracy theory details, and debunk them individually. There is lots of video and photo material he can work with. What he's done is little more than paraphrase the official explanation.

    He could also ask some real questions, like:

    Where is all the debris from the WTC? Conspiracy theory says Giuliani had it shipped to China.

    Relatedly, why was there no forensic investigation at the site?

    Why have numerous witnesses changed their stories?

    Did the Bush administration ignore all terrorism intel? Did they dismiss any/all chatter regarding bin Laden before 9/11?

    If he would answer the questions asked by the people whose claims he dismisses, he wouldn't invoke such angry responses from them, er, us.
    • scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It is not fair to ask questions then not pursue the answers yourself. It's how idiocy thrives. I fear for this country.

      Did you read the book? Did you look up the point by point debunkings?

      For the lazy:

      "Where is all the debris from the WTC? Conspiracy theory says Giuliani had it shipped to China."

      http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/may/freshkills/index.html
      (the answer is Staten Island)

      "Relatedly, why was there no forensic investigation at the site?"
      You mean like this? http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/demnowfaq.html#steelwtc

      "Why have numerous witnesses changed their stories?"
      Have you not taken psychology? Are you kidding me? Show me a major event that doesn't have several conflicting witness accounts that change over time.

      "Did the Bush administration ignore all terrorism intel? Did they dismiss any/all chatter regarding bin Laden before 9/11?"
      These are useful questions, but they in no way relate to how the buildings fell.
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Are you sure he does dismiss all the conspiracy theories *BECAUSE* he did all the research and debunking and found them all to be false? Seriously, read the book.
  • artemus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4It's really outrageous how that weasel Meigs compares the Loose Change boys to Holocaust deniers. This is a logical fallacy of the worst kind. Like I said earlier, all the Popular Mechanics smears can't stand up to the light of hard, cold truth.
    • scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I highly suggest you read "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer.

      I will gladly loan you my copy. It's only $10 on Amazon, and certainly worth owning.
  • Ixtab, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I saw loose change, read some of the PM points, and I just saw the debate between PM vs LC. In my opinion both have good points, some stuff on LC is *****, but they have some good points. Who is lying? is the big question. I believe in science, and I think if you really want to know the truth, you must investigate by your own. Right now I'm at a neutral point where I don't know what to believe. I mean the US goverment has good reasons to do that, oil, go after Saddam, put a police state, "with fear people will do anything", they have good reasons, but would they really do it? Are they really capable of doing that? By the other hand we have Bin Laden saying he did it. So I don't know. I need solid evidence, facts, not assumptions.

    Maddox says there was no conspiracy
    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
    is he part of the conspiracy too? Oh wait, he talks ***** about bush all the time. Haha
  • sekyuritei, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Awesome article.... BUT, isn't it kind of ironic that it's in the NY Post?!?!?!
  • scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6arguing with a 9-11 truth nut is like arguing with a creation/ID nut.

    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I was thinking the same thing. It'd be interesting to know how much overlap there is between the two groups, since they both use the same strategy:
      (1) Come up with your theory
      (2) From the mountains of evidence, take a few pieces out of context that fit your theory
      (3) Distort, lie about, deny, or ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary
      (4) Claim that all unanswered questions are further proof of your theory
      (5) If someone challenges you with specifics, change the subject
  • Futurepower, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4The Bush and Cheney administration is getting exactly their desired result from the Iraq war:

    1) People with investments in weapons, like Bush and Cheney and their families and friends and business associates, want continuous war. They didn't like the end of the cold war and the attempted de-militarization of the United States government.

    2) People with investments in oil, like Bush and Cheney and their families and friends and business associates, wanted to arrange that Iraq oil profits would go to themselves, rather than Iraqis. Iraq has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves, after Saudi Arabia.

    3) Saddam Hussein was trucking oil from Iraq through Turkey and selling it in Europe. United States oil investors could not raise the price of oil unless all suppliers could be controlled.

    4) Saddam Hussein was selling oil for Euros, not U.S. dollars. If other countries began selling their oil for euros, the dollar, weakened by unprecedented debt, could crash. Instead, the value is going down slowly, making everything more expensive for people in the United States. The weakening of the dollar is equivalent to stealing the value of people's salaries and savings.

    Unprecedented debt:
    http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

    Value of the dollar:
    http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0001519.html

    5) The U.S. government gives perhaps $5 billion each year to Israel. It's a method of embezzlement of U.S. taxpayer dollars. The understanding is that the Israelis will use the money to buy weapons from U.S. manufacturers at inflated prices.

    The money from the U.S. government is used to kill Arabs and destroy their property. Not surprisingly, Arabs don't like that. That helps assure that there will be endless war, and weapons manufacturers want that. There is also a lot of profit in making oil and support contracts with the U.S. military

    6) Saddam Hussein had made threatening statements about Israeli violence and Israeli occupation of Arab lands. Paul Wolfowitz, a Jew, arranged that the U.S. would pay for Israel's security, serving his culture against the best interests of his country. (They call his plans "doctrine" to give them a kind of pretentious religious importance.)

    Paul Wolfowitz:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

    7) The U.S. government is borrowing money to kill Iraqis. Eventually the borrowing will result in reducing the value of the dollar. That reduction benefits everyone who has most of their money invested in companies with employees. Since salaries and wages are never increased as fast as the increase in prices, those who own companies make more money if the value of employee pay can be reduced.

    8) The Saudi government got what it wanted, too, an increase in oil prices. Network TV video of George W. Bush holding hands with a Saudi government official can be seen in numerous places, for example, in the movie Fahrenheit 9/11. (In Saudi Arabia it is common that men show affection for each other by holding hands.) George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush's father, is or was in the oil and weapons business with wealthy Saudis. Arabs contributed to George W. Bush's political campaigns thr ough oil contracts. A Saudi government official called Prince Bandar is so close to the Bush family that the family calls him "Bandar Bush".
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"People with investments in oil, like Bush and Cheney and their families and friends and business associates, wanted to arrange that Iraq oil profits would go to themselves, rather than Iraqis. Iraq has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves, after Saudi Arabia."

      how is this even possible? We have recieved exactly 0 profits from selling iraqi oil, they recieve it all. You make no sense. Oh wait, as I read your other points I see you are an anti-semite. Those damn joooos eh? Now you make sense. You're an uneducated bigot.
    • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I call ***** on your reply. Pointing out that many of the top posts in American govt are filled by dual citizens (Israelis) does not make someone an anti Semite. The profits to the oil companies come from the Iraqi oil NOT shipping - that was the plan from the beginning. You should read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast. He was given access to the big oil companies in Houston who actually wrote the 2 plans for war with Iraq. The oil guys tried to sue him and had to back off when he produced recordings of the meetings. Do you have any idea how many spy rings have been investigated and prosecuted that involved Israel spying on the US? If I question the amount of money and policies in place between the UK and the US does that make me "anti wasp"? That's one of the weakest tactics used for political gain.
    • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1See - I don't see the majority of the 9-11 truth movement claiming theories as facts - I see them forwarding theories based on facts. People make a lot of bad assumptions looking at the entirety of the weirdness that went on that day - I can't blame them I mean how many people would had to have been involved for the planes to be remote controlled, the buildings wired ahead of time with explosives etc etc? I don't think all the theories are correct but I also know with great conviction the govt's own conspiracy theory is incorrect as well. Life proves the truth is somewhere in the middle. We have overbearing proof that our govt had hundreds of opportunities to stop the attacks. It wouldn't have taken many people to stand back and allow things to take place, especially if those people are in the highest positions. The FBI reports, Able Danger, Executive Orders all prove there was an effort to stand back - the game of placing blame and calling the people who tried to stop it incompetent is a joke. Not one person got in trouble for the failures leading to 9-11 and the fact is the people who stopped investigations, allowed 19 hijackers, most of whom who were on terror watch lists to enter the country etc, etc were promoted after 9-11.

      Look, the average person caught up in this doesn't have "handlers" and spokespeople to keep them on script. Once they start to research this they are faced with an avalanche of inconsistencies, lies and omissions. Most people don't think like a trained detective and build a case using the best evidence, corroborating information etc. That's why we want a new and truly independent investigation, one with the power to compel testimony the 9-11 commission did not, one to force public testimony instead of the most compelling witnesses speaking in secret sessions and having their testimony left out of the record. Even if you find the possibility criminals within our own and other govt's were actively involved it should be very simple to see they knew it was going to occur and removed the roadblocks. I'm fairly sure there were more active roles taken but making the case for complicity is a start and very solid case to begin an investigation.
  • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4So Zacarias Moussaoui is Innocent? His trial was a complete scam? all that evidence fake?
  • ninjacob, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4You all are some ***** nutjubs. Go back to democraticunderground. For the love of GOD, what is wrong with you people???
  • liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8You 9/11 "Truth" seekers are a bunch of Nutjob fakes. I asked a simple question and not one of you ***** answered it. Why? Becuase you don't have an answer! You tell the world that our ***** government created 9/11 but then when simple questions are asked about some facts YOU CAN'T AND WON'T ANSWER THEM. ***** liars - all of you are.

    I could take a ***** and you would try to convince me it was George Bush who took the *****, not I.
    • vitorleite, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5what? one guy said that he saw a plane, other people saw missiles. The 38 video feeds that have been confiscated just minutes after the crash have not been released. Oh yeah, thet did release a few frames of very bad quality footage that really doens't show anything at all. Doesn't make much sense.
    • doddilus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+738 video feeds? That needs to be shoved back up your ass where it came from.
      Last i checked there were 2 cameras that "possibly" showed the pentagon. Ever think that they show absolutely nothing? and theres no point in releasing them?
      General: Ok here we have the video from the camera of the hotel on 9/11 when the petagon was attacked. This area here is the parking lot, but up in the far left corner you can see a section of the pentagon. In frame 5 you can see a flash of light. Thats when the plane hit. Thanks for coming, questions can be directed to Mr Smith.
      Press 1: Why are you showing us this?
      Smith: because conspiracy nuts wouldnt get off our backs about it.
    • liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4vitorleite, despite your statement that made you look like a ***** tard, you still DID NOT answer my question. I don't care about 38 feeds. I don't care what other ***** you have to spew out of your mouth. I just want to know WHY loose change manipulated his statement? If you don't know then get outta here. You have no business trying to make your 9/11 "truth" here.
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"other people saw missiles."

      see? you are still lying. He even supplied you with the complete quote which says nothing of the sort, but you still use this debunked piece of evidence.
  • liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@doddilus: I think I got some loose change here that also needs to be shoved up his his ass ...
    • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I believe you can see the response directly from the Loose Change guys in a transcript of a debate between them and the editor of the PM piece.
      http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
      It seems we have a difference of opinion between parties as to this "manipulation of a statement". Why the PM guy is more credible is beyond me.
      Before you jump my ass in your 3rd grade manner - I don't cite Loose Change as the best evidence for 9-11 truth, I don't have a position on the Pentagon or even "bombs in the buildings" at the WTC. I maintain there is a flood of evidence our administration had hundreds of chances to stop the attacks and not only failed to act on them but went out of their way to make sure nobody interfered.
    • liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, in all fairness there is a HUGE grey area of your belief and what the general "9/11 truth" wacko pushes on everyone. It's impossible for me to know what exact specifications you take part in and don't take part in. All I know is that there are a bunch of freaks running around trying to convince all of America that Bush coordinated the attacks.

      I believe that America is poorly unprepared for these types of attacks. I find it hard to believe that we would know about such an attack and go out of our way to allow it to happen though. Being massively unprepared is very feasable.

      I'm tired of everyone telling me the mainstream media is biased and politically driven when the alternative news sources they provide are just as biased and probably even more so bent towards politial stances. You'll have to pardon my frusteration.

      I'll check out the link you provided.
    • scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This whole Loose Change thing smacks of the Farhenheit 9/11 debacle.

      Why make up and manipulate facts? In the context of the movie it makes sence until someone does the research. Moore could have writen a scathing attack on Bush and his policies without other manipulations. Loose Change could attack the Bush administration's competence and their failure to protect us.... but this nonsense about whether or not there was a plane in PA and the pentagon is ridiculous.

      It's hard for me to believe that the guy who sank a company, can't speak clearly, screwed up the invasion of Iraq, and didn't double check his facts on WMD could possibly be tied to a conspiracy to attack our country without farking it up.

      These loose change guys did no research... they simply pulled pictures from media reports and internet snippings and did their own hypothesizing. They refuse to acknowledge that their hypotheses are falsifiable, and everytime one is knocked down by a logical explanation, they redirect. Amateurs. So are the people who believe them.
    • doddilus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1...Which is why they are making a 3rd film to revise their seriously flawed theories.
    • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't cite the Loose Change films as the greatest evidence but I also don't think they have any intention to mislead anyone. Yeah they used mainstream media clips and articles to support the theory but what else would "outsiders" have to use? I heard the PM editor on one show telling the interviewer the biggest evidence PM has in a couple of the cases is built on getting access to photos which still have not been released to the public. So here we have them claiming scientific rules of investigation and some of the most critical results are based on "you just have to trust me"? Uhh, No. That's not going to fly and is "moon-battery" if anything is. As to witnesses who made statements indicating something other than the official story was going on - yes they made statements on film and then later changed their stories and quite a few of these people also admitted they had been in contact with govt reps telling them to "shut up". We know for a fact a lot of people are under "national security gag orders" and why would that be needed if every-thing's above ground?
      The 9-11 truth movement is complicated, sorry that's just reality - the victim's families estimate 70% of the questions they wanted addressed by the govt investigation were not answered. The conspiracy theories range from "proof positive" to complete nut bag - just because some people think holograms were used doesn't make the entire movement crazy - they don't have the luxury of unified control, unlimited access to the media etc. Just as in a criminal investigation a lot of judgment can be made by what the suspect does and says after the fact - the govt and mainstream media work overtime to paint anyone with questions as a nutcase. Articles like the one in PM and sites like 9-11 myths really cherry pick what they will and won't address and do a lot of partial reporting using a single source to refute parts of assertions. Here's a couple of glowing examples:
      Insider Trading:
      The victim's families (all the biggest organizations of) endorse something called the 911 time-line. It's a very well sourced site with links to supporting articles for everything. IN it you can see the insider trading was not just one incident against each airline - there were tons of it going on all over the world and the true experts on this stated it was "irrefutable proof of foreknowledge". Even the proceeds from the trades PM and 911 choose to discuss went unclaimed.
      http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=insiderTrading
      There was abnormal trading not only of the airline stocks but also of the insurance companies covering the airlines and WTC and even the big firms in the towers.
      Another one is the UL study and the firing of Kevin Ryan. PM points out that Kevin Ryan is a hydrodynamics engineer so he's not credible. The fact is that a large team of engineers conducted the study, why would UL assign such a huge and important study to one engineer with knowledge of water? He was one of many involved and the first one to go public when the results were buried. For PM to marginalize the study like that points out an agenda in the article to disprove conspiracy regardless of facts.

      Sorry for the long reply - it really frustrates me to see un-invested Americans pick up on the tactic of labeling all 9-11 truth activists as nutcases or liars. The day of 9-11 I was watching it all happen and I lost people close to me. I wanted the people responsible dead, not just dead but nuclear dead. As the news articles came out in the first days, weeks etc I began to have questions and when I saw the story change, saw the govt try not to have an investigation and discovered the response to 911 was a written plan in place before Bush even became president I started researching things for myself. I've found a lot of people just don't want to know the truth so they latch onto sites and articles which fail to cover the entire truth. Maybe it's easier that way but I can tell you from my own experience people are waking up and it's getting harder and harder to find people who don't have at least 1 question that should be answered.
    • liquilife, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Perhaps the conspiracy theorists should have gotten their ***** together before they launched this massive spamming of the "truth". If you want to convince the other half of America of your stories you need cold hard facts. Not a complicated story backed up by sources that I could care less about. Also, we could trade internet videos, links and political statements for years and get nowhere with this. I just refuse to at this point.

      "Sorry for the long reply - it really frustrates me to see un-invested Americans pick up on the tactic of labeling all 9-11 truth activists as nutcases or liars."

      I'm an invested American. Just not stupid. 9/11 truth activists are claiming theories to be facts. They take questions that are unanswered and put in their own answer that suits their needs. Once they fill in their own gaps they spread it as the truth. Thus the movement. I'd be a dumbass to accept that as the truth. I do seek answers but I seek logical answers. The answers you provide are driven by paranoia. Anyone who dedicates their lives to promoting a story driven by paranoia is a nutjob. Sorry, it's true.

      Doesn't matter. When we get hit again by terrorists I just hope you believe in God, not alternative conspiracies against a republican president you are not fond of.
  • rightnumberone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Digg is seriously broken. As long as anyone can claim that anything is "possibly inaccurate" then the entire justification for being able to claim that something is "possibly inaccurate" just loses all authority. Soon, everything will be "possibly inaccurate" based solely on the ridiculous political leanings of whomever.

    The Digglink is accurate, and accurately points to an authentic article in an established newspaper.

    There is nothing "possibly inaccurate" about that.
  • Clockw0rk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Why do people believe conspiracy theories?

    Simple. The government failed.

    The reaction to the attacks was slow. The press spin was 72 hours of replays and interviews pounding fear and devistation into the populace, no reassurance from the white house. We lashed out with random bombings in the place we kinda sorta thought the person responcible was located. And we still haven't caught him.

    How could our government be that inept unless they had some hand in the act?

    That's the choice we're forced to make. Our government has failed us, or our government has conspired against us. And for some reason, it seems we would rather have our government be intelligent and deceptive than a poorly managed wreck that Katrina demonstrated.
    • graberc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Amen - hebrew for I agree.

      People are scared as ***** that our government is so incompetent it couldn't prevent 9/11, stop a jet, or even save some people from a hurricane.

    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Both could be true. In fact, that's pretty likely.
  • nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The conspiracy theories may be wrong, but the fact they exist represents a deep mistrust of government and the security services.
    Now I wonder why that could be?
  • FishPoisonCon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4this probably means nothing, but is kinda interesting.

    do a quick search for who owns Popular Mechanics and you'll find that it's The Hearst Corporation. another search reveals that the chairman of Hearst Co and president of the Hearst Foundation is George Randolph Hearst Jr - a quick search on this guy and you find that he is among the DKE Alumni (along with both G Bush Jr and Sr) look around some more and you'll find that the president and chief executive officer of the Hearst Corporation is Victor F. Ganzi - who also happens to be a member of B.E.N.S. (Business Executives For National Security)... in 2002 B.E.N.S. was awarded the AGENCY SEAL MEDALLION by the C.I.A for it's participation in reviewing the In-Q-Tel program during the period of January to June 2001. (In-Q-Tel was established to help the CIA and USIC to identify, acquire and deploy cutting-edge technologies.)

    so... maybe none of this means anything, but the fact that the owners of the magazine (Hearst Corporation) refuting "9/11 Conspiracies" were involved with the CIA and reviewing a program devoted to "national security" (up until 2 months before 9/11) should seem a little odd.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_Corporation
    http://www.freewebs.com/chidke/alumni.htm
    http://www.bens.org/highlights_InQTelMedal.html
    http://www.bens.org/members.html#G
    http://www.in-q-tel.org/

    • scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Why not just read the Popular Mechanics piece and see if the facts hold up?

      Attacking the piece because it is tenuously tied to powerful people (most publications are these days) is pointless. It's like me attacking the Loose Change guys for being unqualified to comment on mechanical or structural engineering issues... oh wait.
    • FishPoisonCon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2yes, they are powerful people, but that's not the point. what they have power over IS.
    • doddilus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2...who was in Trapped with Kevin Bacon!

      That was a fun one.
    • scotticus,