# Is Michael Moore headed for 9/11 Troof?

The troofers seem to think so and based on the interview they have a video of after a screening they may be right.

Here's his reasoning for why we need to investigate 9/11 more.

"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.

"Why don't they want us to see that plane coming into the building? Because, if you know anything about flying a plane, when you're going 500 miles per hour, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. So, they hit a building that's only 5 stories high...[unclear] that expertly. I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and we should demand that that tape is released."

Michael Moore was not vague or bashful in discussing 9/11 truth-- rather, he demanded a "new investigation before we get too far away from this-- to find out the whole truth."

"And I intend, in my own way, to find some answers," Moore added. "Thank you for doing whatever you're doing."

They've got like, 100 cameras, so naturally, all of them would be, like, trained on the spot that was hit. Now that would be suspicious.

I'm not sure why he can't accept that closed-circuit security often uses stop action to save storage space. I guess one would expect the Pentagon to have super-fancy high-rez security cameras in their parking lot, I have no idea why, maybe to catch Osama Bin Laden roller-blading around the parking lot. But what about having a video like this one:

would be any more convincing than the stop-action images, the reports of the people there who saw the wreckage, the hundreds of people 395 who saw the plane hit the building, the wife of the solicitor general, Barbara Olson dying on the plane etc.? Or how about how it's just plain stupid to think otherwise for about a billion different reasons?

And do you guys know where the "cruise missile" theory came from? A quote mine of Mike Walters - a USA today reporter who said, "it was like a cruise missile - with wings" . The problem was that the loose changers troofers removed the "with wings" and ignored his appeals to set the record straight. Which he does here:

For a man who used footage of the towers being struck by planes for one of his movies, you'd think he'd be beyond the idiotic no-plane conspiracy theories about the Pentagon. People have pointed out, one pal of mine in particular, that Moore is a bit, well, cranky. I would hate to see the good work that was done with Sicko go to waste by embracing 9/11 truth. I don't think Moore is a crank just yet. Not everyone who falls for BS is going to convert to being a full-fledged crank, he might look into it a little deeper and see that these guys are just wacky conspiracy theorists.

What worries me, is that he might look a little deeper and accidentally fall down the rabbit hole.

### More like this

"What worries me, is that he might look a little deeper and accidentally fall down the rabbit hole."

Indeed, one of the most irritating things is when someone tarnishes otherwise respectable work by descending into crankey. Scientists have done this plenty of times, the most recent example being Lynn Margulis and her embrace of HIV/AIDS denialism.

Of course, speaking objectively, Moore's arguments for single-payer healthcare should stand on their own. But bullshit like this is nonetheless a serious potential liability to those who defend him.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Michael Moore morphed into a 9/11 Truther. He's already shown in Fahrenheit 9/11 at least that he doesn't mind twisting facts to suit his political agenda, and he's clearly an ideologue.

On a side note unrelated to Michael Moore, if you really want to see how wacky the 9/11 Truthers are capable of being, here's a blast from the past when I took on the "no plane" idiots.

We'll just have to wait for the Moore/Kucinich ticket to win before we know for sure what those 100 cameras filmed. It could happen (and thus you shall know the depths of my delusions...)

How about waiting for Moore to come out with the opus before flailing at him? Just recently you made a big deal out of strawmen, and now it looks like this posting is an appeal to the cool kids. Michael Moore would need to lose a few just to fit down that rabbit hole; George Bush is a health nut -- he had no trouble at all falling down it, and yet 50%+ reelected him. Yeah, there's something wrong with Moore though, huh?

There's nothing particularly off in the paragraphs you cited -- except that he wants a closer examination of the seminal events that led us TO LOSE OUR F*CKING MINDS, open the treasury wide for sacking by political cronies, and uh, cause about 3M people to be displaced and another 500K to be killed. Democracy being what it is, we ALL think we're f*cking important enough to know the gory details.

I blame high school civics classes for basic disinformation about the workings of government.

9/11 was an inside job, it's clear to anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind. The towers couldn't have collapsed from jet-fuel fire; they exploded from the top down. There was no "pancaking" - they were pulverized into dust, ash, and neatly cut steel beams. There were no Boeing 757 parts found at the Pentagon, and no passengers. The "hijackers" are on none of the airlines' passenger lists. WTC 7 collapsed demolition-style at 5:20pm.

As far as "conspiracy theories" go - we all agree there was a conspiracy, we just need to find out who was in it. Open minds, folks.

But if I open my mind more I will bleed to death! I need to keep inside my skull!

By valhar2000 (not verified) on 16 Jul 2007 #permalink

Hans, you don't want to have such an open mind that your brain falls out. The jet fuel ignited a fire of office contents, which certainly burn at a high enough temperature to cause structural failure; otherwise why do they fireproof the steel in highrises? Body parts from all the Flight 77 passengers but one (an infant) were recovered from the Pentagon. Many 757 parts were discovered at the Pentagon. The "passenger lists" were "victims lists" and by definition, that did not include the hijackers. As for WTC 7, there were many New York firemen who knew that building was going to fail hours before it did because of the extensive damage caused by the collapses of the two towers and the 47-story fire.

And the bit about conspiracy theories is silly. In common usage, "conspiracy theory" implies nutty.

The towers couldn't have collapsed from jet-fuel fire; they exploded from the top down.

Yeah. There must have been an impact like from a large plane or something involved.

There was no "pancaking" - they were pulverized into dust, ash, and neatly cut steel beams.

How? Magical hushaboom explosives planted by invisible agents who can invisibly operate in a continuously occupied building?

There were no Boeing 757 parts found at the Pentagon, and no passengers.

Then explain all the photographs of airplane parts being picked up at the Pentagon.

The "hijackers" are on none of the airlines' passenger lists.

Show me the passenger lists.

WTC 7 collapsed demolition-style at 5:20pm.

Then why doesn't it look like a controlled demo? Why is it that when we compare side-by-side twoofers change their story to saying it's a controlled demo designed to not look like a controlled demo?

And how'd such a demo get accomplished? You have any idea how many man-hours of work that'd take? It would require a LOT of conspirators. Surprising that not one of the thousands required has felt remorse.

Surprising that not one of the thousands required has felt remorse.

Pussies.

Any conspirator force worth their salt would feel no remorse. And they probably had their tearducts surgically sealed. (It's on the approved list of procedures under the government subsidized healthcare plan for conspirators.)

And they probably had their tearducts surgically sealed. (It's on the approved list of procedures under the government subsidized healthcare plan for conspirators.)

And had their heart surgically removed and replaced a grinding construct made of black stone that pumps only ice water through veins.

And had their heart surgically removed and replaced a grinding construct made of black stone that pumps only ice water through veins.

So you've seen the medically approved list of procedures for black ops then?

Excising morality from your conscience center is a walk-in procedure.

Oh, I thought those were the medically-approved procedures for contractors! At least for the ones working on my bathroom.

By Melissa G (not verified) on 16 Jul 2007 #permalink

Oh crap, not this again. They want video? Quite an assumption that 100 cameras would have captured it. And most surveillance video cameras have wide angle lenses and run anywhere from 5 frames per second to 15 frames per second. The plane's traveling 730 feet per second; that's a minimum of 48 feet of travel between frames, probably much more. How much detail do they expect to get out of that?

Oh wait, I forgot; the bluurier the better. If you could really see Bigfoot's zipper, it wouldn't be any fun.

Please, Michael, step away from the nutballs. Have any of them ever read a book on either aviation or structural engineering that didn't have the expression, "9/11" in the title? If Moore gets sucked into this stuff, it'll destroy the focus on his new health care movie.

Looks like you're bringing in the crazies today, Mark.

The always come out of the woodwork whenever you mention the 9/11 Truther nuts. I got well over 100 comments, many of them totally off the deep end, the last time I did a piece on 9/11 conspiracy theories.

And if the 9/11 anti-crank site Screw Loose Change links to you, you'll get them piling in in droves.

Ted, I realize you're coming at this from the total lack of trust of the administration, and that's a fair point. If he had suggested an investigation on the basis of "I won't trust anything this administration does" that's fine.

It's when he suggests that maybe it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon that I get pissed. It makes too many good people liars.

[sigh] Some people are going to wind up dead tommorow, just like all the other conspiracy theorists, secet demolition experts, photographers, eyewitnesses...

You were warned.

By natural cynic (not verified) on 16 Jul 2007 #permalink

Why is it that like so many other debates that people descend into all-or-nothing? Just because there are numerous crazy theories and sensationalized scenarios that are ridiculous doesn't mean we shouldn't keep examining and investigating the event.

Is there any reason to not keep examining one of the most important events in modern times?

In fact, we should keep investigating so we can get rid of (falsify) the craziest of the crazy theories.

Why are people so against analyzing the events of 9/11?

I'm not against analysis. I have a big problem with what appears to be Moore entertaining a "no-plane" theory at the pentagon. It is the sign of a broken mind.

MarkH...agreed, Moore should not directly align himself w/ that particular community of theorists....but, as time goes on I fear ANY analysis of these events is immediately put into the "crazy theory" category.

It's when he suggests that maybe it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon that I get pissed. It makes too many good people liars.

Sure, I see your point, but lets see if you can view it thusly:

Truth is malleable, and that's a tough thing to hammer out particularly for people that come from a privileged background because they seldom have to eat cognitive dissonance sh*t sandwiches every day of their life.

I used examples of WSJ and HSN presenting AEI, CEI, MI and general business truths. We accept those truths with a grain of salt and move on.

The truth is different to a lot of people at the bottom of the rungs. So if Moore is interviewing a fireman, and the fireman adds, "...and that sure looked like a controlled explosion...", Moore doesn't go off on the fireman with a barrage of invectives, "What, are you STUPID or INSANE!", because Moore knows that a lifetime of eating sh*t courtesy of official truth can make people a little warped in some respects. They simply don't have the faith that more educated, more savvy people around them aren't cheating them every day. Example:

Mary Sue Williams, of St. Clairsville, Ohio, was named the winner of the Million Dollar Portfolio Contest. She beat 377,000 participants in a challenge to post the greatest return on a simulated investment of 1 million that was based on actual stock prices. The announcement of a winner was delayed after some participants alleged others may have taken advantage of glitches in CNBCï¿½s software that allowed trades after markets had closed. There were also allegations that contestants manipulated real stocks to drive gains for their fictitious portfolios. For a lot of people out here, it's a matter of having an even playing field, so that when the little guy says to Moore, "The deck is stacked against me by people that manipulate the system," Moore doesn't go off and tell them they're full of sh*t because they obviously are too dumb or gullible to know any better. Moore uses the view that the little guy, the union worker, the people that shovel sh*t for a living need to be heard, to his advantage ever since Roger and Me. If they say, "I can't afford health insurance", he didn't treat them like the losers that they are compared to those that could. For that he gets double-plus good bonus points. Weapons of mass destruction, Jessica Lynch empties her weapon, Pat Tillman killed by enemy forces, Abu Grahiab just a few bad apples, Bush won the 2000 election, Bush won the 2004 election. Its not just the plane. Its the evaporating buildings and four jets flying around without being intercepted. Its possible that a dozen or so impossible events all happened that one day and that about this one event, the Bushies are telling the truth. People who drop bombs for Jesus are the nutjobs. Its not just the plane. Its the evaporating buildings and four jets flying around without being intercepted. I have yet to see anything surprising about how the buildings came down, and interception isn't like an action movie where they can narrow down any internal flight and send fighters within minutes. Besides, the way hijackings went before, passengers would survive if they cooperated, so destroying one of the planes would be a very hard sell. The only thing letting twoofers talk big about interception is hindsight. Its possible that a dozen or so impossible events all happened that one day and that about this one event, the Bushies are telling the truth. 1. Not nearly as impossible as hushaboom, holographic planes, and orbital wave cannons. 2. There's more to government than the President. The government is a mass of counter-purpose agencies struggling against each other and occasionally get something accomplished. 3. It's gotten pretty well to the point that I presume Bush lies or obfuscates by default. That's why I prefer to get information from scientists, engineers, and so forth who will actually make logical, verifiable claims according to the scientific method. The thing about his statement about the security cameras at the Pentagon is that he could easily get the information he needs to assess the likelihood of those "hundreds of cameras" capturing the crash without having to rely on "elite" sources. In fact, the people who would know the most about how security cams are generally deployed, aimed and recorded are the people who install them, service them and monitor them- IOW, the very same ordinary workers for whom Ted claims a different definition of "truth". A short conversation with such a person would provide a damn good overview of why it's unlikely that more than one or two Pentagon cams would capture useful information about the attack and also provide the phrase- "time-lapse VCR"- which if Googled would explain why security cam recordings usually have that "freeze frame" look. Doing simple, basic due diligence before running one's mouth doesn't necessarily require being a member of the "elite" nor relying unquestioningly on their claims. Moore has clearly failed to make the most elementary use of the information sources which are easily available to all of us. That's a dangerous symptom. As a political and social liberal, I find it a source of great irritation to see people who self-identify as "progressive" indulging in the sort of paranoid conspiracism which is the cultural tradition of the John Birch Society. Moore isn't quite there yet, so perhaps my workbench will get a respite from having my head banged against it- at least this time. By Ktesibios (not verified) on 16 Jul 2007 #permalink It would be a shame if Michael Moore jumped on the 9/11 Truth Bandwagon. He's had a great career as a muckraking documentary director, and I think America needs this. Just because you hate Bush doesn't make you stupid, though. Amy Goodman's a example. People accuse her of ignoring the 9/11 'Truth' movement but the truth is she's way too smart to fall for crap. People accuse her of ignoring the 9/11 'Truth' movement but the truth is she's way too smart to fall for crap. Amy Goodman has a different demographic appeal. She may be an example, but of what -- latte sipping intellectual liberals? Do Pacifica Radio/NPR/PBS followers go for truthers conspiracy? I doubt it. Those would tend to be MM followers. Other differences: Goodman Jewish, Moore ex-Catholic; Goodman Harvard, Moore a college dropout; Goodman's shtick - peace and human rights, Moore's shtick -- globalization effects on the working class. Look at his broad appeal (despite the intellectuals sneering down their nose, he must appeal to someone or his advocacy pieces wouldn't make as much money as they do); his "documentaries" are all about conspiracies, marketing, business interests, class warfare, etc. That's the breeding ground for conspiracists -- in him they see a kindred -- and very talented soul with ability to tie events to special interests that brings to life their paranoia. Ktesibios calls it: As a political and social liberal, I find it a source of great irritation to see people who self-identify as "progressive" indulging in the sort of paranoid conspiracism which is the cultural tradition of the John Birch Society. But I think that there are at least two disparate liberal groups out there: The intellectual haughtiness of NPR vs. the grassroots liberal John Birchers stewing slowly. Egads - Its very difficult to comprehend why someone whom claims they are a scientist would *not* wish to view all available evidence! If you are so firmly entrenched in your faith that you would reject the possibility of additional evidence well, the mind boggles! And yes, I use the work "faith" intentionally. This cute little retort of a word is traditionally defined as "belief without compelling evidence!" and generally used by the monotheist fundamentalistsbut you risk casting yourself in their shared veil of ignorance. Tsk tsk. You present yourself as a scientist. Hmmph. I mistakingly assumed that you would value *any* demonstrable evidence to plead your case. I would think that you would warmly welcome all those other camera angles (and don't repeat the steaming bovine fecal matter of a POV that there were no more cameras on the most protected building in the world - that would be most improbable!). Come onjump on the bandwagon! But just to prove your point, of course. Or are you afraid of what may "lie" beneath? Just sayin' Ah yes, the idiotic appeal to the open mind. The problem is there isn't evidence that is worthy of consideration. Just the conspiratorial nonsense of cranks who don't wouldn't know what good evidence was if it was sitting on their face and twirling. What is this evidence that anything but jets caused these accidents? Every time it's something more nonsensical, more ridiculous, more absurd than the last. Conspiracy theories are the sign of a broken mind, and being a scientist, I know better than to engage them as a legitimate line of inquiry. "Egads - Its very difficult to comprehend why someone whom claims they are a scientist would *not* wish to view all available evidence! If you are so firmly entrenched in your faith that you would reject the possibility of additional evidence well, the mind boggles!" That is it! If any of you have ever designed a field experiment, you know that data collection is costly, time consuming and prone to error. But if that data is ALREADY collected, it would be LUNACY, not to want to take a look at it. What kind of scientist would be content with a select subset of data, a small sample, when a much larger and richer sample exists, but is not being made available to the public. Good call tsk Ah yes, the idiotic appeal to the open mind. I trust that was not directed at me, else I should take offence. I would not ask you to risk opening your mind in particular, else I fear what may may spill out; most people show a balanced grey-area like matter there but alas, you sir, are certainly coming off as one not to be mistaken for "balanced". The problem is there isn't evidence that is worthy of consideration. Thank you for conceding exactly my point! Where is the evidence when there should be volumes of it? (and before you take your shorts off your head so you can tie them in a knot, note that I am primarily speaking of the reels of missing footage. You don't seriously believe that the mighty trillion dollar budget Pentagon would have only one, single, solitary, alone and all by itself, stop-frame camera to cover the entire side of one of the most obvious security targets in the entire world! Like, do you??? If, upon serious consideration, you still think that's a-okay, call me, cause hey, have I got some investments for you!) Ahhh, maybe your right. After all, this current administration has never done .like.anything.like.evar. to deceive the American people. So, maybe you're right. Maybe I should just unquestioningly trust in everything they say {*tongue so firmly in cheek, I have welts*}. I'll politely omit the rest of my flamish sentiments to the remainder of the screed you present as a rebuttal post as it is a sad (pathetic even) string of fallacious arguments mostly of the ad hominem kind. Ahh, even more sad, I will stoop to your squattish level to joust a bit, and lob an argument ad hominem back at 'cha You wouldn't be some closeted hack trying to tow some lacky banner to your loyal Republican party, would you? If so, you would have to do better than this. They only hire people of science if they are polished & accomplished nay-sayers (ohhh soooo sorrrrrrry, I hope I didn't hurt your employment chances. But not to worry, there's always the much lower standards of faux news. They can always use some science-like toadie to write their special form of denialism. You are demonstrating that special level of mediocrity that may well fit the bill: don't-ask-tough-questions; and certainly don't-ever-demand-real-answers; sheeple-like. Yes sir. Don't rock that rat-fleeing boat. Based solely upon this post, you'd be a shoe-in! Go for it sonny. --- And now, I repent. For the personal attack, I sincerely apologize (to like you siblings, close relatives, co-workers, or other people who otherwise have to put up with your rank pomposity). ;-> There was no "pancaking" Wait a minute- So after 5+ years of having to listen to loose changers spout off about how it must have been a controlled demolition _because_ it was absolutely impossible that the buildings could have pancaked into their own footprints- now all of a sudden they didn't pancake at all? Incredible. Yet, depressingly typical. Troofer claims are so universally stupid ("where were the interceptors? why didn't the buildings fall over instead of pancaking?") because a lot of people learn everything from movies and TV. See also JFK conspiracists who know that gunshot victims are always propelled away from the direction of the shooter, because it was handed down to them on stone tablets by Sylvester Stallone and Elmer Fudd. I trust that was not directed at me, else I should take offence. I would not ask you to risk opening your mind in particular, else I fear what may may spill out; most people show a balanced grey-area like matter there but alas, you sir, are certainly coming off as one not to be mistaken for "balanced". One phrase that always annoys me: "Fair and balanced". The two are in conflict: Fair means that you treat the different sides according to their merits. Balanced means you treat any nutbag epistemological relativist as an equal with carefully studied science. I'd much rather be fair than balanced. All the conspiracies I've seen do exactly what woo does: Diverge. Science converges. Conspiracy nuts have gone into orbital wave cannons, hushaboom, let-it-happen, holographic planes, missiles, thermate/ite, and there have probably been countless more since I last looked in. Science, in contrast converges onto a handful of hypotheses or even just one theory. So, who should I give more consideration to: One plausible theory that stays well within the realm of physics or a massive, bloated conspiracy that involves anywhere from thousands to millions of perfectly silent and heartless conspirators as well as the stuff of space opera? Ahhh, maybe your right. After all, this current administration has never done .like.anything.like.evar. to deceive the American people. So, maybe you're right. Maybe I should just unquestioningly trust in everything they say {*tongue so firmly in cheek, I have welts*}. You speak as if we were all Bush supporters. I know they lie on a routine basis. The problem is that they aren't good enough at lying to pull of a conspiracy of thousands involving hushaboom and orbital R9 wave cannons. You're also pretending that the government is one monolithic entity, rather than a mass of conflicting forces. You wouldn't be some closeted hack trying to tow some lacky banner to your loyal Republican party, would you? If so, you would have to do better than this. They only hire people of science if they are polished & accomplished nay-sayers (ohhh soooo sorrrrrrry, I hope I didn't hurt your employment chances. But not to worry, there's always the much lower standards of faux news. They can always use some science-like toadie to write their special form of denialism. You are demonstrating that special level of mediocrity that may well fit the bill: don't-ask-tough-questions; and certainly don't-ever-demand-real-answers; sheeple-like. You could cut the hypocrisy with a knife, especially since you don't know what the ad hominem fallacy is. You're basing your argument on your ad homenim. Besides, don't you know that we're the sort to regularly engage in Republican bashing? Climate Change/Global Warming denialism is one of the regular topics here, along with evolution denialism. I especially find the question-asking thing funny coming from you. You haven't asked any meaningful questions, just evasive ones. Anything to stay away from commitment to anything solid. Kind of reminds me of this one troll who ran away with a high-pitched squeal whenever someone would bring up the technological issues with his pet orbital laser, down to calculating the number of joules per second (and the very low number of seconds available) necessary to perform all the nonsense he ascribed to it under ideal conditions. The sheeple comment is also hilarious, since you're the one spouting thought-stopping cliches. Mark, How about a post that involves 9/11, aids, vaccine, and creationism? You might find it fascinating to watch first the films that debunk the 9/11 debunking. 911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1882365905982811133&hl=en-GB A new film has taken the BBC's Conspiracy files hit piece on 9/11 truth from earlier this year and ripped it apart point by point exposing it as a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation. This film, produced by British researcher Adrian Connock and former MI5 counter terrorism officer David Shayler, uncovers the BBC's selective and distorted 9/11 coverage and the corporation's attempts to portray the 9/11 truth movement as a racist cult like group of mythology. (It is discussed here: http://infowars.net/articles/june2007/280607Film.htm ) Improbable Collapse http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782&q=%22improb… - this one does a GREAT job of covering the official hypotheses, and it responds to the NIST, FEMA, and Popular Mechanics disinformation. Some people have said this film is a little slow, but I did not think so and it is one of the few films that was made late enough to be able to take on the critics, as mentioned. Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688 The book _Debunking 9/11 Debunking_ by David Ray Griffin is excellent. Bronze Dog: Kudo's on hypocrocy(^2): All the conspiracies I've seen do exactly what woo does: Diverge. Science converges. Beautiful motherhood statement. Love the off-handed way that you apparently dismiss my single solitary argument without addressing it. That's looks suspiciously like the "woo" behaviour described above. Diverge away from the real argument. (Yes, I recognize that was probably just an error of the moment on your part, but you must admit, awfully ironic!) The only argument I have presented: Where are the videos? Why are they not released? That's it. Lets deal with this emotionally charged event one issue at a time. Note: I *did not* say that the Bush administration is complicit in the planning of this terrible crime. I did not say anything about "hushaboom and orbital R9 wave cannons" whatever the frick they are), or "holographic planes", (etc, etc, etc) that your delicious imagination conjured up from some dark needy psychological place. I have read your thoughtful posts over quite some time, and generally believe you to be better than that. Stop it. It makes you look bad. I *am saying* that opportunistic politicians seem to have done every possible thing they can to lie and spin this grievous incident to best suit their purposes. I *am saying* that they have lied, lied, lied, and lied some more (go ahead, ask me for links and show your ignorance to the world). I am saying that these lies, half-truths and diversions have opened up or left far too many questions unsatisfactorily answered. I *am saying* something is indeed rotten in this here state of Denmark. Consequently, I contend this is a valid line of questioning. If you wish to call this question / concern "the-stuff-of-woo", well, that's your choice. I just suspect that you may be in the habit of treating all questions 9/11 in too default of a way. Bronze Dog, do you seriously dispute the POV that key evidence evidence is conveniently missing? Would it not be therefore premature to arrive at any conclusion. I have no idea if it was a plane that hit the Pentagon. How could I unless I simply take as "faith" what these known liars and bastards are spoon feeding me. Who holds the title to the missing evidence? Not me. Don't jump down my throat for stating the WTF obvious. Oh, an re your Argumentum ad Hominem note: A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate. Should you wish to split hairs, I will cede that there may be a more accurate label to the fallacious arguments I was referring to, but it would be mostly a semantic pursuit and a waste of my time. But it does make me just wonder though: What fallacious argument name would you call your "Kind of reminds me of this one troll who " end comment? Hmmm. Bronze Dog, do you seriously dispute the POV that key evidence evidence is conveniently missing? Would it not be therefore premature to arrive at any conclusion. I have no idea if it was a plane that hit the Pentagon. How could I unless I simply take as "faith" what these known liars and bastards are spoon feeding me. Who holds the title to the missing evidence? Not me. Don't jump down my throat for stating the WTF obvious. What evidence is there that there is missing evidence? There are at least two films of the plane hitting the pentagon that I know of, the one above and another stop-action one from a camera at a gate-post that was released. The fact that you'll even entertain a no-plane theory just shows what a crackpot you are. And it makes liars out of far more than just the Bush administration. It makes liars out of every single family member who had someone die on flight 77. It would require all those people to disappear somehow, and there was at least one prominent person on that plane who would have to disappear - Barbara Olson - that wouldn't be so easy. It would require that everybody who was on 395 that day, like Mike Walters who has that video above, into liars. None of them say it wasn't a plane. It would require that everybody who cleaned it up and picked up the wreckage were liars. It makes all the photos of the wreckage fakes. The only people who think a plane didn't hit the Pentagon are paranoid conspiracy theorists who think that Bush is some kind of omniscient and omnipotent deity, capable of making literally thousands of people lie, simultaneously, starting within hours of this event. That's why I say to believe in the possibility of something so outlandish, and so impossible doesn't require an open mind, but a broken mind. Beautiful motherhood statement. Love the off-handed way that you apparently dismiss my single solitary argument without addressing it. That's looks suspiciously like the "woo" behaviour described above. Diverge away from the real argument. (Yes, I recognize that was probably just an error of the moment on your part, but you must admit, awfully ironic!) Let me get this straight: I call you out on avoiding the issue, and now I'm avoiding the issue because of that? The only argument I have presented: Where are the videos? Why are they not released? That's it. Lets deal with this emotionally charged event one issue at a time. See MarkH. Note: I *did not* say that the Bush administration is complicit in the planning of this terrible crime. I did not say anything about "hushaboom and orbital R9 wave cannons" whatever the frick they are), or "holographic planes", (etc, etc, etc) that your delicious imagination conjured up from some dark needy psychological place. I have read your thoughtful posts over quite some time, and generally believe you to be better than that. Stop it. It makes you look bad. Oh, pardon me if all the twoofers I've encountered before are delusions. Why don't you try researching the people making the same claims you are. Perhaps you need to come out and tell us what your hypothesis is so that we can differentiate you from all the other twoofers we've had the displeasure of debating. I *am saying* that opportunistic politicians seem to have done every possible thing they can to lie and spin this grievous incident to best suit their purposes. You won't get any disagreement on that point. I *am saying* that they have lied, lied, lied, and lied some more (go ahead, ask me for links and show your ignorance to the world). Now I know you aren't bothering to actually read anything I type: Me: 3. It's gotten pretty well to the point that I presume Bush lies or obfuscates by default. That's why I prefer to get information from scientists, engineers, and so forth who will actually make logical, verifiable claims according to the scientific method. Going back to you: I am saying that these lies, half-truths and diversions have opened up or left far too many questions unsatisfactorily answered. I *am saying* something is indeed rotten in this here state of Denmark. When you find something solid, report it. Don't engage in false puffery like Bush does. Consequently, I contend this is a valid line of questioning. If you wish to call this question / concern "the-stuff-of-woo", well, that's your choice. I just suspect that you may be in the habit of treating all questions 9/11 in too default of a way. Try raising actual, relevant questions. Bronze Dog, do you seriously dispute the POV that key evidence evidence is conveniently missing? Would it not be therefore premature to arrive at any conclusion. I have no idea if it was a plane that hit the Pentagon. How could I unless I simply take as "faith" what these known liars and bastards are spoon feeding me. All the pictures of debris point to a plane. The only other explanations grossly violate Occam's Razor and posit absurdly high numbers of people who are both inhumanly dishonest and inhumanly competent. Some even invoke entities that can only be described as supernatural. And right here, you're engaging in the ad homenim/poisoning the well fallacy: If it's even tangentally related to Bush, it's wrong. Oh, an re your Argumentum ad Hominem note: A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate. Penalty point for missing out on that key part I put in bold. I base my argument on the overwhelming flow of fallacies and inconsistency I've observed in twoofers. Fallacies and inconsistency are relevant. But it does make me just wonder though: What fallacious argument name would you call your "Kind of reminds me of this one troll who " end comment? Hmmm. 1. It's an amusing aside that doesn't have direct relevance. 2. I was shifting down to analogical thinking in hopes that you would realize that you're doing the exact same fallacies. It's a demonstration of principle: You don't talk about anything relevant. Show me something that proves a missile, the passengers being whisked away to Neverland, or whatever (probably insane) twoofer hypothesis you subscribe to. Until you can come up with something more than an ad homenim/poisoning the well argument saying that Bush can't be trusted (which merits a "well, duh" from me), I don't see any reason to trust you any more than those crazy alties who say "You're all Big Pharma shills therefore acupuncture works." Bottom line: Get to the evidence, not irrelevancies like the people making the arguments. Egads - quit reading your personal bias into 9/11 related posts!! It makes you look, well frickin' biased! Very, very woo-like even. There are at least two films of the plane hitting the pentagon that I know of, the one above and another stop-action one from a camera at a gate-post that was released. Two films - don't you mean a couple of grainy frames of two distant cameras that most certainly do not show a plane! Review them if you must. Put them onto your web if you must. Show me a plane! Circle it for me. Confirm the source (5 years after before this vid surfaces!). Thanks. I'd appreciate that, 'cause me and all me'buds, none of us can see it. Maybe we need glasses. (oh yes, I fully expect that you will trot out a myriad of excuses for why we can't see it. Hey, knock yourself out, but the fact remains arguably the most protected building on earth, and this; a few grainy clips! But hey, if that's good enough for you, who am I to say otherwise. I just repeat my offer about "quality investments" I can offer you, so call me kaye). The fact that you'll even entertain a no-plane theory just shows what a crackpot you are. And it makes liars out of far more than just the Bush administration. It makes liars out of every single family member who had someone die on flight 77. Un-frickin-believable. Did I just catch you crying me a river? Ohhh, (real families' sympathies aside), that's rich. That is what you are basing your objection on. Get serious! And when did I say anything about a "no-plane theory". Again. Quit reading your personal bias into people's posts. I am simply saying that available evidence is missing. I question why, that's all. But let's take a wee look at your post, shall we. Your most daft of arguments is like a fundie saying: The fact that you'll even entertain a no-God theory just shows what a crackpot you are. And it makes liars out of far more than just the Catholic administration. It makes liars out of every single family member who had someone die live.evar. Yea - like this is indeed weighty evidence. What a crock of steaming poo. I'm certainly not calling these people liars (as if that could be an argument or defense!). Their POV, as empathetic as I may be toward it, has nothing to do with the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand. Your approach says nothing about an evidence based, rational "fair and/or balanced" objective conclusion. Can I be any more politely condemning than that! The only people who think a plane didn't hit the Pentagon are paranoid conspiracy theorists So, you ol' softie you, what say you to the the many, many, many victims families who are asking these exact same questions - or does your special form of denialist apologetics end at the same place where your specific faith-based imagination ends? You seriously need to review your rationale for how you make decisions laddy. Bronze Dog: When you find something solid, report it. Don't engage in false puffery like Bush does. Okay. This is solid. The government is withholding information. There are more camera angles. There is far too much secrecy about this one event (and I do think that that is pretty much what I have been saying! Why do you argue this point?). What lies behind that secrecy? All the pictures of debris point to a plane. We agree on this point then. It is was some aircraft or another. Indeed, I wish that I knew for a fact that it was a the 767 in question. I am really only saying that there is too much secreted evidence. Far too much of it! For this reason, I think it reasonable to properly, objectively, and in a non-partisan manner call for full release of this evidence, or a formal investigation into this matter. I do believe that that is all that I have been saying. There are too many missing pieces. The current administration has proven to be untrustworthy in presenting this information to the public. Show me something that proves a missile, the passengers being whisked away to Neverland, or whatever (probably insane) twoofer hypothesis you subscribe to. Again, quit that. And stop beating you wife. (neither of us have said that we do these things, so why do you repeatedly accuse me of them. Bad dog.) Until you can come up with something more than an ad homenim/poisoning the well argument saying that Bush can't be trusted But that's just the point. It *is* about the proven lies and continuing deceptions of this current administration. They have long ago escaped the lease of credulity. I acknowledge your similar concerns. That is why I have a great big WTF rolling about in my mind as to why you become so vitriolic about any mention of 9/11 - even when there are, what I would think, are rational and logical concerns and comments. And for you, I suggest your own reality check. Do you have to call *all* those who question anywhere remotely close to a topic related to 9/11 "woo"? Tsk. Tsk. Most demeaning. If you read back your posts, you will generally see that "it appears" that you seek to close down argument out-of-hand, and in such a manner that it is both unpatriotic and insane to question authority. Shame on you. And yes, I admit that I am not without guilt in committing the reverse error of over-estimating the lengths of your perceived political affiliation and related apologetics. I do acknowledge otherwise. --- It should not be such a tribulation to speak out with such questions. One should not, by default, be held to such condemnation and ridicule for doing so. That POV/strategy does no one, least the country, any good. So back to the original premise of this post: Why not let some objective, outside government documentary film-maker have "full-access" to make a documentary (even a Michael Moore). Why not? At the current rate, the government is not about to do it. Should the people be seeking more "reliable answers" (even if they end up to be the same as offered)? Why on earth would you object to thatexcept as potential-woo-reflex. Well stop that! There are legitimate questions that should be addressed. What say you? Should the government be held to account or not? (and quit shooting the messenger!) "Surprising that not one of the thousands required has felt remorse." Come on now! Step 1 - organize the lackeys. Step 2 - lackeys do their work. Step 3 - lackeys assemble at the remote island HQ to get paid. Step 4 - monkeys with lasers kill the lackeys (and sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads kill those who make it to the water). And by the by, Ted's comments above (3rd post) are in the same vein, just not as specific as I make: There's nothing particularly off in the paragraphs you cited -- except that he wants a closer examination of the seminal events that led us TO LOSE OUR F*CKING MINDS, open the treasury wide for sacking by political cronies, and uh, cause about 3M people to be displaced and another 500K to be killed. Democracy being what it is, we ALL think we're f*cking important enough to know the gory details. Like me, he *is not* saying that is was an intergalactic war or such tripe that was the cause / effect of the Pentagon. But he still sided for an investigation. Like, how woo is that! Sick 'em Bronzy! Attack. That would be likewise fair, don't you think? Look, face it, sometimes your science-machismo, unchecked, can make you a tad too sensitive (especially about all this 9/11 BS). It I don't think it becomes you. There is a "balanced" approach, a middle road. I suggest that you may need either a flashlight or an occasional whack upside the head. But climb back up to the road better travelled. Find that "balanced" path, because, quite frankly, life isn't always fair. We don't sick Ted because we know he's not a crackpot. It also ain't easy being Ted. Indeed, I wish that I knew for a fact that it was a the 767 in question. This is the kind of idiocy that Ted would not say. I'm pretty sure Ted was saying he wants to see an investigation mainly to see how Bush & Co. covered their asses and then abused it for political ends. Not to figure out whether or not it really was planes hitting buildings. Am I right Ted? Consistently you've been playing in this vague middle ground. You won't admit to being a no-planer, while harping on the usual "Bush lies" stuff that we all agree upon, to suggest that maybe something truly outlandish happened. Extra angles will do nothing to change the facts. Extra film will do nothing to change the facts. Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, the people on that plane are dead, their families know it, and the people on 395 saw it. Debris was collected from the field (I've actually seen troofers suggest it was a "debris-carrying missile") consistent with a plane crash and the attack was consistent with those on the towers and the downed flight in Pennsylvania. So, you ol' softie you, what say you to the the many, many, many victims families who are asking these exact same questions - or does your special form of denialist apologetics end at the same place where your specific faith-based imagination ends? I didn't cite the families for sympathy, if I was going for the attack on families routine I certainly wouldn't leave out the 140 or so people who died in the Naval Command center that was ground zero for the attack. I cited the families as evidence. About 70 people died on that plane. 70 families who knew their family members were on that flight and now are no longer with us. Barbara Olson apparently called her husband from the plane (although the troofers suggest this is not possible - making Ted Olson a liar now - e may be a prick but he isn't a liar). Are all these people lying about the disappearance of their family members? Or their being on that flight? They may be asking for investigations into the government's response on 9/11, but they're not questioning whether or not their family members have been disappeared as some sort of false flag black ops. And for you, I suggest your own reality check. Do you have to call *all* those who question anywhere remotely close to a topic related to 9/11 "woo"? Tsk. Tsk. Most demeaning. If you read back your posts, you will generally see that "it appears" that you seek to close down argument out-of-hand, and in such a manner that it is both unpatriotic and insane to question authority. Shame on you. I close down arguments that are stupid out of hand. It's not about respect for authority, it's about respect for reason. Recognizing denialist tactics is a shorthand, a bullshit detector. Conspiracy theories about cruise missles or "no-plane" explanations are nuts, and don't deserve to be entertained. Ted had a perfectly reasonable approach to asking for more investigation, that did not suggest, as Moore did, that Flight 77 didn't hit the building. That's where I get pissed, that's where I shut down the conversation. It's not a conversation worthy of being entertained. If anything, I have a left-wing bias, and I dislike the troofers because they are a thorn in the side of progressive politics. They are nothing but ammunition for Bill O'Reilly, and Michelle Malkin. I find them creepy, and often hateful. Try wading through their sites sometime as they call everyone and their mother a liar, while expounding endlessly on their superiority to everyone else (even other troofers - their fights are hysterical). If Moore becomes one of them, it will be an incredible blow to liberalism, not the Bush administration. Skipping over tsk_tsk's latest comments, since he spent the first few posts dodging and obfuscating the issue, and probably didn't stop, choosing to continue on the irrelevant and obvious "don't trust Bush" angle. I haven't committed to a political label, but I'm probably pretty far left of center. I voted against Bush at every opportunity, including against his former Lt. Governor most recently. Living in Texas, however, tends to reduce my effect, and the latter looks like a genuine case of a third party (Kinky) splitting the vote. (If anyone with relevant knowledge has evidence/arguments to the contrary, be sure to tell me). The point I've been trying to drill in is that "trusting Bush" isn't anywhere in my thought process. It's roughly equivalent to believing Hitler when he says "water is wet" after hydrologists, chemists, etcetera, from all over the world agree that water is wet and display the math they did to calculate the expected conclusion, as well as showing the absurdities and lack of evidence for the countless "water is dry" "water is burning" "water is always solid" and "water is always gaseous" hypotheses floating about and always growing in number. Hitler and Bush are irrelevant to the process. Bush is an opportunistic, deceptive bastard, but the one thing I'll never accuse him of is being competent enough to pull off the massive conspiracies required for a 9/11 inside job. The only human I would think capable of that exists in Marvel Comics. It also ain't easy being Ted. .... This is the kind of idiocy that Ted would not say. I'm pretty sure Ted was saying he wants to see an investigation mainly to see how Bush & Co. covered their asses and then abused it for political ends. Not to figure out whether or not it really was planes hitting buildings. Am I right Ted? Don't give me too much credit man! But in this case you're right. I have a friend that was in the Pentagon, and I believe him if no one else. But MM does a great job of following things around to places that aren't that obvious and making connections. All his movies lead to conspiracies in some way, so him asking about the 100 cameras was fine by me. It might not show much, but given the choice of believing GW or MM, I'd choose Moore. Given the choice of trusting WSJ or Moore, I choose Moore. Given the choice of ScienceBloggers or Moore, I choose Moore. (Because for a fat, college dropout he's way more successful in money and influence than your average ScienceBlogger and I knows that's got to be eating some people up.) I like the guy because even when he finds a Cletus or two, and puts them on the screen, he's gives them a humanity that just makes them look humanly flawed; he doesn't ridicule the pore, the working class, the uneducated and so on, but gives us a glimpse that simplemindedness doesn't live too far away. Maybe next door even. And gives the impression that those people are such because of our neglect. In that way, he's waaay better than Borat or others that ridicule the unknowing. Even if he makes the troofer movie, I'll go see it because it will be entertaining, provocative, and it will annoy people. And just because he does a stupid thing or two, it won't erase the good stuff he's done. It doesn't have to be a monolithic, all or nothing thing. MarkH: I get it. You believe the official story. You see no inconsistencies. You hear no inconsistencies. You speak of no inconsistencies. That's, uhhhm, interesting. ---- As for me, the beauty of being a sceptic is that I never have to believe anything without a body of consistent evidence. Admittedly, I was not on the 9/11 scene, nor am I privy to the volumes of evidence except that scant stuff that is publicly available. In my private final analysis, given that I have not made it my life to study this issue, I still have too many questions. I have never seen plausible answers to them. So, I could not say for certain what the events truly were. I propose no conspiracy theories as I am not in a position to do so. That would indeed be "woo" however, the very right "to question" should not be perceived as such. So I will repeat again, yes "Indeed, I wish that I knew for a fact that it was the 767 in question" (note the repeated boldfaced emphasis!). Sadly, what I see as questionable, incomplete and inconsistent evidence, and a healthy strong historically-based suspect of the motive of the people whom present that evidence, I am not yet ready to close the book on whatever the truth may be in this case. You appear to be telling us that on this same set of evidence, and knowing full well its "special errors and omissions", you seem to have built an impeachable case in your tight little mind. Hey, that's okay with me. Still though, we might talk about some future investments, kaye. I close down arguments that are stupid out of hand. It's not about respect for authority, it's about respect for reason. Recognizing denialist tactics is a shorthand, a bullshit detector. Conspiracy theories about cruise missles or "no-plane" explanations are nuts, and don't deserve to be entertained. Wow, again with putting words in my mouth that I would not speak. For shame. My rebuttal posts primarily serve to correct the record of things mis-attributed to me (like this!). I have been consistent in my claims, and have been given no reasons by you or your Bronze Dog to change from the assertion that there should be more investigation into the source / consequences of this tragedy. I would repeat my claims yet again, but I fear that it would again bounce off your deaf ears (as evidenced by my repeated assertions that I have made no claims about cruise missiles, little green men or whatever, but that you keep asserting that I do and have tsk tsk). So you might be better to close down the comments. From my reality-based position, you are just digging yourself a new one with each of your post anyway. Thanks for the paper. Oh, I just don't know when to leave well enough alone: MarkH said: Consistently you've been playing in this vague middle ground. You won't admit to being a no-planer, while harping on the usual "Bush lies" stuff that we all agree upon, to suggest that maybe something truly outlandish happened. Krist lad, something truly outlandish *did* happen. Are you that daft? And as for being a "no-planer", I tire at your repeated aspersions against my character but if that's what you need to believe in your Mayberry fairytale, then knock yourself out. And I chew the heads off newborn kittens too. If the U.S. gov't carried off 9/11 and used hidden detonators and cruise missiles to do it, why bother PRETENDING to have been struck by airplanes? Why not use the exact same hidden detonators and cruise missiles and have their cover story be "we were attacked by Muslims using hidden detonators and cruise missiles"? Indeed, why rig the twin towers with controlled-demo detonators and then go through the extra steps of staging a plane collision when that is precisely the sort of thing that can cancel a controlled-demo? The airplane impact could very well have prematurely destroyed or disabled the bombs, and since EVERYBODY KNOWS airplane crashes into skyscrapers are utterly harmless and actually make you live longer and help cure plaque above the gumline, why, the entire rationale for our later war would be lost since nothing bad would have happened! The pentagon raises many questions but is the weakest link. How about traces of thermite/molten steel found in WTC rubble WEEKS after? Dozens of eyewitness accounts of explosions, many from people familiar w/demolitions remarking on the similarities. Listen to hero Rodriguez. Shanksville was OBVIOUSLY blown up, come on, debris field over EIGHT FRICKIN MILES!! Why did moron stay in that classroom 7 minutes, listening to the goat, and the school,(a previously announced public appearance) another 20 some....if his puppetmasters did not know he was in no danger. Put options, the Mineta Stone, Silverstein, dancing Israelis, PNAC's desire for a new Pearl Harbor, war games when the "system was blinking red, CIA created and runs Bin Laden, Phoenix memo, FBI rejecting Minnesota office request to nab Moussawi,destroying evidence at ground zero, hurredly shipping much of it to Asia for recycling, fighting against the creation of a commission, then when it is forced on them by families, who do they name to head it.....???...thats right, F'in Henry the war criminal Kissinger. Look into the background of that entire group, "Democrats" and others...especially Phillip Zelikow.....not one of them can be trusted, so many conflicts of interest.....can you say WHITEWASH? Why were towers being worked on both weekends previous to instasll "cable" and had to have power cut-off. Cable and electric are completely seperate...could it have been to nix the cameras....oh, and Bush's brother runs the company that did "security for both towers. That is not even close to all the questions we still need answered. Then...look at how that fateful day has been used by evil scum to start a second Crusades, torture, spy on innocent americans, invade innocent countries, ...now us citizens protesting the "war" can be arrested , called an enemy combatant, tossed in a deep, dark hole and never heard from again. They have laid the framework for facist totalitarianism......look up Presidential Directive 51...Blackwater has built the concentration camps, and they're coming for you By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 18 Jul 2007 #permalink ....spy on innocent americans... That's the giveaway. (It's hard to tell a well constructed parody or performance piece.) I was looking for the eventual over-the-top phrase, and there it is. ....spy on innocent americans... That's the giveaway. (It's hard to tell a well constructed parody or performance piece.) I was looking for the eventual over-the-top phrase, and there it is. He's probably referring to warrantless wiretapping, which doesn't say much beyond Bush being an opportunistic bastard. Anyway, here's something I found funny: Why were towers being worked on both weekends previous to instasll "cable" and had to have power cut-off. Cable and electric are completely seperate... Right. All it takes is a couple weekends to install enough charges to perform the biggest demolition ever while real demolitions experts have to take months. Even funnier is what I think he means by the last part: Does he think that they were installing cable television in the building, and if that is the case, you'd think wiring a giant building like that would require significantly more effort than a couple TVs in the typical residential area. As for all the eyewitness explosions, well, what do you expect? Of course, chances are he's quote mining and creatively redefining explosions as requiring explosives. As for the whole conspiracy theory: If it's too entangled and unbelievable for a special effects-laden Hollywood spectacle where someone like me would deliberately try to suspend disbelief and fail, then pardon me if I have a hard time buying its plausibility in the real world over a much simpler approach. He's probably referring to warrantless wiretapping, which doesn't say much beyond Bush being an opportunistic bastard. Nah, I effed up. I was intending to italicize innocent americans. As if there's such a thing. It's like bigfoot; an outrageous myth. No such thing because in this country, more than any other, the citizens are responsible for the actions of the government. We wallow in that premise like pigs in a sty, until the day that someone punches us square in the face. Then suddenly, we're all surprised like, "Hey, what you wailing on me for? I'm an innocent civilan. You cowardly bastard. Why don't you pick on the military. I'm not responsible for what the government does. It's THEM that you got the beef with." Just got to make up their freaking mind. Either, 1. We got liberty, representation, justice, prosperity = we've got responsibilities that need our attention, or 2. We got liberty, representation, justice and prosperity in name only, while some cabal of special interests runs the country because we're too stupid to decide ourselves, and if that's the case why is anyone surprised that "the cabal" is snooping on you? The important point here is that for all the suspicion, calls for "more data" and complaints about inconsistencies, no 9/11 conspiracy theorist has managed to come up with a story that makes any sense at all. Aside from abuses of physics and math, we just get a vague "this looks bad so you fill in the blank with the nuttiest story you can find" sort of look rather than an explanation of what all of their data means. Matt Taibbi has a great piece lampooning the fact that when somebody finally does try to describe what they really think happened, it ends up being a lot less sensible than the official version. By Troublesome Frog (not verified) on 18 Jul 2007 #permalink And revisiting the Stallone/Fudd school of learning everything from tv, we have the above argument that the 757 should have cut a perfectly plane-shaped hole, complete with wings, into the Pentagon. Because airplane wings, being hollow aluminum stuffed with jet fuel, are much more dense and durable than solid concrete. here's the giveaway....I count 18 specific questions/anomalies that should scream for further investigations....what is the response? Ignore the vast majority, pick one u can think up what u find to be a witty put down....ok, here's some parody...TFrog finds it more sensible that 19 muslims directed from a cave on the other side of the world orchestrated this, cant even lampoon the idiocy. And dear sweet teddie calls me a cowardly bastard because .....i dont think our Gestapo should use trillion dollar tools at NSA to do anything they want. Thats the point....we have no idea who they are evesdropping on. But as i am in the street with my comrades fighting the truth fight every weekend(almost) confronting politicians, cops and morons like this abysmal group of wanna be nazis....i think cowardly bastard would better suit those who are so afraid of the truth they cling to fairy tales, refuse to research any of the hundred clues that point to an inside job......hey dude, just stay on ur couch, caress ur play station.......u have made ur choice, the pill that lets u live dumb and happy in the matrix.......mmmmmmmmmmmm, that's some good steak By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 19 Jul 2007 #permalink 18 anomalies? Perhaps you'd better research the skeptical responses. But you won't. And even if one of the anti-conspiracy specialist skeptics shows up and debunks it, you'll just go on ignoring the very mundane explanation and bring it up whenever it suits you after changing the topic. Sorry if my pattern recognition skills keep picking up on the insipid uniformity of woo. Oh, and nice bit of racism. You do realize that some people over there are from wealthy families and have good college educations, right? Hate to break it to you, but America has flaws that can be exploited. We aren't magically superior to other human beings. They're just as capable of being clever as we are. We just tend to have more and bigger toys and complacency than they do. B.Dog, whats up w/the ad hominem baby? And all the personal attacks?? All the desperate flailings of one who cannot confront the facts. You want me to "research the skeptical responses"? I've been active spreading the truth since 2003....believe me , i have heard it and read it all....Popular Mechanics, the NIST report, assorted disinfo agents on line.....blue pill eaters like the bunch on this site......believe this: someone really interested in facts is not afraid to research a topic even if a possible outcome may demand him to become a agent of change, possibly disturbing his soooooo comfortable existence You are alone. Do it. Actually try to answer some of my many queries, research with an open mind, i wont tell the fuhrer.....we got enough red pills for the lot of you. Evil will lose By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 19 Jul 2007 #permalink Johnny says "I will not tell the fuhrer": of course not, you don't need to, because in Troofer conspiracy-land, he already sees all and knows all. I've never seen more devout wide-eyed Bush/Cheney worship than amongst these 9/11 ghouls. To them, there is literally nothing that Bush/Cheney cannot do. The every whim of the neocons becomes absolute and flawless reality, they can literally do anything, no matter how improbable, pointlessly redundant, or physically / aerodynamically impossible. I'm still waiting for any of these crackpot ghouls to explain why hollow aluminum airfoils stuffed with jet fuel should have been more durable than the solid concrete Pentagon. It defies the Die Hard school of physical avionics as taught by Professor McClane, so they can't wrap their minds around it. In other news, the moon landing was staged because EVERYBODY KNOWS the stars should have been clearer in the background, and look just like they did in ROTJ. TTT: Okay mighty aphrotiTTTies, let's see what your made of. For the fun of it, why don't you actually help Johnny Ox with recent astronomical proof about the moon landing not being a hoax. I mean, Look at the wonderful and detailed mars rover pictures that we have seen from the orbiting craft around Mars. So, if you are serious about helping people instead of just trash-talking, then surely you must be able to point to some pictures taken of the moon surface from an orbiting craft (or possible the Hubble?) showing similar evidence of Man's tracks and encounters with the moon. I'm sure that that would help him and a number of others out. So are you all talk, and no show. Come on, I dare you to help him out. Or will you come up with some lame excuse for not helping out your fellow man? Or maybe you just think it much more fun to criticize? - Again, I repeat the challenge, what are you made out of TTT? Do you have any true character? Compassion. Empathy for your fellow man? You should be able to do this in your sleep. Counting ... Uhhhhm what? Now what have we talked about in terms of "reading between the lines". Sometimes things are exactly as they are presented (you're not using a wee bit of confirmation bias here are you?). How about altruism? Ever heard of it? How about helping people actually "help people" instead of sheer flame for the sake of flame? I kind of think that if TTT were to accomplish this task, then all would be the better for it, don't you? Got a better idea? Do you have a problem with that? Or maybe your sick-th sense can you determine that I'm really a card-carrying Trotskist, flaming homosexual, and an alien from this post too? If so, you are gooooood!, but don't quit your day job just yet. Tsk tsk. MarkH: So gumby, its your blog. Do you have a better idea? Or are you quite content to sit back and have your two or three sycophants trash *everything* that anybody else says. What are you made of? Have you never read even any Aesop's fables, the Golden Rule, or maybe even an undergraduate ethics textbook? Do you think that you are even a wee bit altruistic. Of do you not suffer ignorance at all? Or maybe you consider this blog as your personal "fish-in-a-barrel" theme park. If so, for shame. If not, "what are you made of": Crass criticism, or a bit of humility for the unashamedly ignorant? I'd actually like to know? MarkH: Gawwwd *head between hands*! I am still shaking my head in disbelief at your apparent inability to learn through experience. Oh my, Tsk, are you a moon-landing conspiracy crank too?This is just too funny. Imagine my surprise! Here, I thought that that was an excellent way to answer the conspiracy theorists once and for all. That would be an excellent thing to do. Win/win. But, apparently you are not able to distinguish reality from your firmly held beliefs (and how is that different that the "troofers" again"?). Instead, you have elected to ***YET AGAIN*** accuse me of something that I am clearly not. Cripes. What a maroon! And again, just for emphasis Pathetic. Really. Pathetic. Let me repeat an adage from Aristotle: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. You got a problem with that, take it up with him. Sorry Tsk, I did ask it as a question, but for a minute there I thought you were demonstrating a broader range of crankery than I expected. So you only have a hole in your head with regard to 9/11 then? MarkH: Half an apology accepted. I'll work on the other half valiantly (you still have some serious 'splainin' to do Lucy!). Bronze Dawwg: *snerk*Someone here needs a lesson from Phil Plait. The point is (knowing your special disabilities, allow me to spell it out clearer for you ), the point is, I expect that most Moon Landing conspiracists would have seen that and all the other normally trotted out words / denials. Try something *new*. Show them some pictures taken from satellites (either in earth orbit, of that are orbiting the moonif any?? I know that Japanese have, alas, postponed their orbiter till Sept I think (yet again). What say you? Do you know of any? You could make the world a better place ... Work on with big TTT why don't you (or are you yet another all talk, no show yahoo?). I'm having difficulty figuring out what you're saying with the devolving grammar and spelling. I have to prove the moon-landing occurred now why? You're rapidly approaching trolldom by the way, and it's mostly just tiresome. You dance away from any substantial criticism of your positions, and instead call my other commenters sycophants. Barring actual substantive contribution disemvoweling isn't far off. Just an early warning. MarkH: RTFLOL Barring actual substantive contribution disemvoweling isn't far off. So, you're accusing me of bad grammar and spelling, so your solution is to remove all my vowels! hahaha. Thanks, I needed that. Alas, I do think it is yet another post of the pot calling the kettle black (and that is what I have been saying all along - shame you don't see it). About trolling though, don't worry, I have come to the conclusion that your site and its choirboys are mostly a disappointing waste of time. I rather doubt I shall be back (except maybe to check for an updated apology for wrongful accusation by you and, well, that "half-handful" of wanna-bees). I had hoped for a reasoned discussion of topics without attack-dog ideological jousting. Guess that I was expecting too much (Go ahead, try reading my posts above in unison / isolation and see what I mean but like your twoofer prey, I know that you will do no such thing. Hmmmph.). For the record, there is only this post, and one other that I have posted comments to on your web site. I will allow the evidence of the amazingly uber-critical, screed to what began as a reasoned, but alternate point of view to speak for itself. Other people can call it for what they will. Tsk tsk. (but still looking for PROVE IT apologies from you and your peeing mutt though but I won't hold out hope). But I can pretty much guarantee the following: • No apologies will be forthcoming, • Neither TTT or the peeing dog will never produce things to help out Johnny Ox (because they find that ankle biting is much more fun and within their skill set), and • no matter what the evidence, like a true twoofer, your mind appears to be made up about my "beliefs". Apparently you know them better than me(maybe its more fun that way for you, I don't know), and lastly, • Unless you seriously start to moderate this unchecked screed / attack-posts, you web site will never, ever, ever have more than a handful of posts / views / hits and will oh so drown in its own special sea of mediocrity that it is. (FYI, from this, I know what of I speak!). But, seeing that you are a slow learner (or no-learner as it were), I expect that things will not change. And I will be all too happy to have no part of it. And thanks for all the fish. You see, that's what I mean by not having any substance. A contribution would be a statement of your position about the exact nature of the conspiracy surrounding 9/11, and substantive evidence that fits with all the data. See Carl Sagan's Baloney detector for help. This site is about showing people how to detect bullshit. It's not about spending hours and days proving the obvious to people. All we say is that when people use a certain set of arguments to advance a position, they're probably full of crap. It's bullshit detection. You say to us we have to prove the conspiracies are wrong, and you fundamentally just don't get it. Incredible claims require proof. I'm not making the incredible claims here. There are plenty of people who are into pedantic education on any of these topics, and there are those who routinely debunk these theories, they've been pointed out to you in these threads. I'll engage in basic debunking, but that's really not our point. Our goal is to point out that bad arguments usually rely on a consistent set of tactics to avoid accepting obvious facts. The presence of these tactics in a debate are signs that the debater is full of crap. Now remember, this thread started with a discussion of how Michael Moore appeared to be entertaining no-plane theories for the pentagon. What is the good evidence that this happened? Keep in mind there are credible eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit, people on that plane who are dead and gone, plane wreckage found on the site, and two videos at least showing that it happened. You continually assert you want to see more evidence. To prove what exactly? How would more angles change the prevailing theory? Do you really believe another angle will show it wasn't a plane? Was Barbara Olsen and several dozen other people loaded onto a cruise missile with plane parts and shot into the building? What's the point? You see, that's what I mean by not having any substance. A contribution would be a statement of your position about the exact nature of the conspiracy surrounding 9/11, and substantive evidence that fits with all the data. Reality is Conspiracy theories exist. Some are indeed real. Some are not. What someone believes to be real, others do not. But it is only through rational communication / analysis that they can be separated & sorted (now I know we both agree on this, so allow it to be the starting point). So, compassionate empathy should, at least initially, be the order of the day in communications. Not all people have the equal access to education / information so it stands to reason that there are differing points of view about pretty much everything (Ted has made similar remarks herein). I know you disagree with this, but that doesn't make it untrue: "most truth", the non a priori type, is indeed subjective and very, very relative. Sorry, but I find that a pretty much indisputable view of the world. A sense of duty is That said, I would hold that the biggest duty of someone whom has been fortunate enough to have been born into a position of privilege, that has the genetic benefit of being able to learn easily, and that has been lucky enough to develop the passion for education, for this person I would suggest that it would be their duty to lead people of differing viewpoints toward his/her own. I've always found employing the Socratic method works the best for me. A sense of humility Now given that this same educated person has *lived a little*, he/she should always understand they are neither immortal not infallible. Hence, once in a while, during openly encouraged conversation (i.e., two way, not one way!), every once in a while that person will discover that their own views have been in error. So enters the importance of humility. Regarding the nugget you seek Regarding 9/11, my views are exactly as I've said. I find huge inconsistencies and henceforth questions about numerous things *as presented*. Almost all could have been easily, and immediately dispensed with simply through public freedom and access to *all* information (but that has soooo not happened!). After all, it is the "people's" information. If this had been done in a timely fashion in the first place almost no conspiracy theories would have ever been created; or if they had, they would have been quickly and easily dispelled. As it is, too much of this information has been immediately classified. For what reason? I simply do not *know*. But I do believe that the people *are* the government. But collectively, they have abdicated their responsibility of holding to account those whom are voted in and those others that have been hired to discharge that responsibility. For shame. And the big answer that you are looking for is (drum roll please) yes, I ardently believe that when all information is finally released and analyzed, it will have an overwhelming probability of actually being as it has been explained (at least generally). But still it is right to question authority But, using Cartesian reductionism, I am still holding final judgement on the who, what, when, why, where and especially the how; I am reserving final judgement for that day. I believe that it is both my right, and that it is prudent. In the meantime, I will / should / must be! free to ask all those questions "why"; to entertain new ideas (no matter how absurd!). I feel confident in my mental acuity is able to fully immerse myself in any idea (running it up the flagpole, so to speak) knowing full well once sampled, rationally analyzed and "shared" in communication with like-minded others, then almost always I will naturally spit out the bad ideas and theories that have no merit. And I am generally left with a greater sense of the "truth". But I see no problem in entertaining almost any "reasonable" idea for a taste at least, to determine if it may have hidden merit. And I suggest the same rational approach to truly sample *new* ideas (Note, this does not say all ideas, or the same idea repeated, etc, etc, etc - choose wisely, but choose!). Sample without fear that these ideas will become you. Unless you wish them to, they won't! Be confident in your skills. My guess is that you will be absolutely fascinated with what you can learn that you did not know! And it just gets easier! But on its meaning to life, the universe and everything The consequences of this specific event (9/11), as tragic as it was, pale in comparison to the aftermath that has ensued not just of treasury and life, but of your very personal freedoms. You should be at least vaguely familiar with the loss of those otherwise inalienable rights in your own country, but try travelling the world as an American. That's reality for you. Right in the face! Unless you've done this, I doubt that you can understand the world view / climate that has been created on your behalf. My guess is that you will *never* be safe in most places in the world now, nor at any time in the rest of your young life. And call it conspiracy theory, or just bad luck, but I see these two things as very inter-related. You *do* have grave reason for concern. Whether you accept that or not, well that's up to you. --- Back to your post Our goal is to point out that bad arguments usually rely on a consistent set of tactics to avoid accepting obvious facts. The presence of these tactics in a debate are signs that the debater is full of crap. Hmm really. Then I suggest that you review and tactically educate some of my interlopers then. Their debate styles are truly abysmal - simply attack, attack attack. Maybe you think its not that way, but if you carefully read the posts of others, then you will see reality as quite different. I know that I certainly do. I could point out almost every rebuttal to my posts in the last two days as evidence of this (try and look at it objectively if you are able, which I must admit, I have a serious question as to both your integrity and your capability to do so. Sadly, that viewpoint has evolved from demonstrable history (and if you make me go there, I will, but I will be very, very dissappointed in your human nature / capacity for reason / objectivity, etc, etc, etc ) --- But back to your first paragraph, "A contribution would be a ": Let me say this: An additional contribution "could only" have been made by me if I wasn't so frickin' busy fending off flies on fire, rabid dogs and true ideologues. But such as it is ... --- So. Fair is fair. Why don't you give me you view on 9/11. Do you *not* see any concerns or inconsistencies, or (yes!! even ) conspiracies? Be warned: if you say "no" to all these, I will call you both a liar and a fool. "Hmm really. Then I suggest that you review and tactically educate some of my interlopers then. Their debate styles are truly abysmal - simply attack, attack attack." HAHAHAHAHA! That's tsk_tsk folks, he'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitress. MarkH: HAHAHAHAHA! That's tsk_tsk folks, he'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitress. Excellent case in point. As I was saying, some of your choirboys are in sorry need of a refresher course. Didn't you just say: Our goal is to point out that bad arguments usually rely on a consistent set of tactics to avoid accepting obvious facts. The presence of these tactics in a debate are signs that the debater is full of crap. So, could not not "point out a consistent set of tactics" employed here? And this is someone that could use some serious "disemvoweling". (sic) LOL But, I question whether you indeed are a person of your word & intent. Lets see how you handle this. (Oh, unless of course this is one of your "approved set of tactics"). So, could not not "point out a consistent set of tactics" employed here? Someone here isn't very self-aware. Hello-oh! Logical fallacies. Said Baloney Detection Kit. You raise as many red flags as Bill O'Reilly. Of course, since you're incapable of grasping a point or even the concept of relevance, you just interpret any pointing out of your fallacies as a personal attack, or you just ignore them and pretend that the insults are the bulk of our argument when they're just humor to keep us sane in a world full of insane people who'll buy into any fad. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Big Altie, psychics, astrology, Intelligent Design, Illuminati conspiracies or whatever. It's always the same. Try doing something unexpected once in a while, tsk. MarkH: And furthering that evidence of some of your choirboys (& I still think that sycophants might be a more apt description, cause like it or not, because you give these clowns cover, they seem to be mighty adoring of you), but furthering this, lets deal with the macho Mr. TTT and his post above: In doing so, I will also explain why I left one of your questions posed to me unanswered from this earlier post: Posted by: MarkH | July 19, 2007 11:19 PM, namely: I have to prove the moon-landing occurred now why? See, that's just the thing. MarkH, "You" don't. This is a task set out for the mighty Mr. TTT. I mean seriously, look at what this clown just did! Johnny Ox bared his obviously extremely altruistic sole (I bet you 30:1 that this guy actually DOES get out there and defend your freedom by going to the marches against the war, etc). The man sounds like he truly has a heart of gold. He actually "does stuff" and shows up at events that matter. Admirable indeed a soldier here at home. What can't you like about that? So, Johnny Ox is here for advice & genuine discussion. My guess is, & yes I am taking a lot for granted here, but my guess is that Johnny Ox would have no problem if he were proved wrong on any one of those 18 points. Not a one! But only if you did it with respect (you sure ain't gonn'a do it with vitriol and flame). It would only take a wee bit of empathy and time, and my guess is "Johnny Ox deserves at least that. But instead, Mr TTT does a cowardly hit and run (hey, I've had experience with that myself here!). Totally disses a genuine guy that probably has more real worth to society in his right arm than the crass Mr TTT and entire family's family. So, I have a little fun. Gently scold him, bait him, and try and hook him into doing a "pennance" so to speak (heh, that's my game, so sue me!). This is the same tactic I had just successfully used on your mini-me "Tyler DiPietro". With the same type of cajoling and challenging (less actually, smaller mind / less force, just like physics), I got your mimi-me to try and calculate the human resource logistics for the 9/11 conspiracy of which he seriously, and miserably failed at I might add, but heh, that was to be expected. Back to Mr TTT: he ended his caustic diatribe ("out of the blue", I might add!), but ended it with some amazing hit-piece about the moon landing. Truly despicable. Again, I ask you: "Is this part of your approved set of tactics in a debate? So, it was and still is my intention to see if TTT actually has any character whatsoever. We'll see. So Mr. TTT: Do you punk? My guess is "no" - that even if it only took this one thing - this single solitary thing - to help, like "anybody", would you do it? Would you spend a few minutes to get images from any orbiting satellite or telescope showing man's mark on the moon, would you do it? Could you do it? Do you even have the guts to try? Do you have the grey matter to get it done? Open challenge for you here Mr TTT. People are watching. Or are you going to wimp out? Personally, I would accept no answer / excuse that did not come with either pictures, or a sincere, truly heartfelt apology. Your choice big man. But my guess is you do not have the character to do this. Prove me wrong. --- MarkH: Its your web site. You want to build eyeballs two at a time. So treat the Johnny Ox's or the many others that have different skill sets than you, treat them better. If you don't, well, you leave your own mark in life for people to see. And now with the Internet, and your own web site, a lot of eyes can be directed your way with just a small amount of publicity. You decide the mark you are cast with. Quite frankly, it is looking pretty tarnished from my vantage point. But if this Johnny Ox ever comes back, he's a better man than I. Ahh, the trifecta is complete. See, now Bronze Dog (and I will use the name respectfully for this post), you should know better than that. You really should. I know that I've gotten under you skin in the last couple of days with my contemptuous scorn of you. You've certainly deserved it. But I'm guessing that you're probably not used to it. I'm sure that it didn't help that I have repeatedly pointed out your serious reading / comprehension problems, or your generally un-restrained talent for exaggerating my comments' intent to fit your deeply troubling psychological make-up, but in all honesty, I have expected more from you. Over the years, I have read occasional posts you have authored that made excellent sense. However, it appears that you are incapable of taking any of your own medicine. Even when it is so very, very warranted. You seem to take much greater offence to being the prey instead of the pursuer. That's a shame really. All that I can ask is that you review my posts and your rebuttals and do so recognizing that I too take great offence to being labelled as things of which I am not. But again and again you have accused me of those things. Overtly. Directly. Categorically even. And again and again I have slapped upside your head in the hopes that some sense would leak in. I have asked you for proof on both this post and this one, like how many times now? Easily half a dozen. Each time I have asked, I have been clear and specific about *what* to prove (falsehoods, plain and simple). The *why* has always been glaring and self evident. But still, none of my requests for (PROVE IT!) have got even one shadow of a response from you. Not a one. Maybe you just think you're better than that? Maybe you're lazy. Or maybe it is because there isn't any proof. I'll go with the latter. So, because of your constant, viaga-like attack mode, I can only conclude that I have either hurt your tender feelings and you simply can't forgive me, or you are an serial liar and dishonest to the core. (okay, there are other options, but I will leave that for you to offer what they might be) Either way, unless you can (PROVE IT!) on any of the assertions that you have made about my beliefs or character, or (PROVE IT!) to any of the other instances where you falsely claim that I have maligned you, unless you follow through with bona fide, unassailable proof of those stacking-up things, then I know you are just talking through your hat. And that is sad, cause I really did (and still do) expect more from you. --- MarkH: What was it you said about the purpose of this blog again? Oh yea: This site is about showing people how to detect bullshit. See what I was saying about truth being relative. Case in point. I detect some serious bullshit, and outside of stabbing it in the eye, I cannot demonstrate it any more clearly than this. Tsk tsk. Hey, Tskie? No one cares about your clownish self-mythologies of "altruism" and "defending freedom," especially not when you are so clearly a con artist. Despite your playgroundish whining, I will make no apologies for pointing out that it's frankly stupid to have expected that hollow aluminum airfoils stuffed with jet fuel should be denser and more durable than the solid concrete Pentagon. Anyone who ever believed anything that stupid should be GRATEFUL at having been corrected, assuming they have the intellectual honesty to admit the uselessness of their movie-instilled layman common sense. This is a point I have made at least 3 times and Tskie has always ignored, never even trying to explain it within the context of his conspiracy theory. Explaining anything doesn't seem to be in his grasp, so instead he goes more and more into histrionics of cartoonish martyrdom. MarkH: Wow, I mean I could not have possibly scripted these rebuttals any better to prove the points that I have just made. Even TTT comes sliding in with the the final self incriminating, and certifiably damning testimony written from his own blood-dripping hand. So, be happy that you are currently not widely read, because it would be a great obstacle to your otherwise looking glass belief that this blog could possibly be a beacon of reason for intellectualism / denialism. It appears that your reality-based, truth deciphering army of good missed some critical classroom days during basic training. And yes, great big "I told you so" regarding the ethics and character of TTT. And finally, MarkH, it is your web site. You might wonder why your hits are, well "missing". There are several reasons, but look no further than this one (amply demonstrated!) as the prime cause of you web site's floundering in the cesspool of mediocrity. Your sycophants are psychotic! MarkH; Consider it done. My pleasure actually. Tsk: Thank you for the kind words. I am a soldier for our species and our planet. Evolution is an ongoing process; we can and will progress(are progressing) past our purely animal stage that breeds rampant greed, fear, a desire to kill, subjugate and torture our brothers and rape/pollute/destroy our Mother Earth. As I just discovered this blog a few days ago I can only guess but feel certain the above sentiments will be roundly derided by most uber smart contributors. These bloviations will give me a good chuckle. There is literally a mountain of evidence suggesting 9/11 was an inside job and DEMANDING a real investigation. Whose job it is to prove what is the wrong attitude. Lets find the answers. Put people under oath. Make moron testify BY HIMSELF, not holding Daddy Dick's hand. We all must ask ourselves from time to time 2 questions. 1. What do I believe to be true? and more importantly, much harder to answer honestly 2. Why do I believe it? Why do we as a country have a Pavlonian response to the words "Socialism" and "Communism"? What are your "beliefs" about reincarnation? UFO's, JFK dreams, ESP/telepathy, precognition, out of body experiences. ok, whatever you answered, now......WHY I submit we often fall prey to (for lack of a better word) brainwashing. Also, our animal instincts urge us to attack any that stray from the group. This helped the Neanderthals to survive........I mean, uhmmm....well....its utility is antiquated. Now we must bravely risk the deadly school yard ridicule and seek answers all on our own for ourselves. The proof that the government is hiding many facts about 9/11 is a slam dunk, if you want to evolve just google one of the infamous "18 questions". Or look at the site "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, or Patriots Question 9/11 which has many "right wing" types, former military and Reagan, Bush1 era government folks telling why they question the official conspiracy theory. Remember how you felt when you found out Santa Claus wasn't real. Not a lot of fun, but you got past it. Peace my Brothers and Sisters By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 20 Jul 2007 #permalink Wow, there's so much crazy in that I'm almost automatically vindicated. UFOs? Precognition? But if people want to see the 18 questions or whatever debunked I can always recommend Screw Loose Change and Debunking 9/11. None of these claims bears up under any scrutiny and have been covered endlessly before. Ox's claim about the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is particularly hysterical. Every time they track down the qualifications of these guys it ends up being a A/C repairman and the guy in charge of it doesn't even get basic facts correct. Their list of architects and engineers is highly suspect and inflated, and is no different then those lists of scientists for creationism or ID that the DI puts out. Lots of people with English PhD's become scientists all of a sudden. Same thing here. Unimpressive. Markie Mark fun little slice o' the pie u got goin here. Does counter referring your own sites and films imply you have, for yourself, perused a modicum of pro-truth outlets and you are at least tangentialy familiar with topics raised in said "18"? Like, "Mineta Stone" for instance? or others that were not mentioned like the NORAD stand down (that may end up being the same thing as MinetaS), people warned not to fly that morning, the Bin Laden Clan whisked away through closed air space, When Rummy said of Shanksvile, "....when it was shot dow..when it was taken over ..."(prphrs), it really does just go on and on..... Please wake up people. Round up the guilty and hang em high......now that'd be some good reality tv watchin' Anyone reading this, an it just may be the 2 of us Mr. H., if you want to determine FOR YOURSELF who is more correct about the bona fides of Architectsand EngineersFor9/11Truth, just go there, its a click away. You decide, maybe let us know your opinion. By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 20 Jul 2007 #permalink Re: Rumsfeld and Shanksville and "shot down, or crashed".... Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot. He gave far worse explanations for why he disbanded the Iraqi army, sent too few troops to police the country, and did not secure the Al-Qaqaa munitions dump. And those were all ON VIDEO with contextual cross-examination and error-pointing possible to everybody with an Internet connection. Rumsfeld said and did dumb things all the time, just like every single other person in the Bush admin. So just him saying something self-contradictory and dumb is of no importance. And what do any of those things have to do with the idiotic idea of planned demolition? I don't need a list of A/C repair technicians to tell that conspiracy theory is pretty stupid. Dude, if you ever wanted to see just how stark the similarities are between 9/11 "Truthers" and creationists, just check out the website for the above mentioned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Right up at the top of the main page they're boasting the fact that they've gotten 127 "architectural and engineering professionals" and 195 "others" to join their cause. 127 PROFESSIONALS OMGWTFBBQIMGOINGTOCOMELOL!!! Maybe it's time for anti-conspiracists in this regard to form their own version of "Project Steve". Ok...mea culpa, Just went to re-check the bios of the 120 something Arcs/Engnrs. Turns out their user profiles were unable to display the fields for statements or bios. I'll give u a few a/c repair guys in there. See, thats admitting I don't have all the answers and can safely question my beliefs without a meltdown, its how grown ups find out about the world. The webdude is Richard Gage who just finished a 120 million dollar project. What a nutjob twoofer maroon, I bet he's also.........snert???....altruistic! BWAAAHHHHAAAA HA HA HA HA HA By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 20 Jul 2007 #permalink Oh, This Rummy classic is most def captured on video.....isn't the thing with Freudian Slips that they're expressions of truth? Oh and "Project Tyler", our cause is just and the truth WILL prevail, the damn is starting to give, you might wanna get outta the way darlin', its gonna get messy By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 20 Jul 2007 #permalink "Oh and "Project Tyler", our cause is just and the truth WILL prevail, the damn is starting to give, you might wanna get outta the way darlin', its gonna get messy" Oh please, the only mess truthers like yourself have ever known are the grease stains in your shirt from snack-pack overspill endured while reading conspiracy websites. I've scarcely seen a more pretentious lot. ...the damn is starting to give... Haven't they been saying that for years, now? I'm not seeing anything changing. Well, except the number of conspiracy hypotheses growing. You'd think that research would decrease the number of hypotheses for a particular question, like it does with science. How about this?: Start running through the list and figure out what it'd take to falsify each one. You can probably ask the Discovery Institute for help with that. Anyone reading this, an it just may be the 2 of us Mr. H., if you want to determine FOR YOURSELF who is more correct about the bona fides of Architectsand EngineersFor9/11Truth, just go there, its a click away. You decide, maybe let us know your opinion. Johnny Ox, I'm having a hard time placing your politics. Help a brother out here. Are you to the left of the mainstream, to the right, or does the whole continuum not quite fit and you're going off in the uncharted territory of Z coordinates. I'm not making fun of you by asking this question; I'm genuinely curious. Comrade Theodore, Labels are for losers. That whole paradigm is a crock. The two party scam is a cruel ruse used by our overlords to keep us clawing at each other's necks. Yes, I try to stick to the uncharted byways but not so much Z coordinates, more like an electron. Is he a particle ? A wave? both? neither? Usually i feel uncertainly complimentary, but don't tell my cat, he's trapped in a box. Don't u just love people who have the audacity to insult my beloved grease stains and in the same breath use words like "pretentious"....ur killin me over here project boy. For the last time, personal attacks only show u have no facts to add to the discussion. I know Mark has tried to teach u clowns something about effective debating, come on, please......go to one of the 18, do some research, come at me with facts. Its not MF'in rocket science. And BDog, I'm satisfied with the list. To me, if an air conditioner repair man can open his mind, conquer his fear and do some honest research, i'll be glad to give him a listen. He probably will not say, "Nya, nya...ur smelly and have cooties". Also there cannot be just one evil deed. It is a tapestry of treason we are uncovering here, so many aspects will be brought to light. Here's something to chew on. The entire "War on Terror" is a complete fabrication, brought to you just in time to save the Military Industrial Complex from the same fate as the Soviet Union. For anyone actually interested how where when and by whom this phony AlQueda stuff was conjured up and why you must read "The War on Truth" by Nafeez Ahmed. It is truly an awesome source. The guy is crazy for his footnotes, a real stickler for getting his story straight, triple referencing, etc. It will blow the top of your skull off, no bull. Also, the New York Times explains in open source archives how the FBI was complicit in the '93 WTC bombings. Good evening to all my new friends, pleasant dreams By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 20 Jul 2007 #permalink "For the last time, personal attacks only show u have no facts to add to the discussion. I know Mark has tried to teach u clowns something about effective debating..." I once again find myself wondering whether cranks were simply born without that part of your brain that detects irony. "Also, the New York Times explains in open source archives how the FBI was complicit in the '93 WTC bombings." No, they don't. They reported the claims of an agent who was involved in a sting operation at the time in an October 28, 1993 article to the effect that he was thwarted by FBI agents from stopping the attack. On the page for the story in their archives, it prints this later correction: "An article yesterday about accounts of a plot to build a bomb that was eventually exploded at the World Trade Center referred imprecisely in some copies to what Federal officials knew about the plan before the blast. Transcripts of tapes made secretly by an informant, Emad A. Salem, quote him as saying he warned the Government that a bomb was being built. But the transcripts do not make clear the extent to which the Federal authorities knew that the target was the World Trade Center." So as usual, "research" in the case of conspiracy theories involves little more than cherry picking to support one's preconceived notions. Also, regarding Nafeez Ahmed, I've never heard of him before today. But if this article is any indication of the quality of his work, you've vastly overstated it. The section on what he calls the "Incompetence Theory" used to explain intelligence failure involves him doing little more than handwaving it away, dismissing it as "speculation", and invoking the fallacy of the excluded middle. For example, you see assertions to the effect of "fragmentation of intelligence agencies can only obstruct efforts to develop cohesive worldviews, not defending against national security threats." Really, so objective prioritization plays no role here? How about complacency? How about a simple failure, which all intelligence agencies, even the best, experience from time to time? (a Foreign Affairs article he quote mines argues to the effect of the latter.) All this in an attempt to construct a "Bush knew and LIHOP" storyline. Not impressed. The difference between my use of "u clowns" and your sophmoric attempt of a cerebral barb is Mine was included in an informative, chock-full-a-new-facts, playful friendly missive Yours.....not so much Ye shall be known by the company kept "The difference between my use of "u clowns" and your sophmoric attempt of a cerebral barb" "is Mine was included in an informative, chock-full-a-new-facts, playful friendly missive" No, it was a long whine-and-bitch festival about personal attacks after you've spent this entire thread taunting other posters and calling them pet names. What you presented weren't "new facts", it was a shitload plucked from the laundry list of standard conspiracist claims. Oh yeah, and you plugged some author no one has ever heard of. I checked his work, and I wasn't impressed. If Mark would just approve my post you could see what I wrote. Honestly, has anyone, ever on this palnet cared wether you were impressed or not, even your Mommie? Hafeez Ahmed is world famous. His "War on Truth" is masterful in exposing how the CIA/ISI/mossad etc. created al queda and has fabricated the entire "war on terror". I reccomended him to you, TP, 13 hours ago. That one book is 459 pages. He has 2 more on similar topics, similar length, similarly foot-noted, and gobs of crisp, info laden articles all over the web. I glad you "checked his work". You must work for Popular Mechanics or NIST By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 21 Jul 2007 #permalink Shorter Johnny Ox: WHHHAAHHHHH!!! "You must work for Popular Mechanics or NIST" Translation: You've picked on a single author whose name I've dropped and whose work I'm referencing isn't available online, that must mean you work for either a respected engineering institution or publication. Your referencing that guy is a blatant argument from authority. He's "world famous", huh? Who the fuck cares? Does the fact that he wrote a book advocating a certain thesis automatically trump every other author not overrun with his apparent conspiracy paranoia? This is the typical truther bullshit: all your experts are bought off liars for the government, my experts are just awesome and speak trutherism to power. It's also one of those appeal to motive/shill ad homenims where they pretend that unestablished motives alter the laws of gravity, suddenly make it possible for thousands to work secretly in a more or less public place, or whatever. I suppose next he'll say the Steorn device works because some oil guy pointed out the violation of thermodynamics. No, see, that's the beauty of Ahmed's style, he's all about presenting the reader with amazing facts that he gets mostly from the mainstream media, then letting each person MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND, offering 70 pages of footnotes to help the curious research FOR HIMSELF. like from page 37...the key organizer of the 1993 WTC bombing plot was an Egyptian intelligence offficer, Emad Ali Salem, who was at that time a longstanding FBI informant... (CNN) or he quotes intelligence officials, (pg 31) Al-Qaeda, he reports, "was protected because the network was designed to serve US foreign policy and military interests." Ahmed is the Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development. He teaches International Relations at the University of Sussex. NIST has still not explained why building 7 "collapsed", even after Silverstein has proclaimed on video they decided to "pull" it. That Hearst rag Pop. Mech. is not a respected scientific journal BY ANY STRETCH. Their hatchet job is just silly. Neither had any desire to uncover facts that did not fit into their pre-conceived schemata, hence my thought that you might be their kinda guy. If you are having trouble finding Ahmed's work online, try one of these 2 new,small and obscure sites: Google is like a search engine, it'll help you find things. And Wikipedia is pretty cool also. Don't feel bad, lots of people don't know about them. We have truth on our side. It will win in the end. You cannot beat us, might as well join us. Plus you'll have more fun, be able to look at yourself in the mirror without that creepy feeling, and get more chicks....if you're into that. By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 21 Jul 2007 #permalink What a coincidence! Just after posting that I went over to 9/11blogger.com There you can find ean entry from Saturday about who else........Nafeez Ahmed. There is a link to a talk he gave called "Creating Terror". It's a video, it's free. Do yourself a favor and check it out. Or stick yor head in the sand, whatever works for you. By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 21 Jul 2007 #permalink "NIST has still not explained why building 7 "collapsed", even after Silverstein has proclaimed on video they decided to "pull" it." WTC 7 collapsed due to a 20 story hole in the SW corner of the building as well as fires. Firefighters knew beforehand that the building was going to collapse. Some details of it are ambiguous, but as usual the crank uses the 5% we don't know to amplify doubt and buttress their own conspiracy theories. Silvermen's order was to evacuate the building, since he knew, along with the firefighters, that it was going to collapse. "Pull it" is not a term used by demolition firms to indicate the destruction of a building with explosives. "That Hearst rag Pop. Mech. is not a respected scientific journal BY ANY STRETCH. Their hatchet job is just silly." Popular Mechanics isn't a refereed journals, but still a respectable popular publication (much like Scientific American). Your pointing out it's ownership by Hearst pubs. is a blatant attempt to poison the well. And BTW, care to provide with a few papers from refereed journals in relevant fields (e.g., structural engineering) that support the "controlled demolition" hypothesis? Didn't think so, but I guess you can safely dismiss them as being in on conspiracy as well. "We have truth on our side. It will win in the end. You cannot beat us, might as well join us. Plus you'll have more fun, be able to look at yourself in the mirror without that creepy feeling, and get more chicks....if you're into that." LOL. Delirious triumphalism mixed with blatant homophobia. I couldn't have asked for a better crank to argue against. BTW, "If you are having trouble finding Ahmed's work online, try one of these 2 new,small and obscure sites: Google is like a search engine, it'll help you find things. And Wikipedia is pretty cool also. Don't feel bad, lots of people don't know about them." I see you have some trouble with reading comprehension. What you are referencing is available in print and not in an online file-format. He has some articles online and, as my post above notes, I found my way to and read through some of them (wasn't impressed with what I saw). You've never actually had to do research, have you? Doesn't surprise me. "Silvermen's order was to evacuate the building, since he knew, along with the firefighters, that it was going to collapse." And to be clear, I mean "evacuate the firefighting personel". In other words, to "pull" them back due the fact that the structural integrity of the building was in serious question. Don't want to get accused of conflating, so preemptive strikes. Did you see the video? In it Silverstein, who made an obscene amount of money from the insurance says: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it'. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Another fun video is the one where the BBC chick tells about WTC building 7 having collapsed, while you can see it still standing in the feed behind her. I cant make this stuff up. So kids, lets review. The first time a steel skyscraper collapses from fire, ever....AND THREE DO ON THE SAME DAY....at free fall speed, neat as can be, right into their footprint, leaving traces of thermite/thermate and molten metal 3 weeks later. Just exactly how did these psychic firemen know the building was going to collapse? Was it all the other times in history they had seen it happen. Your very first attempt at reasoned debate,Tyler, tries to sneak in with your phrase, "some details of it are ambiguous" However gramatically cumbersome, your sentiments are appreciated. Heres the thing, if you allow the truth to seep in, nothing is ambiguous. Everything fits, makes sense and defies no law of physics or averages. The bastards have dumbed us down for so long, they thought they could get away with it. They will not. So you quote me saying NIST still has not "completed" its report on building 7, but just give your own report, of sorts. Any idea why it has taken NIST SIX FUCKING YEARS ??? Did you grow balls enough to watch Nafeez Ahmed's video? Any comment about the FBI being behind the '93 attacks? How could the "structural integrity" of the building be in "serious question"? photographic evidence shows small scattered fairly cool fires. Buildings have had much bigger and much hotter fires burn for very much longer. What is left is a burned out skeleton, still standing. Extra credit question: What did Cheney mean when he shouted at the inquiring underling who had been briefing him on the approach of a plane(its 50, 30 10 miles out, do the orders still stand) "Of course the orders still stand! Have you heard any different!?" Why wasn't moron whisked outta that elementary school immediately? I know your instinct is to ignore all questions that make that creepy feeling get stronger but if you give a good faith effort at these two....even knowing i will tear them to shreds, just give some response....i'll leave you alone....hell , you can even claim victory if it gives you a woodie....just address them oh sage....what do your expert debunkers tell you is the current official spin? By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 22 Jul 2007 #permalink "Did you see the video? In it Silverstein, who made an obscene amount of money from the insurance..." Lie, he didn't. You're quote doesn't prove he ordered the demolition of the building, it's just a restatement of your original (and false) claim. "So kids, lets review. The first time a steel skyscraper collapses from fire..." A highly misleading statement. It was also the first time a steel skyscraper has been hit intentionally with a commercial jetliner traveling at 500MPH, strange you don't mention this. You also omit the fact that the McCormick Center in Chicago as well as the Sight and Sound theatre in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures that collapsed due to fire, and other steel structures have partially collapsed due to fire as well. "Just exactly how did these psychic firemen know the building was going to collapse? Was it all the other times in history they had seen it happen." Strange, are you suggesting the firefighters were also in on the conspiracy? I've already shown that other steel structures have collapsed due to fire, and they didn't even have the added detriment of a 20 story gash located in one of their corners. Once again, you are omitting facts that do not support you preconceived notions. If you want to see what the firefighters knew, google the testimony of Richard Banaciski and Daniel Nigro, among others. "Any comment about the FBI being behind the '93 attacks?" If you'd bother to scroll up (speaking of "balls") you'd notice that I linked to the NYT archives where the issue a retraction. The story doesn't prove "complicity" in the attacks, no matter how much you want it to. And it doesn't connect with 9/11. If you think it does, show some proof. Idle speculation doesn't count. "How could the "structural integrity" of the building be in "serious question"? photographic evidence shows small scattered fairly cool fires." For someone who claims to be a truth seeker, you sure do lie a lot. Do these look "small and limited" to you? I'll take standard 9/11 denier claims for1000, Alex.

Silverstein signed the lease 3 months before the attack. He claimed to be owed 8 billion dollars. Bloomberg and friends have already collected donations to rebuild, wont cost Larry a penny. So, he has not collected, yet. Insurance companies are fighting it in court. Wouldn't you. Kinda like the husband who buys big policy on wife, 3 months later she's offed. Who's gonna be on the top of YOUR suspect list. But I must say tyler, your debating skills have improved enormously in a few days, congratulations.

McCormick Center was an exhibitian Hall. Covers a lot of ground, not real tall TDP, maybe 3-4 stories by looking at the pictures. And Sight and Sound what??...oh yeah, Theatre. Come on now buddy, your slipping back on me. We are discussing sky scrapers.

There is a ton of stuff out there(photos, video, eye-witness testimony) on the state of WTC pre demolition.
Very wide discrepencies. Lots of claims of photo-shopping.
I admit it is not my strong suit, so when a truther goes into a long winded "proof" that the pictures showing huge sections of "7" missing or towering infernos have been tampered with my bullshit dectector is hampered. The eye witnesses do not seem to verify either the "huge sections tore out by debris" or the "raging fire" scenerios.
But lets say WTC7 did in fact have a "20 story gash in one of [its] corners". Wouldn't it fall over to that side like every other structure ever has in this universe, this dimension. All the engineers, physicists and architects I have heard opine are in agreement.

Have you even watched the video of building seven? I'm talkin' symetrical baby! Woooossshhh....pretty as you please, SMACK-DAD EXACTLY INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT! When you find a professional Demolition Expert who says that does not look like a perfect job, that will be news. Many of them are on record saying it has ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS.

So, the NY Times retracted something. Irrelevant. Read the court transcripts (if you are afraid to read Ahmed)
It is a well established and voluminously documented fact that the FBI recuited the patsies, helped them assemble the bomb, knew exactly when and where it was to be detonated and let it go boom. People died. You say "it doesn't connect with 9/11". I have referenced all the proof one could dream of. Chapter one, "War On Truth" by Nafeez Ahmed. Meticulously documents through open source how it was decided in 1979 to start creating "terrorism" as the next boogie man. It is a lie that our intelligence did not forsee the collapse our "Cold War Enemy". The whole world saw it coming. By the early 90's, people were wondering how we would spend our "Peace Dividend". The Military Industrial Complex was shitting its pants. Voila'...the FBI blows up the World Trade Center and frames some raggedy assed muslims. And you don't see a connection.

Off to get arrested in Conyers'office. May not get to continue our chat for a few days,

PEACE

besides 9/11 truth I'm working for impeachment and the destruction of all thats electronic in our voting process. Demand HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS, HCPB's Democracy's only chance at survival.

By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 23 Jul 2007 #permalink

"Silverstein signed the lease 3 months before the attack. He claimed to be owed 8 billion dollars. Bloomberg and friends have already collected donations to rebuild, wont cost Larry a penny."

Nice backpedal. Need I remind you of your original claim?

"Did you see the video? In it Silverstein, who made an obscene amount of money from the insurance..."

He hasn't made "an obscene amount of money" from the insurance plan he signed. You're also ignoring the \$120 million he has to pay out for each month of the lease, as well as the legal fees associated with fighting the isurance companies in court. It's just a bullshit story, plain and simple.

"Come on now buddy, your slipping back on me. We are discussing sky scrapers."

Red herring. The point is that steel structures (even ones that haven't been nailed by commercial jetliners traveling at 500MPH) haave collapsed due to fire. Why does the fact that it is a skyscraper make any significant difference in that regard. If anything, it indicates the opposite, as a skyscraper has to support more vertical weight.

"Very wide discrepencies. Lots of claims of photo-shopping."

From whom, conspiracy theorists? It's a case of differing angles, and the conspiracists are cherry-picking those photos that they think demonstrate that the fires were "small and limited". And BTW, there's also video available which shows just how extensive the fires were a WTC7 (speaking of cherry picking).

"But lets say WTC7 did in fact have a "20 story gash in one of [its] corners". Wouldn't it fall over to that side like every other structure ever has in this universe, this dimension. All the engineers, physicists and architects I have heard opine are in agreement."

For a building to collapse onto it's side, it has to acquire angular momentum, and can't do so unless it pivots around it's base for a sustained amount of time. It was a combination of the downward force of the collapse and the fact that buildings are usually around 90% air/open space (i.e., not enough resistance to pivot and acquire angular momentum), that it failed to fall sideways. If a engineer, physicist, or architect disagrees, cite them. Here's the department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT as my source.

"Have you even watched the video of building seven? I'm talkin' symetrical baby! Woooossshhh....pretty as you please, SMACK-DAD EXACTLY INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT!"

Wrong again. If it fell into it's own footprint it would not have damaged the surrounding buildings. This is not the case with the WTC. The damage was widespread across several blocks in the surrounding area. Hardly a "perfect job".

"When you find a professional Demolition Expert who says that does not look like a perfect job, that will be news. Many of them are on record saying it has ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS."

Then why hasn't a single demolition firm in the world made a statement agreeing with the conspiracist "controlled demolition" hypothesis. It's your job to point to one that supports your thesis.

"So, the NY Times retracted something. Irrelevant. Read the court transcripts (if you are afraid to read Ahmed)"

No, the NYT was your original source for the claim. That's hardly "irrelevant", you just failed to mention an important detail (i.e., them correcting their story to note that the recordings are ambiguous on the extent to which anyone the WTC was going to be attacked).

"It is a well established and voluminously documented fact that the FBI recuited the patsies, helped them assemble the bomb, knew exactly when and where it was to be detonated and let it go boom."

Funny how that's different from every other source I've heard the story from. But anyway, you've cited a new source that I'll have to read through (court transcripts tend to be long). So I'll set this aside for now.

This is a very funny post coming on something called denialism blog - the author uses every trick of the book to stay in his own denial - he avoids the question, alludes to other subjects, and invents every manner of supposition (always to be answered in the affirmative by the stupid reader) to shore up his belief. Just answer the friggin question!

Where's the friggin plane? We don't need 100 videos - show us ONE. Show even one good still of the plane approaching the Pentagon. Show one good still of the plane wreckage. C'mon - where's the beef? The problem with the believers is that's all they have - their belief. They don't need evidence because they already believe.

I'll agree with the statement on that link - "wreckage that *may* have come from Flight 77" (emphasis mine).
Saying more than that is just your own brand of denialism. Add up all the funny goings on, coincidences, suspicious activity, outright lies told by the goverment that are today acknowledged as such, strange unprecedented collapse of WTC7, and you have to be completely ignorant of mathematical probability to think the official story is the truth.

I included a video of the plane hitting the building as well as a credible witness who among hundreds of others saw it happen. What else do you want? Where did all those people on flight 77 go?

Why would a U.S. gov't conspiracy using a missile to hit the Pentagon pretend to have been hit by an airplane? Why not just have the cover story be that the Muslim terrorists hit us with a missile? Simpler, less vulnerable to mechanical failure or public exposure.

The whole point of 9-11 Truth is to have a real investigation - not trade/argue/piss on various hypothesis with the govt. sitting on (or having destroyed) the evidence. That's what Mr. Moore is saying. Get it? Have a real investigation that is worthy of the USA, its people and its constitution, not the utter sham we were given.

Oh please. So you have a list of psychiatrists with a poor grip on reality. I can walk upstairs, read the names off the doors and do just as well.

What about the video above, what about the people on 395 who saw the plane, what about the people on the plane like Barbara Olson? Everything fits with a plane.

Your justification is that Bush lies. Well no shit Sherlock. What does that have to do with all those people missing from flight 77, the eye-witness accounts of commuters on 395 of the plane hitting the building, the wreckage at the site, and the video above of the plane striking the building?

I'm the one denying reality? What a joke.

The whole point of 9-11 Truth is to have a real investigation - not trade/argue/piss on various hypothesis with the govt. sitting on (or having destroyed) the evidence.

That's fine. Just don't say shit like:

Where's the friggin plane? We don't need 100 videos - show us ONE. Show even one good still of the plane approaching the Pentagon. Show one good still of the plane wreckage. C'mon - where's the beef? The problem with the believers is that's all they have - their belief. They don't need evidence because they already believe.

If you really want them to do an investigation, don't act like a crazy person denying all reality. Just a tip.

You are barking up the wrong tree as is the author of this blog entry. I'm interested in 9-11 truth, not having a pissing contest about Flight 77. The govt. has the evidence - show it to us. That's what Moore said. You have a big, bad problem with that?

I never said I subscribe to any particular hypothesis - what we have is speculation because conclusive evidence is lacking.

What is your problem? Can't face the real truth which is
that you don't really know the truth about 9-11 and your govt. has plainly lied to you, and all you can really do to defend your denial is call names.

Feh, back peddle, back peddle. We're mocking a conspiratorial view that there was no plane at the Pentagon, which Moore suggested in the video. This is a view that is idiotic.

When you're called on it, it becomes about a general investigation for "truth". Sure fine, investigate away. It would be a relatively minor waste of money relative to the other crap we do. But we know too much about cranks to expect any investigation to quell conspiracy theories like these which are absurd. It would be ultimately futile, and the crazy people advocating for 9/11 truth, suggesting it wasn't planes, or it was government conspiracy are just absurd and very damaging to the left wing.

Planes hit the buildings, they were flown by fundamentalists. Get over it. If you want to investigate to figure out why Bush sat around reading My Pet Goat like an idiot, have at it. But these conspiracy theories about hushaboom, no-planes, demolition etc., are moronic.

Don't say shit like what? Show me evidence? All I got was a link to some scraps - inconclusive, and we know they have more, so let's see it. We are all just supposed to lie down and stop bothering our poor beleaguered govt.?

What is your big problem with asking for the evidence as Moore has?

Spin away, spin away.

The original blog entry is about Mr. Moore's call for evidence. You all evidently have some unspecified problem with that so you twist it into logical fallacies and pissing contests about this theory versus that. Grow up.

Answer my questions. What about the video above of the plane? Where did the people on that flight go? What did those people like Wallace on 395 see?

You advance a no-plane theory, as does Moore, and it is idiocy, it's simple as that. And further, it's embarrassing. When people point out that no-plane theories are BS you backpeddle and say you just want an investigation, or we shouldn't crap on a single theory. Why not? Why can't I crap on the theory that you and Moore have put forward? It's a stupid theory, and if that's what is going to be used to suggest a further investigation, you're never going to get one.

Call for a blue ribbon committee. Investiga, do whatever you like. I don't care. But don't say it wasn't a plane that hit the goddamn building.

Joey:

2. Show me evidence that something else hit the Pentagon. Given the wreckage I see there, it's definitely not a missile. 757 is the most parsimonious answer. We don't need the omniscience you demand to come to that tentative conclusion. Arguments from gaps and ignorance won't get you any farther than the typical Creationist.

Any new evidence you might possibly see could just be handwaved away as having been cooked up by the conspirators. If there were to arise a perfectly clear video of 77 vs Pentagon, why, that would be JUST SO CONVENIENT for the government, wouldn't it? Please don't claim the response would be anything else. The evidence of planes hitting the Twin Towers is incontrovertible, yet some Troofers think even that was faked.

You are all in denial - Mr. Moore (and I) want to see the govt. videos, and the ones they confiscated. Why do you have to go ballistic (no pun) and put words in our mouths? Where does Mr. Moore (or I) say it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon? You're grip on reality is really loose - you can't even remember correctly that neither Moore nor I said such a thing. Get a grip fer Chrissakes.

Why attack us just for aksing to see the evidence? Why? Why?

We know the 9/1 Commission was a sham. The Bush admin resised mightily even having an investigation. Why?
The the one they had was hamstrung, and anybody with balls like Cleland was removed. Why?

Why were all the videos around the Pentagon confiscatied? Why? I'm not saying I know - but at least I can ask teh questoon. Why?

You can't even discuss the question because you are in denial. Instead you twist and turn and attack the questioner.

The truth of blogs like this is you all don't care about the fact that your govt. has lied to you about 9-11 (that much is established fact.) Rather, you just like the gratification you get from acting as trained attack dogs getting riled up at any lttle titillation like Mr. Moore's so you can go into attack mode.

Salivate away.

If you ever calm down, read this:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

To MarkH:

You said: "You advance a no-plane theory, as does Moore, and it is idiocy".

You are clearly a deluded person, because neither of us
"advanced" any such thing. Get a grip.

You're so full of it. Here is what you said:

Where's the friggin plane? We don't need 100 videos - show us ONE. Show even one good still of the plane approaching the Pentagon. Show one good still of the plane wreckage.

I did show you a video, links to wreckage were shown. I put no words in your mouth. You are spouting no-plane nonsense, don't deny it. As was what Moore said.

Further, what are these confiscated videos you're talking about? You still have not answered a single question of mine, nor can you. I have not denied the utility of an investigation, except in the futility of expecting it to satisfy conspiracy cranks like yourself, nor have I suggested I thought this administration is anything but dishonest. What I have consistently said is that no-plane theories are stupid. They remain stupid.

So, how do I have a problem with reality? By acknowledging the overwhelming evidence? And not just from government but from every other credible source? All of it points to a plane hitting the damn building.

How are no-plane conspiracies not idiotic? Where are the passengers of flight 77? What did those people on 395 see? What is in that video?

You are so deluded you can't even think straight. I said what I said. What I got was a few sorry photos showing a few scraps.

What I DIDN'T say was that no plane hit the building - show me where I said that. You can't, because I didn't.

YOU SAY I DID. You can't tell the diff?

Sorry, I can't make up for your complete and utter inability or refusal to think logically.

You are so in denial you can't even IMAGINE why anybody would want to see the actual evidence? I

And BTW anybody who doesn't know that vdeos were confiscated is just ignorant of the basics.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

Scott Bingham of www.flight77.info/ has stated on his website:

"No one can say for sure why the FBI is reluctant to release the videos. it could just be a matter of policy, or it could have to do - as many suspect - with the notion that keeping the videos from the public is helping to fuel wild conspiracy theories. these theories - that no 757 hit the pentagon - helps discredit the 9/11 truth movement in general, and keeps people's focus away from such topics as WTC building 7."

Confiscation of video such as that is not surprising in any criminal investigation. I didn't know about it, but so what. Proof of nothing, and not even particularly suspicious given how the FBI acts.

What I DIDN'T say was that no plane hit the building - show me where I said that. You can't, because I didn't.

On a thread about no plane theories of the pentagon you said:

Where's the friggin plane? We don't need 100 videos - show us ONE. Show even one good still of the plane approaching the Pentagon. Show one good still of the plane wreckage.

Moore said:

"Why don't they want us to see that plane coming into the building? Because, if you know anything about flying a plane, when you're going 500 miles per hour, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. So, they hit a building that's only 5 stories high...[unclear] that expertly. I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and we should demand that that tape is released."

Both of you are implying that the plane didn't hit the building, otherwise why do you need all this explicit proof of wreckage and 100s of videos of the impact? Stop playing coy, you know what the inference of those statements are.

Like I said - all you can do is continue to jump to your unwarranted and unsubstantiated claims because neither Moore nor I said no plane hit the building. I say show me the plane and you say therefore I advance the theory there is no plane. BullSh*t.

All we said was show us the beef.

And you get all worked up because you are just acting as trained attack dog. There is logic to your rant, just bared fangs.

I'm not being coy - I didn't "infer" any such thing, but you need something to attack.

Go Fido! - Sic 'em.

Oh yes, that's right. You're just demanding proof of the plane impact because you think at the last minute they switched planes? Or maybe the plane hit the building, but it didn't do enough damage so Rumsfeld had to walk outside and chuck grenades in the building?

Give me a break. You're full of it.

BTW, I thought the thread was about Moore wanting to see the video evidence. You guys turned it into an attack against no plane theories, because that's what you are conditioned to attack.

And, BTW, WHY CAN'T we see the videos?

You don't infer, you imply. We are the ones that infer from what you imply.

I'm not the one holding the videos, and it is obvious to anyone who isn't brain dead what Moore is suggesting - that such a strike with a plane is impossible, or that additional evidence needs to be obtained before it can be believed.

So tell me, why else do you need to see more videos? What are you going to learn? Funny how no one else reading the thread had any problems reading the implication of that statement.

Sorry, you lose, your argument doesn't hold water. There are lots of reasons why people want to see evidence, you don't get to "infer" what their reasons are just because you are trained attack dog. Sorry, doesn't work like that.

And BTW, look up infer & imply - Back to grade shool English for you my laddie. (Please don't just hand me one side of the story again.)

Usage note:
Infer has been used to mean to hint or suggest since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence: The next speaker criticized the proposal, inferring that it was made solely to embarrass the government. Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use, maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.
Although the claimed distinction has probably existed chiefly in the pronouncements of usage guides, and although the use of infer to mean to suggest usually produces no ambiguity, the distinction too has a long history and is widely observed by many speakers and writers

Again.

So tell me, why else do you need to see more videos? What are you going to learn? You say you have "lots of reasons". Such as?

Why are you SO ADAMANT that we don't need to see any more than we've already seen, even though we know the Govt. has lied to us?

Why is that?

Do you even have enough self-awaremenss to know your own reasons?

Ok, I'm bored of you. I explained my position repeatedly. I'm not against more investigation. I'm against idiotic conspiracy theories. The implication that more footage will solve some mystery about flight 77 is total nonsense, and is implying a no-plane theory. That's why I'm adamant about this line of attack being baloney.

Now, either answer questions put to you or get disemvoweled for trolling.

Only people living in some dreadful state of who-knows-what would NOT want to see the videos. Its completely natural to want to see them.
depp=true
notiz=[disemvoweled for trolling]

On principle, we should have access to everything unless there really is a justifiable National Security reason to the contrary. Most American's recognize this.

This particular admin may be the most unjustifiably secretive in US history. That's one damn good reason right there to press for the videos.
depp=true
notiz=[disemvoweled for trolling]

Why is it that so many conspiracy nuts assign opposite positions to us?

Oh, yeah. Because it's personally convenient to hack away at straw men.

I don't think twoofers care about investigation: If it doesn't agree with them, it means more investigation is needed. If they did like rational people and set falsification benchmarks rather than move goalposts or make specific, testable claims, we wouldn't rail against them so badly.

It's just like with IDiots: No amount of fossils or DNA evidence will satisfy them. There always needs to be more. Even if there were a lack of evidence, it'd be far from conclusive in favor of the nebulous non-hypothesis.

Exact same line of reasoning.

So BronzeDog - its seriously your position that we know all we need or have the right to know about 9/11? The investigation such as it was was good 'nuff for you - should be good enough for everyone?
depp=true
notiz=[disemvoweled for trolling]

Of course, who could possibly doubt that that four commercial airliners could lose communication, go off course, turn off their transponders, and be hijacked without any kind of response for twenty minutes. It's not as if we had a military that could fly supersonic fighter jets -- a military with radar that could detect large lumbering relatively-slow-flying aircraft. It's not as if the FAA could request assistance and get a fighter jet 30,000 feet up in five minutes. Perish the notion about our air defense being at the "Highest state of readiness"!

After wall, rules^H^H^H^H^Hstandard operating procedures are meant to be broken. "Don't just do something, stand there!"

And this wasn't World War II; these days, we don't have radar that can detect large flying objects without a transponder signal. (After all, any country that dared attack us would be kind enough to equip its attacking aircraft with transponders self-identifying as foe.)

This was our chance to outdo the old Soviet Union's air security that let Matt Rust fly a small plane into Russia, into Moscow, and land on Revolution Square.

\end{sarcasm}

Just off the top of my head:

1. Why deploy the military for a hijacking? Until 9/11, hijackings never called for that sort of thing.

2. They have to sort out the planes from all the others.

3. Even if they knew what was going to happen, who'd give the order to fire? If they did, people would be talking about the 9/11 massacre of civilians over a hijacking and different conspiracy hypotheses would arise.

4. It takes a bit to get a fighter ready to launch.

5. We weren't oriented toward having fighters in control of internal airspace: The military had its eyes on incoming flights.

Let's see if I missed anything...

A quote mine of Mike Walters - a USA today reporter who said, "it was like a cruise missile - with wings" .

Unless I am very much mistaken, all cruise missles have wings. Despite the name, they basically pilotless planes. The wings may not be visible when they are being launched, however, because they pop out later on.

You missed something. If a commercial airliner goes off course, loses communication, shuts down transponder, etc. it is routine to ask NORAD to send a fighter jet up to intercept, if the problem isn't resolved. And the planes went off course for several minutes -- even tens of minutes -- before being hijack-confirmed.

Anyone heard of Sibel Edmonds? FBI whistleblower, she spent 3 hours in closed door session w/the 9/11 [c] omission, telling them, "I saw papers that show US knew Al Queda would attack cities with airplanes." Funny how none of it got into that worthless report.
She goes on to say, " I gave them details of specific investigaton files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation."
Who here has read the omission's report? raise your hands. It actually gives SOME interesting and incriminating (to me at least) info. Most germane to current spat is a chapter entitled, "The System Was Blinking Red." It goes into exhaustive detail about all the warnings we were getting from other countries, NSA etc. and everyone knew something big was cookin'

So......in light of this, the question of why they continued along with their "WAR Games" (one of several contradictory lame ass excuses given by NORAD) becomes ever more interesting. That summer Richard Clark was going crazy trying to get someone to pay attention, even saying in one of the few meetings he could get held "All drills and exercises should be cancelled" (paraphrase frome memory)

But they were not. They needed those games to go on to provide some semblence of cover, system blinking red or no.

Mark....why so concerned with passengers on 77? Either they are dead in pentagon rubble or.....not. Obviously a junta that kills 650,000 innocent Iraqi's does not give one shit about any human life. Oh yeah, and my sources tell me Barbara Olsen is alive and well in Europe

By Johnny Ox (not verified) on 24 Jul 2007 #permalink

Johnny Ox -

It's very simple. When the Bush admin came in, they reflexively ignored everything the outgoing admin told them (Including things like 'Look out for Al-quaeda'). Significant resources were devoted to trying to find any shady dealings that the Clinton administration had done.

It wasn't conspiricy, it was 'asleep at the wheel'. The same thing that lead to the loss of New Orleans, the grinding disaster in Iraq, the running up of fantastic debts.

John Morrison -

Prior to 9/11, standard procedure in a hijack was not to resist, because hijackers usually had demands that required landing first. Sending up fighter jets to intercept was generally regarded as a bad idea, in case it made the hijackers panic. All doctorine was the opposite of the response required.

And it was only possible to be certain of what was going on after the second hit on the WTC towers - no one knew what was happening after the first (Accident? Missile? Fire?). That means we had less than half an hour to realise what was going on, work out what other planes had been hijacked and where they were going, scramble jets to intercept AND, for the first time in history, have a US fighter shoot down US citizens in an airliner.

By Andrew Dodds (not verified) on 24 Jul 2007 #permalink

There are several problems with this video:

1. A cursor is in the middle, suggesting that it was edited.

2. You can't see what flew in and hit the Pentagon -- only that something flew in. You can't see what plane is.

3. If the video were genuine, it would have been repeatedly broadcast on national television right after the 9/11 attacks. Was it?

4. Was a helicopter flying about the Pentagon, videotaping it, when the attack occurred?

Johnny Ox: What was procedure for when a commercial airliner went off-course, transponder is turned off, or communication is lost? Before it's known to be a hijacking? In any case, saying they had less than half an hour to realize what was happening is like saying guards in a bank had less than half an hour to realize that a bank robbery was taking place -- after realizing that a robbery was taking place. Half an hour is a huge time to respond.

They had lots of time before the first plane hit the WTC to realize that several planes were going off course, losing contact, turning off transponders, and even being hijacked.

According to the 9/11 Commission's report, the only case where the FAA timely notified NORAD of the problems was in the case of the Phantom Flight 11 ostensibly flying down toward DC. In three of the four real cases, they had notified NORAD only after the crashes occurred -- and the AA77 notification only occurred by accident.

So we had the FAA acting incompetently for all real planes, but then suddenly turned competent to arrange for all flights to land as soon as possible afterwards. According to the commissioners, NORAD produced a patently false timeline (Sept. 18, 2001) of its response to the attacks. Yet NORAD (the timeline producers) got away with it.

Is this believable?

Or were there other reasons for NORAD's nonresponse to the attacks? Hijack exercises, involving phony hijacking reports and phony radar blips? Exercises involving empty aircraft posing as hijacked planes?

A couple quotes from the time: "Is this real-world or exercise?" was a common question asked. "Somebody started the exercise early," stated Kevin Nasypany, one of the planners of one the exercises.

Did the 9/11 Commission answer the questions raised? Are the answers plausible?

Like there aren't enough comments already posted here about 9/11 being an inside job... I'd just like to add another rational voice here stating the obvious.

The buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. All of the evidence supports this conclusion.

It is pathetic to see a blog about "denialism" that doesn't include 9/11 truth denialism: the bending over backwards you have to do to believe the official government conspiracy of 9/11. It is ridiculous.

Oh! Of course, this is a published magazine. "SEED". Just another self-righteous "intellectual" magazine that is unwilling to actually research 9/11 with integrity. Yellow journalist hacks.

The buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. All of the evidence supports this conclusion

Controlled demo's start at the bottom and cause a uniform simultaneous collapse. They don't start at the top and cause floor-by-floor pancaking.

It's more like the CD nuts doing the bending over backwards. The stock diversions they fling out only serve to try to distract people from the fact that the government or the Illuminati or whoever doesn't have access to the sorcery and/or sheer man-hours necessary to hide and detonate the magical hushaboom charges.