9/11 commission prevaricated about prime grievance behind the attack, Palestine

Israel/Palestine
on 121 Comments

Our man in Lebanon, Robert Fisk takes his cue from Israeli military doctrine with this early and punishing pre-emptive strike of a 9/11 column in The Independent.  In “For 10 years, we’ve lied to ourselves to avoid asking the one real question,” Fisk explores the role of Israel and the U.S. pro-Israel lobby in the tragic terrorist assault and the subsequent “U.S. War on Terror.”

There were two themes to this work [The Threatening Storm] by [Kenneth]  Pollack – “one of the world’s leading experts on Iraq,” the blurb told readers, among whom was Fareed Zakaria (“one of the most important books on American foreign policy in years,” he drivelled) – the first of which was a detailed account of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction; none of which, as we know, actually existed. The second theme was the opportunity to sever the “linkage” between “the Iraq issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict”.

The Palestinians, deprived of the support of powerful Iraq, went the narrative, would be further weakened in their struggle against Israeli occupation. Pollack referred to the Palestinians’ “vicious terrorist campaign” – but without any criticism of Israel. He wrote of “weekly terrorist attacks followed by Israeli responses (sic)”, the standard Israeli version of events. America’s bias towards Israel was no more than an Arab “belief”. Well, at least the egregious Pollack had worked out, in however slovenly a fashion, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had something to do with 9/11, even if Saddam had not.


But I’m drawn to Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan whose The Eleventh Day confronts what the West refused to face in the years that followed 9/11. “All the evidence … indicates that Palestine was the factor that united the conspirators – at every level,” they write. One of the organisers of the attack believed it would make Americans concentrate on “the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel”. Palestine, the authors state, “was certainly the principal political grievance … driving the young Arabs (who had lived) in Hamburg”.


So what happened? The commissioners, Summers and Swan state, “settled on vague language that circumvented the issue of motive”. There’s a hint in the official report – but only in a footnote which, of course, few read. In other words, we still haven’t told the truth about the crime which – we are supposed to believe – “changed the world for ever”. Mind you, after watching Obama on his knees before Netanyahu last May, I’m really not surprised.

When the Israeli Prime Minister gets even the US Congress to grovel to him, the American people are not going to be told the answer to the most important and “sensitive” question of 9/11: why?

About Ira Glunts

Ira Glunts is a retired college librarian who lives in Madison, NY.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

121 Responses

  1. annie
    September 5, 2011, 1:29 pm

    frisk always tells it like it is and asks the most important questions. thanks once again Ira.

  2. Memphis
    September 5, 2011, 1:48 pm

    I was just arguing on the internet with someone, saying that I doubted 911 would have happened if the U.S did not give unconditional support for israel at the expense of the Palestinians. Walt and Mearsheimer said something similar to Fisk’s in The Israel Lobby.

    • annie
      September 5, 2011, 2:05 pm

      as i recall that was what bin laden also wrote which is why his text was not widely disseminated by the press. but it’s around, i’ve read it.

  3. PeaceThroughJustice
    September 5, 2011, 1:56 pm

    It’s worth remembering that the first version of the 9-11 report did explicitly talk about the bombers’ motivation, as reported in this 2004 article from the Forward. They worry that “The disclosures seem to weaken Israeli claims that the issue was only a secondary priority for Osama bin Laden, and they could rekindle the debate about whether U.S. support for Israel is hindering national security.”

    But they needn’t have worried for by the time the final report was issued, talk of motivation had been scrubbed and the American people never got to have that debate.

    Showing once again how important it is to control the mass media.

    (Buried in their book about the writing of the 9-11 report, Hamilton and Kean allude to the episode. They say that there were commissioners who “rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report” because they worried “listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda’s opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy.”)

    It was at this point that, in my mind at least, it became clear that “dual loyalty” ceased to adequately describe the Zionist’s relationship to the USA.

    • CigarGod
      September 5, 2011, 9:26 pm

      “…talk of motivation had been scrubbed and the American people never got to have that debate.”

      Do I remember correctly, that those in charge….actually did replace the motivation…with one of their own:

      “They hate us for our freedoms”.

  4. radii
    September 5, 2011, 2:31 pm

    which reminds us all of the zionist “gatekeepers” at every step of the way:

    PNAC white paper authors
    AIPAC’s control of Congress
    Netanyahu saying attacks were “very good” for israel
    Mossad agents caught celebrating near WTC, let go by Mukasey/Chertoff
    Dov Zackheim loses $1-$2 trillion at Pentagon, announced 9/10/01
    Philip Zelikow heads 9/11 commission
    … and 100 more examples

  5. longliveisrael
    September 5, 2011, 2:43 pm

    Oh yes, Robert Fisk, now there is an unbiased individual you want to listen to. A post about him of course brings out the Truthers. Even Alex Cockburn of Counterpunch, no friend of the US and Israel, debunks your nonsense. However, if you can spin Israel and the Jews “control the media” on MW where this is very welcome, why not do it?

    link to counterpunch.org

    • annie
      September 5, 2011, 2:54 pm

      please copy paste some of frisks article you allege cockburn is debunking.

      • Chaos4700
        September 5, 2011, 3:00 pm

        You might as well be asking him to show you his pet unicorn. LLI is to academic integrity what Witty is to spelling and what GuiltyFeat is to human rights standards.

      • MRW
        September 5, 2011, 3:06 pm

        Fisk, annie, Fisk.

        Not Frisk. ;-)

      • annie
        September 5, 2011, 3:08 pm

        whoops!

      • longliveisrael
        September 5, 2011, 3:13 pm

        Annie, read carefully, I said Cockburn is debunking the Truthers. Of course, these people are so delusional that nothing anyone says, even from their leftist camp means anything,

        As for Fisk, there is a term used called “fishing” when you debunk nonsense from a “reporter” there is a good reason that name is used.

      • annie
        September 5, 2011, 3:28 pm

        i heard what you said. you’re making a false equivalency, it is a crutch. did you read fisk’s article? there’s nothing wrong for fishing around asking why we didn’t mention our relationship with israel as one of the causes for 9/11. it’s the something unspoken in american politics. when petraus went before congress and said our support for israel was an inflammatory wrt the ME people went batshit crazy. but it is a no brainer. the 9/11 commission was set up so that any controversy or any info any member of the comission disputed or objected to was thrown out and not included or mentioned. as i recall. it wasn’t an impressive investigation. but people should know our relationship with israel has damaged us on the world stage, to deny it is stupid.

      • Shingo
        September 5, 2011, 4:35 pm

        Annie, read carefully, I said Cockburn is debunking the Truthers

        Oh I get it. Because Cockburn, am ever stronger critic of Israel, debunked truthers, that somehow means Fisk, who is not a truther, has no credibility.

        Yep, makes perfect sense.

      • Donald
        September 5, 2011, 4:51 pm

        The term you are talking about is “fisking”. And it was coined by rightwingers after 9/11, who hated and ridiculed anyone who said that there were good reasons some in the Middle East weren’t too fond of America. That was a period when even some so-called liberals went insane. Fisk didn’t.

      • justicewillprevail
        September 5, 2011, 5:30 pm

        Yes, we should believe an internet troll, with no history of journalism or writing, no demonstrable knowledge of the Middle East which Fisk has, and none of the insight which a lifetime of experience has given Fisk.
        Of course we know why trolls get all hot and bothered by someone as distinguished as Fisk, and jump up and down, making pathetic and feeble insinuations. You’re not only not in the same league, you’re not on the same planet.

    • MRW
      September 5, 2011, 3:13 pm

      LLI,

      (1) Even Alex Cockburn of Counterpunch. He’s not a god ever here. He’s one voice among millions.

      (2) Cockburn’s logic and reporting on his description of the ‘truthers’ is subbstandard.

      (3) Cockburn is a columnist, a pundit.

      (4) Fisk is a reporter, and he does something few do: he reports with his feet and he gets the docs before he states something emphatically.

      (5) Jews do own the media. Check the SEC Edgar database. What are you going to do about them facts? Even the Jewish philanthropies threatened to defund National Public Radio unless Israel was reported the way they wanted it, and Gaza was demonized. (Google it.) And your point is?

  6. LanceThruster
    September 5, 2011, 3:03 pm

    I’m a 9/11 truther. It is without question that we have been lied to in regards to 9/11.

    • Shingo
      September 5, 2011, 4:39 pm

      Even the head of the 911 Commission has asmitted the report is flawed and inadequate, and that the Bush Administration withheld evidence.

    • Haytham
      September 5, 2011, 4:45 pm

      LanceThruster September 5, 2011 at 3:03 pm

      I’m a 9/11 truther. It is without question that we have been lied to in regards to 9/11.

      Only in the United States is a label that includes the word “truth” considered demeaning, insulting, condescending, etc.

      Also, the use of the word “conspiracy” or phrase “conspiracy theory” to shoot down/immediately render “fringe” every single theory of a crime that the government doesn’t approve of, any theory challenging the American government’s super-duper-honesty or intention to wonderful things in the world, or American exceptionalism in general is absurd. It’s beyond annoying to hear “regular citizens” doing this. They are so damn stupid, they don’t even know what the word/phrase means.

      The fact that most of the population accepts he said/she said explanations (“Gov’t officials say this, private experts say that” with no discussion as to whether any of it is credible), absurd explanations–or more and more often–no explanation at, just shows how stupid we are as a society.

      The US public has to be one of the least informed, especially about its own history, of any population on earth.

      • Antidote
        September 6, 2011, 9:57 pm

        “The US public has to be one of the least informed, especially about its own history, of any population on earth.”

        It’s not much better elsewhere

        link to video.google.com

        and on PBS tonight (now?)

        link to pbs.org

  7. MRW
    September 5, 2011, 3:05 pm

    Maybe if overseas reporters really start sneering at the stupidity of Americans, maybe if they write how Americans are laughed at from Argentina to Beijing for believing a barbecue-strength fire can decimate 113 stories in 9 seconds, maybe if Americans hear how they are derided overseas for their poor education that would allow them to believe the fairy tales then destroy their democracy in the aftermath . . . maybe they will wake up.

    It’s interesting how little time it takes to get professionals overseas to start laughing at how dumb we are. It used to be behind closed doors at dinner parties. Not anymore.

    • Keith
      September 5, 2011, 4:47 pm

      MRW- “…Americans are laughed at from Argentina to Beijing for believing a barbecue-strength fire can decimate 113 stories in 9 seconds….”

      Two quick questions. How did these high explosives manage to withstand the intense heat of the fire without pre-detonating (cooking off)? Why did the person controlling the demolition bring down the second building first?

      • MRW
        September 5, 2011, 7:15 pm

        Hell if I know, Keith. That’s why we need a serious independent investigation.

        But I will tell you what I do know.

        The north tower (wtc1) was hit between the 93rd and 99th floor at 8:46. it stood for 102 minutes. The south tower (wtc2) was hit between the 77th and 85th floor at 9:02. it stood for 56 minutes.

        When the towers first opened, the direct elevators (both towers, I believe, but I could be wrong…I only went on the WOTW/WTC 2 elevator) from the lobby to Windows On the World (WTC 2), and both roofs, (again, I could be wrong about WTC 1) went from the lobby to the top in 10 seconds. The WTC was very proud of this anti-gravity feat. Problem was eardrums were bursting, people getting sick, fainting at the top, etc, so they had to slow it down. A lot. I know how painful it was was because I took one of those first elevator trips on a school outing.

        The speed elevator (for which you had to buy a ticket) to the top was a special creation. I remember that they explained how it had to be sealed off from the rest of the building in such a way that the bullet elevator didn’t collapse the walls as it went up and down. It had its own power, its own cabling, AND it was it was located in the center of the building—you entered it in the center of the lobby— protected on all four sides by the steel structural columns. This elevator was a first, and they couldn’t take any chances.

        Those steel structural columns were H-shaped. At the base they were 4′ x 8′ and theH part was 8″ thick (if you follow what I mean). By the time they got to the top they were much thinner in every way because the building needed to sway in the wind, which it did in high winds. I was up there too when that happened; it could sway by 10′.

    • irishmoses
      September 5, 2011, 8:08 pm

      MRW,
      The heat weakened the beams and floor supports which made the first floor collapse. Once that happened, the weight of one floor collapsing on another with many stories of added weight above it made the total pancaking effect inevitable. My son is a structural engineer who has a very critical eye for engineering issues. He sees no mystery or conspiracy at WTC.
      I was around when JFK was assasinated. That created the mother lode of all conspiracy theories, yet, even there, there was no conspiracy. Vincent Bugliosi’s massive book rebutting and debunking all the various theories is a masterpiece if you have time to work your way through it.

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 8:08 am

        My son is a structural engineer who has a very critical eye for engineering issues. He sees no mystery or conspiracy at WTC.

        Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth see it a little differently – link to ae911truth.org

        So do Pilots for 9/11 Truth – link to pilotsfor911truth.org

        So do Scholars – link to scholarsfor911truth.org

        Etc., etc., etc…

        I guess your son also has a minor in crime scene investigation as efforts to investigate and examine the wreckage was specifically blocked (and the subsequent evidence destroyed – in a mass murder for chrissakes). Civil engineers testified that their contact with the wreckage was no more than a inexplicably hurried “walk-through.”

        There’s a civil engineering journal at my university that did a puff piece that basically said, “we didn’t previously realize that steel frame structures could suffer total collapse from the effects of a standard office building fire” (the structures structural integrety was intect from the plane hits through redundancy and individual components able to carry load weights on their own).

        Could you ask your son why the civil engineering community seems to have no sense of urgency over the newly discovered propensity of steel frame structures to suffer full collapse from fire (NEVER happened before and then three in one goddam day?!?)?

        After the Northrdge CA quake, and several major freeway overpasses collapsed, they spent years and billions retrofitting the f#ck out of the LA freeways to try to prevent future occurences.

        Can you ask your son to duplicate a scale model of the collapse and have it shown on “Mythbusters”? Should be easy as there is no mystery or conspiracy.

        Oops, I forget. Mythbusters said they will not address any aspect of this whatsoever. I thought their ratings derived from tackling those vexing questions we all want answered. Who would discourage this ratings bonanza? If someone claimed the WTCs were haunted by ghosts, the History Channel would be running ghost programs all f#cking weekend!

        Cui bono?

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 8:18 am

        And btw, Bugliosi got this one wrong. Explain the pristine bullet that just happened to “fall out of Conelly”(sp?) on the hospital gurney. While you’re at it, can have your son and his critical eye replicate a lead projectile hitting dense bone mass and not be deformed but rather look as if it was shot into cotton wadding?

        (*My* pal’s a retired at 43 years old ambulance chasing attorney and he says 9/11 and the JFK assassination are both cover-ups and makes a convincing case for both – he’s one of the most brilliant SOBs I’ve ever had the pleasure to know – no offense to your son)

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 9:41 am

        >> My son is a structural engineer

        You don’t need to refer to 3rd party experts (or otherwise) to reach the conclusion that WTC7 did not come down by fire. You just need to think for yourself.

        The building came down at free-fall speeds (or just about.) That is to say, if you had been standing on the top of the building and dropped a ball over the edge as it started to fail, the ball would have hit the ground the same time you did. (Follow?) This means that the building provided no more resistence to its own failure than air did to the ball. (Follow?) This means that all aspects of the building’s structural integrity would have had to have been destroyed at or near the same time. (Follow?)

        A building is nothing more than a fancy stool, for purposes we consider here. If you set a stool on fire, it will fail over time, but it will fail progressively. That is, first one leg will burn through and it will list to one side or topple over. Then the other legs will fail, etc.

        Saying WTC7 failed as a result of fire is like saying the four legs of the stool all burned through at exactly the same time and disintregrated into ash such that the legs no longer provided any resistence to gravitational forces.

        This is, on the face of it, absurd. The intellectual stupor of those who believe in the official 9/11 narrative is nothing short of shocking. -N49.

        ps — Please pass this note on to your son, from one engineer to another.

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 1:27 pm

        Irrefutable observations, No49.

        My pal “Bernie the Attorney” pointed out that the dueling experts is sadly one of the easier things to confuse people with (even if, as Haytham so astutely pointed out, their individual credibility is actually examined).

        He’s spent a lifetime dealing with hired-gun experts willing to sell their testimony for a few ducats. The media that either glorifies them or demonizes them sell themselves even cheaper. I was relieved to learn that a professor from my university was on the Scholars for Truth roster (he’s got an oddly unique triple doctorate of dentistry, electrical engineering, and copyright law). He warned of the misdirection of many supposedly valid truther sites as part of the discrediting process. His advice was exactly what yours is; use your own common sense to examine the competing claims and ferret out those who would hide behind so-called experts to peddle nonsense.

        Your approach, given a fair forum, is beyond dispute. It reminds me of Cal Tech’s Richard Feyman at the Challenger disaster hearings where he placed a rubber O-ring in a glass of ice water to clearly demonstrate what took place with the SRB segment seals.

        Bernie goes to the heart of the matter with foreknowledge (stock short-selling and the dancing Israelis).

      • Haytham
        September 6, 2011, 11:13 am

        irishmoses September 5, 2011 at 8:08 pm
        My son is a structural engineer who has a very critical eye for engineering issues. He sees no mystery or conspiracy at WTC.

        This is a joke right? Please. I don’t know what happened on 9/11 but the buildings did not fall due to fire, especially WTC7. I don’t think that is scientifically disputable.

        Also, fire and the simple fact of collapsing (even straight down) doesn’t turn tons and tons of concrete to dust.

        I was around when JFK was assasinated [sic]. That created the mother lode of all conspiracy theories, yet, even there, there was no conspiracy. Vincent Bugliosi’s massive book rebutting and debunking all the various theories is a masterpiece if you have time to work your way through it.

        More jokes? Israeli sharp-shooters (and who could deny they have some of the best in the world?) tried repeatedly to successfully recreate the assassination, even, I believe, when the first experiments failed, by giving their shooters extra time to fire the shots and no one even came close. I think they also tried with more modern rifles, but I’d have to check the text for details. Victor Ostrovsky discusses the JFK experiments he saw firsthand in his first book, “By Way of Deception.”

        Also, Vincent Bugliosi’s work was not nearly as persuasive as you allege.

        From NYT:

        Prominent proponents of alternative assassination theories are already prepared to dispute Mr. Bugliosi’s conclusions. Mr. Stone, for example, said that most Americans believed the assassination was more than the work of Oswald alone “from the very beginning.”

        “President Johnson didn’t believe the Warren Commission; nor did Robert Kennedy, as David Talbot’s new book ‘Brothers’ shows,” Mr. Stone said in an e-mail message. “In 1979, the House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations determined that President Kennedy ‘was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy.’ The Warren Commission, deservedly, has not stood the test of time.”

        link to nytimes.com

      • irishmoses
        September 6, 2011, 1:06 pm

        Haytham, North of 40, Lance Thruster, el al:
        I don’t have the time to enter further into the morass of 9-11/JFK conspiracies, nor is this the appropriate forum to do so. I’ll make a couple of final observations and leave it at that:
        1. It is not a coincidence that you all see JFK and 9-11 as conspiracies.
        2. It is impossible to convince those buying into conspiracy theories that alternative, less ominous, explanations might be right.
        3. The very way you frame the issues and your arguments shows you are not coming at this from any sort of inquisitive, balanced frame of mind: e.g.: that the buildings couldn’t have come down “due to fire”. Nobody said they did. Fire was a contributing cause that weakened the steel structure causing one floor to collapse.
        4. You argue from a position of supposed logic, “free fall speeds”, “tons of concrete can’t be turned into dust”, “fancy stool”, but never do you cite or refer to the actual evidence provided in the investigation itself. Your logic is always superior to the experts who conducted the investigation. Why? Because those experts were conspiring against the rest of us, and so any of us who might agree with the investigation can only be gullible idiots.
        Conspiracy theories are great fun, but little else. They provide the perfect justification for why William of Occam invented his famous razor, and, in so doing, changed the course of history and scientific inquiry.
        Have I changed any of your minds? No, nor could I even with 50 additional pages.
        The one great hilarious irony that came out of this innane diversion from the main thread was the reference to “Israeli sharp-shooters (and who could deny they have some of the best in the world?)”. So I guess a country of 300+ million needed to seek out the assistance of a country of 5 million to find capable sharp -shooters, which, of ccouse, could only be Israel, “the best in the world” . Who could deny that? Hilarious.

      • Haytham
        September 6, 2011, 1:26 pm

        irishmoses:

        1. It is not a coincidence that you all see JFK and 9-11 as conspiracies.
        2. It is impossible to convince those buying into conspiracy theories that alternative, less ominous, explanations might be right.

        You sound like Cass Sunstein, only less intelligent.

        So you don’t think 9/11 was a conspiracy? Do you know what a conspiracy is?

        So you think one person, acting alone, committed 9/11?

        Words matter. You don’t know the meaning of words you use. See the problem?

        And here’s a clue: The reason people believe “conspiracy theories” is because where the government and the media are obviously lying (i.e., reporting things that are not physically or logically possible) it is human nature to seek an answer the the questions that arise.

        Most people realize that the person who believes these silly official government produced narratives is the naive one.

        How many covert ops and other secretive activities have to be exposed and admitted to by the US government decades after the fact before you realize that the government lies? (Do you want a list or are you able to look at this yourself?)

        You sound so naive. I find it hard to believe you actually believe what you wrote in your post.

      • Haytham
        September 6, 2011, 1:30 pm

        So I guess a country of 300+ million needed to seek out the assistance of a country of 5 million to find capable sharp -shooters, which, of ccouse, could only be Israel, “the best in the world” . Who could deny that? Hilarious.

        What does that even mean? You are saying that a country of 300+ million assassinated Kennedy? How do 300+ million people “act alone?”

        I thought you said it was Oswald. If he did it alone, he would have had to fire all the shots, etc.

        Israeli sharp-shooters attempted to recreate the event, according Victor Ostrovsky. They concluded that the official narrative, that Oswald fired all the shots, that quickly and accurately, was impossible, as no one could do it, even their most skilled people.

        Your post is odd. What does the size of the US compared to Israel have to do with whether an assassination could have logically taken place as alleged? Who said anything about the US asking Israel for assistance?

        You need to read much, much more carefully to avoid such foolish errors.

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 1:45 pm

        How about convincing me that a proper investigation took place?

        I’m not saying I know what happened. I’m agreeing with the official 9/11 Commission where they establish beyond dispute that they were lied to (meaning they have PROOF of being told things that could not possibly be true, and then have stories change from the original claims).

        see: “The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies” – link to salem-news.com

        The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

        Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities’ School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

        Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

        Farmer states…“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened… I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

        The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say… “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . ” When Bush’s own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?

        9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, “No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again.”

        With the only “official” 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here? Who is hurt by these lies? The families of the victims of 9/11 have fought, for years, to get to the truth. For years, our government has hidden behind lies and secrecy to deny them closure.

        The official narrative is itself a badly woven conspiracy too full of holes to take seriously and I reject it as being based on enough fact and a willingness to follow relevant clues wherever they lead.

        Or, I could rely on your assertion that your son knows stuff – case closed.

        Thanks, but no thanks.

      • Donald
        September 6, 2011, 1:49 pm

        Irishmoses–

        I agree with you about 9/11 and think it was done by some Islamic fundamentalists flying planes into buildings, causing fires which weakened the structures. Once collapse started the momentum was enough to crush the support structures below, resulting in a fall time only a little slower than free fall. Not that I’ve analyzed it, but some experts have.

        link

        I don’t know if any Western intelligence agencies knew ahead of time what was to happen.

        On JFK I have no opinion. I think I would have to read not only Bugliosi, but also his critics before I would have an opinion.

        On the use of the term “conspiracy theory”, though, I do agree with your opponents. It’s a derogatory term that doesn’t really mean anything anymore. The official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory too–Al Qaeda conspired to launch a massive terrorist attack, with the hope that it would draw the US into a series of pointless wars that would drain us of our strength. A crazy idea, but it seems to have worked. The only difference between conspiracy theories in general is that some have more evidence for them than others. The ones rejected by the mainstream are branded as “conspiracy theories” and ridiculed on that basis, but the problem with the ridicule is that conspiracies really do happen sometimes.

        And that’s all I will say about this.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 1:51 pm

        Inter alia:

        3. The very way you frame the issues and your arguments shows you are not coming at this from any sort of inquisitive, balanced frame of mind: e.g.: that the buildings couldn’t have come down “due to fire”. Nobody said they did. Fire was a contributing cause that weakened the steel structure causing one floor to collapse.

        WTC7 was not hit by a airplane. It just caught fire and collapsed into a heap. And yes, the official report from NIST did say it came down by fire. Google it.

        Here is the real kicker: Why hasn’t there been a revision to the building standard since 9/11? Any time an engineering-related incident takes place (aviation, structural, chemical, nuclear, etc.) that impacts public safety, there is an extensive review. The review insofar as it finds shortcomings in the existing code, will make revisions to the code.

        WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were the first three steel structures to ever come down by fire. If you can swallow this remarkable coincidence whole, then ask yourself why there has not been a major overhaul of the code related to steel structures? You must understand how freak-ish a steel frame structure is coming down by fire, a risk structures are already engineered for. It is like an engine falling off a commercial airliner. Now, imagine an engine falling off three different airliners — all on the same day! Now, imagine an engine falling off three different airliners all on the same day and there is not a new order from the FAA that all planes must go in for scheduled maintainance and have their bolts checked??? Man, if I believed in the official story I would never set foot in another high-rise. And I would be pissed at my government for allowing so many clearly unsafe high-rises to stand, death traps all.

        4. You argue from a position of supposed logic, “free fall speeds”, … but never do you cite or refer to the actual evidence provided in the investigation itself.

        Look — go to youtube, search wtc7, and time for yourself how long it takes the buildings to collapse. Then do the math: link to en.wikipedia.org. No one disputes this, in passing.

        As I said above — any semi-educated person can all by himself determine that the official line is a croc. Try this at home! -N49.

      • Haytham
        September 6, 2011, 2:35 pm

        nof49:

        I am aware of how ironic and hypocritical what I’m about to say is because it has been said to me repeatedly in the last few days and I have ignored the advice, but here goes:

        You’re wasting your time.

        Some people have so hardened their minds, so bought into American Exceptionalism, that if Obama came out today, in 2 minutes, on national television and said,

        “I have just been informed by CIA that we were lied to: this is the real story of what happened on 9/11,” this clown, irishmoses, would say,

        “Wait, Obama just said what? He is a Secret-Communist-Nazi-Haitian-Kenyan-Wealth-Distributionist-Socialist after all! He’s lying about my sacred day!”

        Unfortunately this is a problem in the US, in general. Have you ever noticed that when a Republican or Democrat says something about a domestic issue, there is widespread scoffing and disbelief (think Obama’s healthcare initiative, both sides of it, death panels, etc.) and not only that, but it’s acceptable and in some circles even preferable to be skeptical about what these government officials are selling us; however, when the government lays down the law regarding a foreign policy issue, not many people are skeptical.

        Republican Americans would NEVER and I mean NEVER believe something Chuck Schumer says, but when he says “Israel initiated Caste Lead to root out terrorists and they sent text messages to the Palestinians to leave their homes, because there are weapons in them,” Americans go huh, that Israel, so friendly and moral! Ditto on the other side, with Boehner or whoever.

        It’s a sickness. We’re taught not to know about or care about these things, just let the gov’t deal with it and we think it’s great because it frees up our time to go to the mall.

        *I’m not joking, he said this–you can find it on youtube. It’s a Max Blumenthal video, feeling the hate in NY or something like that

      • irishmoses
        September 6, 2011, 2:39 pm

        Well, I haven’t read Farmer’s book but the Norad, White House, CIA and FBI testimony/withholding evidence problems were discussed and well known. A lot of that was political: people wanting to spin what they did in a more favorable manner or even hide unfavorable facts. The Norad abuses were so bad that they were referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal action on perjury charges. But none of that affected the basic conclusions about who did 9-11 and why the buildings came down.
        The biggest news from Kean and Hamilton in their book was that the commission refused to discuss the highjackers’ motive (Israel) as the major cause of 9-11. It came out in the testimony but not in the conclusions and recommendations because some commission members felt it would be used to reduce aid to Israel! Now that’s a fucking conspiracy I can get aboard on!

      • CigarGod
        September 6, 2011, 2:42 pm

        Haytham,
        I share your incredulity.
        The uniform collapse of the towers and 7 is enough to make a reasonable man doubt. But when other things are factored in…hurried clean-up, massive PR, a hijacker passport, etc…it is simply impossible.

        Unfortunately, people without education can be convinced of anything.
        Just earlier today, I had to explain why 10 tons of supplies per week to the 1.5 million of Gaza…might allow each person to have a bean, a rice grain and one fruit loop per meal.

      • Haytham
        September 6, 2011, 2:46 pm

        Donald September 6, 2011 at 1:49 pm

        I agree with you about 9/11 and think it was done by some Islamic fundamentalists flying planes into buildings, causing fires which weakened the structures.

        I’m glad you said that this is all you’ll say about it because I know if I say this to you, you won’t come back and cause us to go round and round, but I will tell you, the reason you believe the above is because you haven’t looked into it.

        Look at the way you phrased your statement: It was done by some fundamentalists. Who?

        At least 5 of the people identified as the hijackers are alive and well. Did the real hijackers use aliases? Maybe, I don’t know, but the government knows that at least 25% of the identified hijackers were identified improperly and yet the narrative does not change. We don’t have “John Doe” or “Mohammed Abu-Doe.” The names and pictures of the alleged perpetrators are left intact because WE DON’T WANT ANYONE TO QUESTION ANYTHING SURROUNDING THE EVENT.

        If you spent 1 hour looking into this, 1 hour, you would be shocked.

        Honestly, I suggest you don’t, because if you’re anything like me, what you find will bother you.

      • CigarGod
        September 6, 2011, 3:18 pm

        Well, irishmoses, I suppose you are making a contribution of some kind….
        But what you are really suggesting is that we strike the word – conspiracy – from the dictionary, throw out all the history books where such a word is spoken or described…and finally open up all the jails and let go, anyone who has ever put their head together with another to plot anything.

      • irishmoses
        September 6, 2011, 3:39 pm

        “Here is the real kicker: Why hasn’t there been a revision to the building standard since 9/11? Any time an engineering-related incident takes place (aviation, structural, chemical, nuclear, etc.) that impacts public safety, there is an extensive review. The review insofar as it finds shortcomings in the existing code, will make revisions to the code.”
        The reason there has been no revision to the code is that what happened is no mystery (that intense heat weakens structural steel). Since there is no cost-effective way to build to prevent against such a rare occurance (huge amounts of jet fuel explosively introduced onto a single or couple of floors and ignited causing an immediate and massive fire throughout the floor) there is no purpose in attempting to revise the code to prevent such occurances. There was talk about revising the fire retardents that cover critical structural steel members but I’m sure if there have been any code revisions reflecting this.

        “WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were the first three steel structures to ever come down by fire”
        They didn’t “come down by fire” and nobody said they did. What they said was fire caused the weakening of the structural steel in the floors that were burned which resulted in the collapse of a single floor which then started an inevitable chain of pancaking of all floors. It went straight down due to gravity and the fact that the damage was done near the tops of the buildings. There is lots of data out there about this including several TV specials where all this is described in great detail and which includes testimony and interviews of engineering experts including the designing of the buildings.
        Do you actually think there is some conspiracy to not revise building codes related to 9-11? Why, so the terrorists can more easily fly into and destroy more high rise buildings? Please, get a grip.

      • irishmoses
        September 6, 2011, 3:47 pm

        No, what I’m saying is beware and skeptical of conspiracy theories, particularly ones based on “common sense” analysis without reference to the detailed analysis contained in the original investigation, that suggest nefarious motives by the investigators. Some valid conspiracies exist, I just can’t think of any at the moment.

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 3:56 pm

        So the basic conclusion that we as a nation were lied to does not support the basic conclusion that a proper investigation is actually called for?

        Am I summarizing your position correctly? That we were lied to, but that parts that we were lied to about are not that important (but somehow *known* to be not that important?)? The greatest mass murder on American soil in modern history and the lies were just a convenience to allow some to save face?

        I’ve looked up other comments of yours and you seem to be a decent, thoughtful individual but here we must agree to disagree. As the 10th Anniversary 9/11 wank-fest is almost upon us, I am ready to jump down the throat of anyone trying to peddle that there are things such as inconsequential lies when it comes to investigating the commission of mass murder .

        The fact that it resulted in more mass murder by the US (prompted by those with an agenda and something to gain) only deepens my suspicions/fears. Motive is a very key factor in any crime investigation. No one was fired, no one/everyone effed up, some even got promoted and awarded medals of Freedom and stuff.

        …nothing to see here, move along.

        I guess you’re just a far more decent and trusting individual than I am. I think a substantial number of extremely powerful and execrable individuals made us all “freiers.”

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 4:07 pm

        >> You’re wasting your time.

        You are likely right but I am not sure I agree that “conspiracy denial” is political in nature. I think it is more psychological. I think it relates to people’s fear of betrayal and extreme aversion to acknowledging they’ve been betrayed. Learning that you’ve been had is a severe blow, be it by a spouse, a friend or a business partner. So defence mechanisms get put up. Mothers ignore incestuous relationships for years. Madoff would never lie to us, his dear old friends. Etc. People don’t want to believe they’ve been taken in by a malicious lie.

        Watching WTC7 come down and being told the cause was fire is like being asked to believe that rivers run uphill when the moon is full.

        That is, people can look directly at a naked lie and still refuse to see it.

        It is a fascinating topic, in my view. -N49.

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 4:18 pm

        No49 – I like your clear analogies. I’ve always thought that if the “pancaking” theory was correct, one could expect a result looking somewhat like a phonograph record changer where the floors suspended from a stout core would drop around it much like the changer spindle (even that would be slowed significantly by resistance).

        The pictures of box structures in earthquakes tumbling over but maintaining their structure for the most part (or one in China where the apartments were built on soggy soil and fell over intact), or the massive hotel fires burning for days where nothing *but* the steel framework was left (but visible to the eye that it was barely deformed), or the amount of heat sink capacity such masses of metal possess (the reason I can cook hot dogs on a wire hanger over a campfire and not burn my hand), or the shift of angular momentum from the top of the one WTC tower that righted itself when what was below it vaporized (it did NOT topple crooked to crash through what was beneath…what was beneath went away!).

        I would shut my yap if I saw a Richard Feynman-type or Mr. Rogers or Bill Nigh the Science Guy demonstrate with a little mock-up how easily the basic principles of physics can be reconciled with what actually happened.

        But…as you and I both know…none will ever be forthcoming.

        It can’t, so they won’t.

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 4:22 pm

        CG – I’ve always felt that if the truth about 9/11 ever veered too close to Israel, our government vassals would fall all over themselves in the rush to make official 9/11 narrative denial a crime.

        Seriously.

      • CigarGod
        September 6, 2011, 4:23 pm

        Okay.
        You do know that the commonsense of a short-order cook is different from that of a structural engineer? A polymath’s general commonsense is probably of greater value than an engineer….but even then…it depends on a given subject.

        MW is a pretty diverse group…but I notice a generally well educated and experienced group.

        I guess I’m also making the point that while a lot of us here at MW do have questions…you seem to be shutting down the possibility that there are legitimate questions.

        When I hear you speak..it is as though I am listening to a Galileo detractor.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 4:38 pm

        >>The reason there has been no revision to the code is that what happened is no mystery (that intense heat weakens structural steel).

        Yes, but engineers already know this before they build the building. See? So when it comes time for the engineers to build the building, they build it in such a manner that the building remains standing even after fire has heated up the steel members. In other words, modern skyscapers are designed to withstand fires. Which is why, even though fires happen all the time, no steel skyscaper had ever suffered catastrophic failure by fire before.

        >>
        “WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were the first three steel structures to ever come down by fire”

        They didn’t “come down by fire” and nobody said they did. What they said was fire caused the weakening of the structural steel in the floors that were burned which resulted in the collapse of a single floor which then started an inevitable chain of pancaking of all floors. It went straight down due to gravity… There is lots of data out there about this including several TV specials

        Look — I want you to think about this without reference to me, your son or these TV Specials. Think! Suppose for the moment this “pancake theory” were correct — the top 15 stories collapsed onto the floor below which in turn collapsed onto the floor below that, etc. Question: if the floors beneath the floor where the failure was initiated could not stop the downward progression of the moving block (top 15 stories or so), then don’t you think these intervening mass of concrete and steel would have at least slowed the block down a bit? Nope — in a race between a free-falling ball and a object crashing through 90 odd stories of concrete and steel, it would have been a tie, or close enough to it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this observation is that the intervening mass of concrete and steel provided no or very little resistence.

        But of course, your “pancake” theory does not even make it to the starting line. Why not? Because the main structural member of the twin towers was not a stack of floors but instead a central core of steel reinforced concrete. This was a solid mass all the way up and indeed, everything else — the floors and the outer walls — effectively hung off the central core. So even if the floors could pancake, the central core would have been left standing. For asking us to believe that a steel reinforced concrete block could collapse into itself is like asking us to believe a tree trunk could collapse into itself.

        Which is precisely what you are asking us to do. -N49.

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 5:04 pm

        There is lots of data out there about this including several TV specials where all this is described in great detail and which includes testimony and interviews of engineering experts.

        Oh, well TV specials. Say no more. The veracity of pictures that move and talking heads is not to be questioned.

        Does it include the testimony of those who were told to be silent about what they witnessed? (i.e. emergency workers who heard/felt secondary explosions).

        They did not knowingly charge up the stairs on a suicide mission. They felt the structures were essentially sound, particularly in light of the fact that the fires were waning and the plane hit that did not nail the core directly had most of its fuel dissipate in a dramatic fireball (like the way a fire-eater can do their trick and not burn their lips).

        I weep for our nation. The “be-lying leading the be-lind”.

      • CigarGod
        September 6, 2011, 6:11 pm

        If european countries can make certain criticism or even discussion of Israel/Holocaust a crime…anything is possible.

        The USA system is doing a pretty good job of training people to self-censor.

      • MRW
        September 6, 2011, 6:14 pm

        Irishmoses,

        You wrote:

        Fire was a contributing cause that weakened the steel structure causing one floor to collapse.
        4. You argue from a position of supposed logic, “free fall speeds”, “tons of concrete can’t be turned into dust”, “fancy stool”, but never do you cite or refer to the actual evidence provided in the investigation itself.

        Spare me. Obviously, you are unaware of the scientific objections (papers) to the NIST conclusions, which are rife. You haven’t bothered to read the volumes of work done by the architects, engineers , and scientists who became alarmed at the evidence left out.

        Don’t ask me to spend hours, today, culling the info you have ignored. If you gave a damn, you would do the homework.

        You might start with a basic premise: in order for something to melt something or weaken something, in the physical world, is has to have superior power, or in the case of metal: higher heat. . . and it has to be applied consistently. None of these conditions existed in the South Tower, your wishful thinking notwithstanding.

        The amount of time from the plane hitting the second tower to total destruction was 56 minutes. The plane hit around the 80th floor. Firemen were reporting to Dispatch from the 79th floor of that tower one minute before the tower went down (NYT raw audio records available online). One minute. Those human beings could not withstand heat beyond 140 to 150 degrees F. These firemen reported that there were a couple of small fires remaining to put out. Then their lights went out.

        The temperature on that floor was not the temp required to weaken, much less melt or obliterate that structure in 8.5 seconds.

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 6:28 pm

        N49 – Re: “wasting your time”

        I find great value for myself in your contributions (as per this “golden moldie”).

        When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do. ~
        William Blake

        TYVM

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 6:36 pm

        The USA system is doing a pretty good job of training people to self-censor.

        CG – Good observation.

        I think of a calf with that ring inserted in its nose. Even as a bull, that little bit of metal can keep a massively powerful animal in line. It would have to be subjected to trauma greater than that of the pain of its nose flesh tearing to have that conditioning overridden.

      • eljay
        September 6, 2011, 6:45 pm

        >> CG: The USA system is doing a pretty good job of training people to self-censor.
        >> LT: CG – Good observation.

        +1.

        While I try not to get suckered into conspiracy theories, 9/11 has too many unanswered – or insufficiently satisfyingly answered – questions.

        At this time, I’m of the very plausible (IMO, of course! :-) ) opinion that 9/11 wasn’t “masterminded” but that intelligence was ignored and that preventive measures were left unactioned in order to allow a trigger to occur that was very necessary to the neo-con plan for a “new world order”.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 6:55 pm

        Re Feynman and his Shuttle explanation: Too bad Feyman is not around. From what I know of him he seem to have been one of the Best Guys Ever. In his spirit of humility and boundless curiosity (to say nothing of his blinding genious), I went and dug up some quotes:

        “I took this stuff I got out of your [O-ring] seal and I put it in ice water, and I discovered that when you put some pressure on it for a while and then undo it it doesn’t stretch back. It stays the same dimension. In other words, for a few seconds at least, and more seconds than that, there is no resilience in this particular material when it is at a temperature of 32 degrees. I believe that has some significance for our problem. ”

        “God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you’re taking away from God; you don’t need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven’t figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don’t believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don’t think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. ”

        “We scientists are clever — too clever — are you not satisfied? Is four square miles in one bomb not enough? Men are still thinking. Just tell us how big you want it. ”

        “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”

        “Since then I never pay attention to anything by “experts”. I calculate everything myself.”

        “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”

        And finally: “We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out.”
        ——

        Sorry, this ran on longer than I thought it would. Got carried away. But since we very rarely get to talk about science here, I kind went crazy. Apologies. All quotes here: link to en.wikiquote.org

      • CigarGod
        September 6, 2011, 6:58 pm

        LT,
        Good point.
        The bull is trained to the cape/muletta. But sometimes if the matador is not skillful enough, the bull will see the legs of the man instead.
        Free the Bulls!

        There is also the weakening of the bulls neck by the bandolera’s, so he will keep his head down…cowed, in great pain, angry.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 7:01 pm

        LT: Great Blake quote – thanks, that exactly describes the spirit in which I post re 9/11.

        Fwiw, I dug up some Feynman quotes and posted them below (above now?). Good fun. Regards -N49.

      • Bumblebye
        September 6, 2011, 7:31 pm

        Yeah, definitely one of the “Best Guys Ever”. I watched heaps of clips of him on bbc website some time ago. Think some are still available. Just brilliant. Him and his drums!

      • Donald
        September 6, 2011, 7:59 pm

        “The names and pictures of the alleged perpetrators are left intact because WE DON’T WANT ANYONE TO QUESTION ANYTHING SURROUNDING THE EVENT.”

        Actually, that wouldn’t surprise me too much. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were things about 9/11 that would shock and horrify Americans if we knew and that some things are being covered up. I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t some sort of coverup of something. 3000 people dead, the US had a long involvement in Afghanistan with some people like Hekmatyar (spelling?) supported as “freedom fighters”–well, yeah, maybe something is being covered up. I don’t know, but it wouldn’t come as a big shock.

        I just don’t find the Truther version of events plausible, but that’s where we’d go around in circles. So that’s what I’ll avoid.

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 8:01 pm

        N49 – Great Feynman selections. He is dearly missed.

        As Vonnegut once sardonically remarked at a funeral, “He’s in Heaven now.”

        I’m fond of the the line from “The Hudsucker Proxy” – Richard Feynman has merged with the infinite.”

        Boy howdy!

      • Haytham
        September 6, 2011, 8:40 pm

        NorthOfFortyNine September 6, 2011 at 4:07 pm

        >> You’re wasting your time.

        You are likely right but I am not sure I agree that “conspiracy denial” is political in nature. I think it is more psychological.

        I think I wasn’t clear. Let me try to be clearer.

        There is a psychological explanation and part of it is due to cognitive dissonance, obviously. Once that cd is shattered the American mind will reach for anything to restore order to our now extremely rattled and frightened psyche.

        I just used the “blame Obama” stuff as a possible solution to the poor newly awakened and terrified typical American.

        Of course, someone here will give me shit for this, but I was at law school on that morning and many of my fellow students were discussing how shocked they were at this event, that many thousands of Americans had been killed. Thousands, they said, their eyes as big as saucers.

        This is horrible, obviously. Some people around the world are going to see this as a sort of payback for all the evil shit we have done. It sucks, but it’s true. What do you mean, I was asked? America fights for the underdog and fights for freedom. (This was seriously said to me, but not in those exact words.) I asked, did you know that our sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children and many, many more adults? Blank stares, uncaring but some just indicated their complete disbelief. One or two said, simply, that was completely Saddam’s fault. One guy said, the US is the policeman of the world and sometimes people in other countries have to be punished if they don’t do what we want.

        A little later, before they cancelled classes, I was at my locker (yes we had lockers in law school) and one girl literally shrieked at me that “MOTHERFUCKING PALESTINIANS ARE CELEBRATING THE DEATH OF MY BROTHER ON CNN.” I had never seen this girl before and she yelled directly at me, so I guess someone told her I was Palestinian.

        I don’t know if her brother died (this was really too early to know anything) but I felt bad for her and I was truly shocked by what she said. I remember the look on her face and her body language and I wanted to go hide under the stairs by the side door because I knew that this was going to be a huge deal and I knew that things were going to be hard from now on.

        Sorry if that sounds selfish and dumb but like I said it was very early in the day and there was a chance that the Palestinians had been involved and that made it even more horrifying to me.

        Actually, remembering this 9/11 law school business reminded me of something else. In August 2001, during law school orientation, we had a softball game as a kind of getting to know each other exercise for my class. One of my students happened to ask about my background and we started discussing Israel/Palestine amicably enough that I didn’t try to change the subject or leave the situation.

        I happened to mention that the demographic issue might be a big deal and Israel should be careful about annexing the West Bank and Gaza with its large Palestinian populations. He said, “Well, don’t you think they should leave?” I said, “The Israelis? Absolutely, they should end their occupation.” He said “No, the Palestinians should go to one of the 22 Arab countries (his number, I haven’t counted them).” I said, “Wait, what?” He said, “Yeah, don’t you think it’s unfair there are so many Arab countries and only one tiny Jewish state?” I asked, “You would kick the Palestinians out?” He said he didn’t know but in his opinion the “right thing” for them to do would be to “voluntarily go to another Arab country.”

        I thought, I’m going to be in school with this guy and his group of buddies for three years?? He had a circle of four or five really close friends who probably all went to undergrad together. They went out of their way not to talk me for three years. All of them. Actually, I think the guy himself said hi to me a couple of times, but that’s about it. I guess I offended him because I didn’t say that the Palestinians should willingly evacuate their own land.

        Sorry, I know I write these long and dull posts, but they are cathartic for me so tough shit :)

      • irishmoses
        September 6, 2011, 8:53 pm

        Hmmm, let’s see…something fishy going on here…

        Feynman, Feynman…must be Jewish. It is a well known fact that Challenger was sabatoged by the Israelis to prevent it from examining their secret activities planned for during the flight’s duration. Ah, I’ve got it: Feynman, a Jew and likely Zionist supporter of Israel, was part of that conspiracy and offered his lame frozen gasket theory to cover up the real reasons for Challenger’s explosion, the sabatoging of the left booster rocket by a Jewish/Israeli/Zionist/Mossad NASA launch pad worker. It all makes sense now. Plus, Feynman didn”t die of natural causes, he was assasinated/poisoned by the Israelis/Mossad because they thought he might reveal the secret conspiracy.

        Frozen gasket my ass. Those lame, gullible Americans will believe anything.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 8:54 pm

        I just don’t find the Truther version of events plausible, but that’s where we’d go around in circles. So that’s what I’ll avoid.

        Donald, The only correct response to your statement above is that “real truthers” don’t have a version. I don’t know what happened and nor does any other serious person. All we know is that the tale we’ve been told holds no water. Like, it obviously holds no water.

        That’s step one. Reject what we know to be not true.

        Step 2? I suppose we’ll figure that out when we get there. -N49.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 9:07 pm

        >> but they are cathartic for me so tough shit :)

        I remember the day well as well. I was too taken aback by the spectacle to think too much about it. I had/have no dog in the race, so to speak, so it wasn’t nearly as personal as it must have been for you. But I still didn’t think critically about it for at least a couple of years. Then I saw some pics taken of the Pentagon immediately after the incident. The size of the hole an entire jetliner was supposed to have been swallowed by caught my attention. I don’t know what to think about the Pentagon now, but it was like that one loose thread that you can’t help but tug on. The whole thing now stands as an obvious sham. The only reason people can’t see it this way is because they have an investment in the very folks spinning the tales. History will render a story not so burdened . -N49.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 9:11 pm

        Feynman, Feynman…must be Jewish. It is a well known fact that Challenger was sabatoged by the Israelis to prevent it from examining their secret activities planned for during the flight’s duration.

        What the hell are you talking about, IrishMoses? Feynman was the dude who figured out why Challenger blew up. What’s your point? -N49.

      • CigarGod
        September 6, 2011, 9:13 pm

        Haytham,
        Nope. Your post was anything but boring.
        Coincidentally, I was in law school when the Iranian revolution happened, hostages taken, etc.
        We had quite a few Iranian students. Not just in the law school, but the business school, etc.

        Actually, I was quite unaware of the issue and when all these chattering (sounded hysterical to me) foreign voices were filling the hallways, I was pretty shocked.
        Further, when I tried to find out what was going on…they tried to be helpful…but in the same emotional range and volume. I remember asking about place names I used to be strong on geography)…and being corrected with the Iranian names for various land and water features of and around Iran.
        It was like the students turned into instant revolutionaries before my eyes.
        I had no idea all this was just barely under the surface for them.

        After law school, I went to work for a firm that employed various sons and daughters of exiled Iranian nobility and ministers (and the same of other countries). It was in the armaments business. Jewish owned.

      • irishmoses
        September 6, 2011, 10:14 pm

        Sorry N49. It was just a lame attempt at levity on my part. I was creating a conspiracy out of whole cloth in an attempt to make a point in a humorous manner. Obviously, it didn’t work for you.

        Lest you harbor any doubts, I do not see any conspiracies, Jewish, Israeli, or otherwise, involving the noble Dr. Feynman who I admire greatly.

      • Antidote
        September 7, 2011, 3:24 am

        “Some valid conspiracies exist, I just can’t think of any at the moment.”

        Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran-Contra etc etc

      • LanceThruster
        September 7, 2011, 9:16 pm

        The beauty of rereading my own blather –

        That should be “Mr. Wizard” (famed TV science educator – though self-admittedly not actually “magic”)…not “Mr. Rogers.”

        Though those familar with Fred Rogers (now merged with the infinite along with Mr. Wizard) know he was one hoopy frood nonetheless.

        That is all.

      • LanceThruster
        September 7, 2011, 9:31 pm

        Dull as fireworks, Haytham.

        Keep on truckin’, my friend.

        Shit happens.

        Their shit ain’t shit.

        Your shit’s the shit.

        I’m not shittin’ you.

        Shit no.

        No shit.

        You got your shit together.

        You follow my shit?

        Don’t take no shit.

        If the others don’t want no shit, don’t start no shit.

        Shit yeah.

        That’s the shit that counts.

        This shit’ll drive you crazy.

        Give that shit a rest.

        Can’t do shit about shit.

        Your shit means a lot to me.

        I care the shit about you.

        Don’t think I’m shittin’ you.

        My shit is for real.

        Anyone who doesn’t agree with this shit ain’t worth shit.

        They may think they’re hot shit on a silver platter, but they’re just a cold turd on a paper plate.

        And that’s all I have to say about this shit.

        Tough shit, indeed.

        [bows]

        Thank you, I’ll be here all week and two shows on the weekend.

        You all get your shit back here, real quick, ya hear?

      • MRW
        September 6, 2011, 6:43 pm

        Irishmoses,

        Once that happened, the weight of one floor collapsing on another with many stories of added weight above it made the total pancaking effect inevitable.

        Great theory. Does not account for the timing. This pancaking cannot happen in 8-10 seconds, the time in which it actually did happen. That is indisputable. Pancaking is or was possible, but not in 8-10 seconds as the video proof shows.

        There were 110 floors.

        110 floors could not—cannot—pancake as you describe them in 8 to 10 seconds. (Each floor was an acre in size.) That means 10 to 13 floors collapsed per SECOND. Snap your fingers: that’s a second. One finger snap is the timing you are asking us to believe.

        If your son maintains it is possible—10 to 13 one-acre floors can collapse in one second—then all 911 researchers and all world physicists need to see his proof. Your son will be world famous, and he’ll get the Nobel Prize for Physics. Because there is no scientific literature in the world to date that proves, states, or even implies, that this is physically possible. None. Nunque. Nowhere. Does not exist.

        By the way, ask your son why the floors didn’t pancake in 1975 when fire engulfed floors 9-16 on all four sides. (Google the NYT for the story and pictures.) Why didn’t that happen then?

      • irishmoses
        September 6, 2011, 7:51 pm

        Well, I can see we are not going to get anywhere here, as I predicted earlier. I think it is best that we follow Lance Thruster’s earlier suggestion that we agree to disagree and move on. In any case, let’s try to remain civil and keep the ad hominems and snarkiness to a minimum. We actually agree with each other and respect each other’s opinions in much of the normal MW discourse.

        The one thing you might consider is this: We saw the planes strike the buildings, saw the fireballs, saw the thick smoke, saw the buildings collapse pancake fashion, saw the huge columns of dust, and saw the debris pile with no surviving steel columns extending into the sky. If what you are saying is correct, then someone must have snuck into both towers, carved through walls on each of hundreds of floors, took cutting torches to each column or attached explosive charges to each column on each of hundreds of floors, connected all the wiring, patched the walls before they left then arranged for large passenger aircraft to collide with the two buildings to disguise the explosions of the destructive charges that actually brought the buildings down.

        The sheer complexity of the conspiracy necessary to support your claims is far more mind boggling, improbable, and fantastic than any finding associated with the investigation. e.g. if all the steel beam structures on hundreds of floors were cut and weakened in advance of 9/11, or cut by pre-planted explosive devices on hundreds of beams on hundreds of floors on the day of 9/11, would there not be a wealth of evidence of that in thousands of beam pieces in the debris pile? Of course there would, but there wasn’t any such evidence. What is the explanation offered? The debris was quickly moved away and destroyed so the evidence couldn’t be seen. Its endless, which brings me back to my favorite man of history, William of Occam, and his famous razor: link to en.wikipedia.org. In my humble opinion, what you guys are doing is creating complex hypothetical explanations based on selective nitpicking of the existing explanation that two planes crashed into two buildings causing the buildings to fall down.

        Here is my final challenge to you: Instead of nitpicking the investigation’s explanation, lay out your entire theory of what happened, the complete story, including all the evidence in support of each part of your explanation. Like you’ve said, it’s all available on the internet. Let’s hear the entire conspiracy, including all the evidence, from start to finish. You can make it a group project. When you are done and have presented it to all of us, we can have the luxury and hilarity of nitpicking your conspiracy. It will be great fun.

        All for now. Back to the real world. And, as I used to say to girl friends in my distant past, “but I do still respect you”.

      • LanceThruster
        September 6, 2011, 8:14 pm

        imo – Also look into the dog that did not bark as far as Occam’s razor is concerned.

      • CigarGod
        September 6, 2011, 8:20 pm

        MRW,
        I’ll play devil’s advocate.
        The 1975 example: Didn’t happen because a plane didn’t shear off…whatever it sheared off in the towers.

      • CigarGod
        September 6, 2011, 8:25 pm

        Okay, I’ll go with the agree to disagree thing…but, you have to explain the “unreal” that your girlfriend was proposing.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 9:59 pm

        >> The 1975 example: Didn’t happen because a plane didn’t shear off…whatever it sheared off in the towers.

        Forget WTC1&2. Consider only WTC7. No plane hit WTC7. Yet it came down at freefall speed. ‘Splain that. -N49.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 10:04 pm

        >> Instead of nitpicking the investigation’s explanation, lay out your entire theory of what happened.

        I dont know what happened and nor do you. I do know that WTC7 did not come down by fire alone.

        The question you ask exposes your lack of knowledge as to how science works. One first proposes a hypothesis, then one does everything they can to knock the shit out of it. If it still stands after the scientific community has done its best to knock the shit out of it, then the theory is said to be true. Otherwise, if it folds under questioning, you need another theory.

        Right now we are in the “knock the shit out of the candidate theory” stage. And the theory is folding like a cheap tent. -N49.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 6, 2011, 10:36 pm

        e.g. if all the steel beam structures on hundreds of floors were cut and weakened in advance of 9/11, or cut by pre-planted explosive devices on hundreds of beams on hundreds of floors on the day of 9/11, would there not be a wealth of evidence of that in thousands of beam pieces in the debris pile?

        Yes, there is a mountain of evidence for beams cut in a manner suggesting demolition. Note the diagonal cut here: link to 4.bp.blogspot.com. Lot’s more where that came from.

      • irishmoses
        September 6, 2011, 10:53 pm

        Well, you and your cronies seem to have pretty much exhausted the testing the hypothesis step since you’ve clearly rejected the 911 Commission’s hypothesis, so I think it is well past the time for you to step forward with your own alternative hypothesis or hypotheses. Now, I’ve offered in my last long response some detailed thoughts on why an alternative conspiratorial hypothesis may prove difficult. I think it is high time you step up to the plate and lay it out for us.

        Now I recognize how uncomfortable this may be for you so I anticipate a more weasely answer like, “We don’t know what actually occurred. All we want is a new, unbiased investigation”. That is the typical response by conspiracy buffs when put on the spot. It allows them to play the game without getting their feet wet. Hopefully I’ve underestimated all of you and you will promptly and courageously lay forth your own detailed hypotheses so we can continue our venture into the wonders of the scientific method.

      • irishmoses
        September 6, 2011, 11:02 pm

        Well, assuming you are correct on the timing and I suspect you are, the fact remains that the buildings did collapse into great heaps of smoking rubble right before our very eyes. It looks to me like the pancaking of floors accelerated as the buildings collapsed which would seem logical. So MRW, tell us what you think could have caused the rapid, catastrophic collapse of the buildings. In my 7:51 posting, I lay out some obvious problems with alternative theories, particularly conspiratorial ones, so I look forward to your alternative hypothesis.

      • irishmoses
        September 7, 2011, 12:07 am

        OK then. I see the beginnings of a new hypothesis for what really happened. Have at it N49, you are on a roll.

        Let’s start with what kind of equipment would have been necessary to make that diagnonal cut on such a huge beam on all floors buried no doubt deep behind walls. I suspect it would take more than a sabre saw with a carbide blade. How would the perpetrators have gained entry? How would they have suppressed the noise? Wouldn’t they have had to do that for all the beams on all floors? Seems like someone might have raised some questions particularly since the WTC had already suffered an earlier terror attempt. Has all this evidence been suppressed?

      • MRW
        September 7, 2011, 3:10 pm

        NorthOfFortyNine,

        Thanks for the clear responses here.

      • MRW
        September 7, 2011, 5:05 pm

        Irishmoses,

        So MRW, tell us what you think could have caused the rapid, catastrophic collapse of the buildings.

        If you’re genuinely interested, google for videos of how buildings are detonated, how the chargers are placed on the columns in sequence. One of the videos explains it in detail. Then google for the evidence that was provided to the 9/11 commission but didn’t make it in—the witness complained—about how the security was shut down in the weekend before 9/11. The guy who gave that evidence was a stockbroker who worked in one of the towers. But I wouldn’t hold me to that. (Two days is not enough time to wire either of those buildings, however.)

        Since it is patently clear you have put zero effort into determining any aspect of this disaster for yourself during the last decade, meaning only that your curiosity level is low, and have instead chosen to rely upon intermittent news accounts and the opinion of your son, I found the following essay by David Ray Griffin, the Claremont College professor who wrote 10 serious books on the subject.

        The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
        Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

        David Ray Griffin
        Authorized Version (with references & notes)
        link to 911review.com

        It’s a good article to start with if your words above are accurate that you want to hear chapter and verse how it could have been done. This essay is highly footnoted and the reference material is provided.

        Otherwise you’re just yanking everyone’s chain here, which is fine, but no one has the time to entertain it seriously. It’s too large a subject.

      • irishmoses
        September 7, 2011, 7:30 pm

        To: MRW, per your quote below:

        “Since it is patently clear you have put zero effort into determining any aspect of this disaster for yourself during the last decade, meaning only that your curiosity level is low, and have instead chosen to rely upon intermittent news accounts and the opinion of your son, I found the following essay by David Ray Griffin, the Claremont College professor who wrote 10 serious books on the subject.”

        The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
        Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
        David Ray Griffin
        Authorized Version (with references & notes)
        link to 911review.com
        _________________________
        Fair enough, I will look through his article. To get some balance
        I found the following link to the Debunking 911 website in which the issue of the collapse of WT7 is dealt with in depth and appears to debunk several of the claims made by the truthers in this thread:

        link to debunking911.com

        That website also deals with all the other controversies concerning 9/11, including the towers, the fires, etc. It makes for great reading and will give you some balance in your view of this controversy from which you can make reasoned conclusions.

        The actual final NIST report on the causes for the collapse of Building 7 is here: link to nist.gov

        It wasn’t handled in the 9/11 Commission’s original report because they didn’t yet know the answers.

        Incidentally, you asked me the following yesterday:

        “By the way, ask your son why the floors didn’t pancake in 1975 when fire engulfed floors 9-16 on all four sides. (Google the NYT for the story and pictures.) Why didn’t that happen then?”

        I found the answer with a quick google search which showed this wikipedia entry:

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        February 13, 1975 fire

        On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours. Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment. Fireproofing protected the steel from melting and there was no structural damage to the tower. Other than the damage caused by the fire, a few floors below suffered water damage from the extinguishing of the fires above. At that time, the World Trade Center had no Fire sprinkler systems.[89][90]
        _____________

        That fire certainly didn’t “engulf floors 9-16 on all four sides” as you claimed, nor was it a particularly hot fire. It seemed to be more of an electrical fire that went up the main shaft and damaged mostly the 11th floor where it originated.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 7, 2011, 10:20 pm

        >>I found the following link to the Debunking 911 website in which the issue of the collapse of WT7 is dealt with in depth and appears to debunk several of the claims made by the truthers in this thread:

        Like what? Please refer to anything on that page that “debunks” the principal critiques I and others have put forward. What I see is a bunch of arm-waving. It spends most of its time trying to explain away Larry Silverstein’s damning admission. Yawn. -N49.

      • MRW
        September 8, 2011, 1:50 pm

        Irishmoses,

        You need to read this:
        link to patriotsquestion911.com

  8. piotr
    September 5, 2011, 3:16 pm

    I would comment that nasty strategy may be correct.

    The idea was that if Palestinians are deprive of all meaningful external support, they would agree with whatever Israel imposes on them.

    Which was almost correct. Meant literally, Israel could not only make Palestinians eat shit, but also formally agree to do so. Let us call that position RTFATES (requirement to formally etc.) That could not work, except in some insane imagination — which indeed is what passes for right-thinking realism in Israel, and that stupidity is imported to US, where there is big and ready market for such ideas.

    In other words, Israel, USA, NATO could basically do everything that was physically possible. More precisely, humanely possible: you can always create a robot with an orifice absorbing excrements and an appendage signing a formal agreement to do so, but already with, say, a parrot, it would not work, and surely not with primates.

    If some realistic goal was selected, it would surely be achieved. One can find some fault in sticking to Abrahamic faiths. Pagans believed that whom gods want to destroy, they first make insane (hence a sequence of success, hubris and downfall). Why would gods resort to such subterfuge? Well, there is a number of gods and god A may want to punish a person in good standing with god B. Thus more subtle means are called for. On the other hand, if you are a single G..d, not only you enjoy the capital letter, but you can achieve everything you want pretty directly. And you are not constrained even by laws of logic.

    And neither are we, the chosen children.

    • Shingo
      September 5, 2011, 4:45 pm

      That could not work, except in some insane imagination — which indeed is what passes for right-thinking realism in Israel, and that stupidity is imported to US, where there is big and ready market for such ideas.

      Actually, it also passes for Liberal Zionism, as how resident liberal Zionist has demonstrated repeatedly.

  9. Mndwss
    September 5, 2011, 3:58 pm

    When will the people in the US understand the hatred?

    When a foreign nation supports a US dictator?

    When israel has military bases in the US?

    When Saudi-Arabia has military bases in the US?

    When China has military bases in the US?

    When Zimbabwe tries to introduce democracy in the US?

  10. Justice Please
    September 5, 2011, 5:54 pm

    Only slightly off-topic, about another lie which got the US into a World War:

    “Americans were even told, falsely, that German children were given a day off school to celebrate the sinking of the Lusitania.”

    link to dailymail.co.uk

    The staging and/or manipulating of attacks is standard procedure for the US and many empires before her. Why should 9/11 be any different?

  11. Memphis
    September 5, 2011, 6:15 pm

    I have read that the videos of the Palestinians ‘dancing’ in the streets was fake and it was really shot in 93 after Oslo signing. Is this true

    • MRW
      September 5, 2011, 7:25 pm

      Yes. I heard that to.

    • PeaceThroughJustice
      September 5, 2011, 8:17 pm

      Matt Taibbi did a piece analyzing that famous CNN filmclip (there was only ever one claim of “celebration”) back in his Exile days. It’s getting hard to find, but here’s a cache of the first part–
      link to webcache.googleusercontent.com

      • DBG
        September 6, 2011, 12:53 am

        Please read, this was debunked:

        link to snopes.com

      • Shingo
        September 6, 2011, 3:32 am

        Fasle. The footage was analyses by Matt Taibbi not a Brazilian .

        The footage was fake.

        Meanwhile, 5 Israelis were arrested as they danced in celebration of the attacks, which they apprently already knew were going to happen, becasue according to their own testimony, they were in NY to document the event.

        Oh, and Bibbi is on record as the only politician in the world who said the attacks were “very good”.

      • Bumblebye
        September 6, 2011, 8:06 am

        Here in UK, we had one senior politiprat who said it was a “good day to bury bad news”. And was seriously embarrassed at the subsequent outrage.
        Edit: Jo Moore, a senior polical aide, not a pol herself, sorry.

      • CigarGod
        September 6, 2011, 9:58 am

        I love it when these guys slip…and tell us how they really feel.

        Scary part is…this is how almost all of them really believe…and talk to each other…before they put on their public mask for the cameras.

  12. chauncey
    September 6, 2011, 2:54 am

    Mr. Fisk is homing in on the “why,” but does he have the “who”?

    In August of 2007, in an article called “Even I question the ‘truth’ about 9/11,” he was asking important questions about the “how”:

    “But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It’s not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93′s debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field?”

    and

    “If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it?”

    and

    “But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose “Islamic” advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the “Fajr” prayer to be included in Atta’s letter.”

    Mr.Fisk may be getting warmer about the “why,” but until he’s got the “who,” he’s got the cart before the horse.

    • Antidote
      September 7, 2011, 3:51 am

      “But what about the weird letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker-murderer with the spooky face, whose “Islamic” advice to his gruesome comrades – released by the CIA – mystified every Muslim friend I know in the Middle East? Atta mentioned his family – which no Muslim, however ill-taught, would be likely to include in such a prayer. He reminds his comrades-in-murder to say the first Muslim prayer of the day and then goes on to quote from it. But no Muslim would need such a reminder – let alone expect the text of the “Fajr” prayer to be included in Atta’s letter.”

      Sounds like the claim that Islamic custom was strictly observed when they gave OBL a burial at sea even though he was killed on land, not during some long sea voyage or something. This documentary (which I already posted elsewhere) reveals other stunning implausibilities re this letter. It was found in Atta’s checked luggage which happened to get stuck on the conveyer belt and never made it into the plane. Some coincidence that this bag, not one or none of hundreds of others was left behind. And why would Atta even bother to write this letter, then take it with him on a plane he was planing to fly into the WTC. Could he have had any reasonable hope that letter would be found and reach its intended audience? Unless Atta knew that the bag would get stuck on the conveyor belt, or somehow contrived to make this happen, this makes no sense whatever. That, in fact, would be a wholly implausible conspiracy theory.

      I can’t imagine anyone watching this not developing very serious doubts re the official account, not to mention the 9/11 commission and report.

      link to video.google.com

      • irishmoses
        September 7, 2011, 12:28 pm

        I think it would be useful if we handled the “but what about the…” questions in a more analytic manner. I suggest the following structure:
        1. Raise your doubts about an issue in the form of a question.
        2. Show the commission’s analysis and finding on that issue (some of which were published after the original report).
        3. Express your conclusion and rationale for that conclusion and how and why it differs from the commission’s conclusion.
        4. If you feel your conclusion undermines the entire hypothesis of the commission regarding 9/11, offer your own alternative hypothesis including any evidence that supports it.

        This format will avoid the “nitpicking” problem I addressed yesterday. The problem with conspiracy theory buffs is that they tend to look exclusively at the conspiracy side of the story without comparing it with the non-conspiratorial side. It is very easy to be convinced by skilled advocates when you listen only to that side of the issue. It’s like putting a person on trial and then letting the jury hear only the prosecution’s view of the case.

        In the case of the video Antidote is referencing (I haven’t watched it), before buying into its persuasive conclusions you need to hear what the commission had to say about this issue first and then make your conclusion based on all the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. A lawyer’s job is to spin the facts and law in a manner that makes his/her client’s case look persuasive. That’s what we do. We know well the problem of hearing only one side’s view of the evidence.

      • Antidote
        September 7, 2011, 4:52 pm

        “In the case of the video Antidote is referencing (I haven’t watched it), before buying into its persuasive conclusions you need to hear what the commission had to say about this issue first and then make your conclusion based on all the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. ”

        Is this a joke? How do you know how that the conclusions are ‘persuasive’ if you haven’t watched the video

        “A lawyer’s job is to spin the facts and law in a manner that makes his/her client’s case look persuasive. ”

        That, in a nutshell, is what was done by the 9/11 commission. It was no more an independent investigation than the one Israel conducted on the flotilla raid.

        What you’re saying is this: There are no facts, there is no truth. There’s only spinning of evidence on either side. Whoever makes the case look more persuasive establishes the truth of the matter. Or, in other word: truth is established by majority vote or something. So if 51% of Americans believe that Santa Claus exists, then that’s the truth, or what?

        “We know well the problem of hearing only one side’s view of the evidence.”

        The people, many of them family members of the victims, who demanded an investigation into what happened on 9/11 were well aware of that. Building 7 collapsed without being struck by an airplane, and there were/are hundreds of witnesses, including fire fighters, who reported explosions emanating from below the building. Building 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 commission report. Now what do you do? Carefully weigh the evidence on both sides?

        you can watch the video or calm your nerves with legalistic platitudes

      • irishmoses
        September 7, 2011, 7:02 pm

        Well Antidote, you are mischaracterizing what I said. I didn’t say there are no facts and no truth nor did I say the evidence should be voted on. What I said was that to properly analyze this issue (or any issue) you need to weigh the evidence provided by both sides of the argument and then make your own, independent conclusion about where the truth lies.

        My point is a methodological one independent of the video which is why I don’t feel compelled to watch it. If I did, I would try to view it in a rational, detached manner and then look for arguments presented by the other side, or maybe do my own separate investigation to clarify some of the factual or engineering issues. So all I am saying is if you are genuinely trying to find the truth, try to be balanced in how you address and investigate this controversy.

        As to the WT7 “mystery”, it wasn’t handled in the original report because they didn’t yet know the answers. Here is a link to the 2008 NIST Final Report on the collapse of WT7.

        link to nist.gov

        Here is a link to the Debunking 911 website in which the issue of the collapse of WT7 is dealt with in depth and appears to debunk several of the claims made by the truthers in this thread:

        link to debunking911.com

        That website also deals with all the other controversies concerning 9/11, including the towers, the fires, etc. It makes for great reading and will give you some balance in your view of this controversy from which you can make reasoned conclusions.

        The internet has great stuff on both sides of the 9/11 controversy. I am frankly astonished you guys couldn’t pick up on this stuff. It took me 5 minutes and a couple of quick searches. My personal opinion is that for some psychological reason you want to believe there is a conspiracy so you search out only the evidence you feel supports a conspiracy.

      • LanceThruster
        September 7, 2011, 8:37 pm

        First off there needs to be some clarification.

        Here’s the Official 9/11 Commission Report – link to gpoaccess.gov

        I’m seeing a lot of connect the dots to the attack and response aspects. Unless it’s referenced in the appendices, I’m not seeing (from a quick scan) details about the buildings’ performance and failure.

        I wanted to bring up the failed truss theory and the zipper theory I saw on Nova (I used to trust PBS). see – link to 911research.com

        This site referenced reports by FEMA – link to 911research.com

        and the NIST – link to 911research.com

        and also to a NIST final report that claimed to address objections to earlier theories – link to 911research.com

        These site links (and I don’t even remember which ones I’ve read about as being “truther” sites meant to misdirect as part of the whole attempt to discredit the entire truther movement) are pretty goddam thorough and take it upon themselves to do what you’re asking us to do in a ME forum focused on the Israel Palestine conflict. As someone else pointed out, there is credible, fact based, detailed and documented info out there (using official sources and findings and examining their claims POINT BY POINT – and I’m not prone to ALL CAPS) that you can’t be bothered to look up and look at yourself it seems. But yet you’d love to see everyone else spin their wheels to put forth a theory of what happened that satisfies YOU.

        What “happened” is that theories accepted by you have been shown to be totally BOGUS. Yet you have the nerve (based on your appeal to progeny) to say, “well tell me what DID happen?”

        I just f#cking did.

        In this sites conclusion, this statement stuck out for me (in bold)

        Conclusion

        When presented with evidence of explosives, NIST has done the opposite of investigating: It has denied, evaded, changed the subject, and produced straw-man arguments. The message is clear: don’t be troubled by those pesky facts like explosives residues — Sunder and his team of experts have what you need. “It’s simple, straightforward, it’s elegant, technical,” and they’re “comfortable with it”.

        Sunder’s final remarks to the 2008 press conference wraps a blanket disqualification of “alternative theories” as incredible in a transparent appeal to authority:

        “But I will re-assert what I have said all along, that the findings that we have got we are very comfortable with. It’s based on sound science; it’s consistent with the observations; it’s simple, straightforward; it’s elegant, technical, it’s understandable by people; and we looked as I said at all the alternative theories that were presented there only few that rose to be credible in our technical judgment. When we see evidence that in fact you have a robust science behind alternative theories we will look at them.


        First of all we are technical experts, we all have impeccable technical credentials, both in the private sector experts who work with us and in the experts working at NIST, and I would say that the information that we have the science that we have and the findings that we have are incredibly conclusive in terms of the fact that fires in fact the primary cause of why World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed, Alternative theories are really, none of them have been found to be credible in terms of why the buildings collapsed, and in fact I would suggest that the, the public should really at this point recognize that the science is really behind what we have said. ”

        If and when the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 is genuinely investigated by a government body, the principals will thank the independent investigators who spent years of their lives compiling detailed bodies of evidence and scientific analysis while being scorned and ridiculed on many fronts including NIST’s “investigation”. [LT note – as well as “irishmoses” and “son of irishmoses” on an IP blog) Before it serves its first subpoena, the new investigation will be well on its way to answering questions pertaining to the what, how, and who of the crime.

        The what will be clear, based on the evidence already documented.

        The how may be established through the development and testing of theories of the crime. That won’t require a great deal of imagination, however, given the detail of the physical evidence already described, and the technologies of energetic materials and wireless detonation known to have been available to some in 2001.

        The who will likely be the biggest unknown. How might investigators begin unraveling the web of complicity surrounding the perpetrators in order to identify suspects? Here are some questions they should consider:

        Who had access to all parts of the buildings, and hence the ability to install explosives?
        Who had access to the types of nano-engineered explosives whose fragments and residues are found in the World Trade Center dust? Given the connections between NIST and research into nano-structured aluminothermics, why has its WTC team acted as though such materials don’t exist?
        Who was behind attempts to redirect Steven Jones away from his investigation of World Trade Center dust?
        Who has been working hand-in-glove with collapse story defenders by promoting and cultivating nonsense as 9-11 truth, supplying NIST with its key excuse for rejecting evidence? Why, for example, would a former Bush administration official proclaim that the Towers were demolished only to insist that no jetliners hit the Towers?
        Who is behind the obvious agenda of the NIST investigation to present a ludicrous fairy tale as “incredibly conclusive findings”, while systematically ignoring all evidence of the actual crime?

        Irishmoses, let me ask you. Can you not understand the frustration of us truthers being tasked to dissuade you from your “argument from incredulity”?

        It’s as if you had said, I do not understand how heavier than air vehicles fly, therefore they do not fly, or only have the appearance of flight, or magic must be responsible because air cannot lift/support metal.

        All the magicians have said as much.

        You (and I hate to say it as familial bonds are deep) and your son are remarkably incurious individuals.

        As my pal Bernie the Attorney scathingly said about a USC law professor who did a lecture on why Oliver Stone’s “JFK” film was a load of hooey – ““he’s either stupid or a liar…and I don’t think USC is in the habit of hiring stupid professors.”

      • LanceThruster
        September 7, 2011, 8:58 pm

        And btw, if I mentioned the ongoing “debate” taking place with you, irishmoses, he’d say what he ALWAYS says – Why do you even bother wasting your time with these @ssholes?!? He’s either a moron, or carrying water for those who don’t want you to know what really happened!!

        And then he’d mutter something about the f#cking Z-team, and we’d both end our rantings with a final cry of “DMD!!” (i.e. to lying murdering @ssholes, and murdering @sshole liars – DIE MOTHERF#CKERS, DIE!!)

        We are both men of peace but know that the neutralization of those commiting such crimes would go far in preventing more of them. So far, the gods we cry out to have not chosen to act (nor has the request for said mofos to “drop dead” been complied with).

        It’s enough to drive a sane man to atheism (which we both have, though “sanity” still in question).

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 8, 2011, 12:10 am

        I am frankly astonished you guys couldn’t pick up on this stuff. It took me 5 minutes and a couple of quick searches.

        This is all very old, IM. The NIST (2008) report has been dealt with. Those “debunking sites” are a joke. It is all quite old.

        What you seem to be doing is looking at things on a “balance of probability” basis. That is, on balance, the official line seems (much more?) likely than the alternative line (even as there is no alternative line, at least as far as I hold.) How could they sneak all those bombs in there? Wouldn’t somebody find out? How could they keep it a secret? How could the government do something like this to us? How could they pull it off? It all seems so highly improbable. The official lines thus makes more sense. If you are like most, this train of thought will be familiar to you.

        First off, I agree with you — all explanations are highly improbable. It is not everyday a stunt like this is pulled off.

        But your lack of technical acumen blinds you to the fact that no matter how improbable the alternative, the official line, dependent as it is on impossible physics, is more improbable yet.

        Steel buildings don’t come down a freefall speeds. They just don’t. Unless you remove all structural resistence at the same time, they just don’t. Never. Ever. Ever.

        A theory depends on all its premises to hold. As soon as one premise is disproved, the whole theory comes down. “Balance of probabilities” just don’t matter. There could be a million attractive aspects to the official line — doesn’t matter. One false premise and down it comes.

        WTC7 coming down at free-fall speeds is that one false premise.

        That’s all I need.

        Of course, the discovery of a hijacker’s passport, in the rubble of 1&2 afterwards, amidst pulverized concrete and molten steel, barely singed, doesn’t hurt either. . Read this, from The Guardian: link to 911research.wtc7.net

        It was written in 2002. First inklings that something wasn’t right and, hmmm, now you wanna go into Iraq? Hmmm.

        On Sunday night the United States prepared for fresh strikes against new pockets of al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. At almost exactly the same time, American intelligence revealed that they had uncovered an increase in money being transferred between groups of al-Qaida fighters. According to my reckoning, this is the 14th handy thing that American intelligence has discovered since September 11. Think back over the past six months and it becomes ineluctable: never in the history of modern warfare has so much been found so opportunely.

        It started the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. In the immediate shocked aftermath of the attacks, these findings were somehow reassuring: American intelligence was on the case, the perpetrators were no longer faceless.

        In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta’s passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta’s passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI’s crackdown on terrorism.

        Is this one reason why the US is talking about an attack on Iraq – a flexing of the military biceps to distract from flabby intelligence? Whatever the case, to find one training manual might be regarded as a stroke of luck. To find a shelf-full looks like desperation.

        -N49.

      • irishmoses
        September 8, 2011, 12:58 am

        To: N49 per your quote below:

        NorthOfFortyNine September 8, 2011 at 12:10 am

        Me: “I am frankly astonished you guys couldn’t pick up on this stuff. It took me 5 minutes and a couple of quick searches.”

        N49: “This is all very old, IM. The NIST (2008) report has been dealt with. Those “debunking sites” are a joke. It is all quite old.”

        Thanks N49. I appreciate your patience and continuing civility. The ad hominem responses directed at me (and my son) have gotten a bit strong and borderline scurrilous of late. I’m not sure I agree with you but I can now see how rich the dialogue is from both camps. Sorting it all out is the problem, particularly for a mere attorney lacking in engineering knowledge. I still can’t fathom the scale of the task necessary to bring those buildings down by cutting or placing explosive charges on all the key beams on all floors without drawing any attention. There is also the “cooking off” of the explosives problem due to the jet fuel fire mentioned a day or so ago by Keith.

        Well, for me its time to return to the I-P issue where I can deal with conspiracies I know exist.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        September 8, 2011, 3:28 am

        IM,

        Ask your son to read through Griffen’s piece, posted above. I can’t believe that a trained structural engineer would not be moved.

        I enjoyed the exchange. Regards -N49.

      • LanceThruster
        September 8, 2011, 9:00 am

        irishmoses – You can say my name, no need to allude to a certain poster’s attack on you and your son (which it’s not – you made an appeal to authority). That authority just happens to be your son. It doesn’t change my point. For the sake of argument, your son, to quote Zaphod Beeblebrox, is “just some guy.” (on the internet, no one knows you’re a dog – famous cartoon).

        And you’re right. So did I. And my quote of Bernie is accurate. Bernie doesn’t mince words. You and the USC law professor are stand-ins for everyman in an if/then logic statement.

        But Bernie is right. He pointed out that arguments such as this to devolve into dueling experts.

        But unless you misquoted your son, you said he stated there was NO mystery or conspiracy. He didn’t qualify it (little mystery), or confine to a specific focus, just a blanket denial and rejection. And considering all we don’t know because efforts to examine things for answers the way we know how to when we follow the facts whereever they lead, means that to say you’re both incurious is mild. So is my vulgarity. An argument from incredulity is pretty weak. We know ok? We KNOW that people tasked to protect us failed. Failed spectacularly. Right?

        Right? (Condi’s “nobody could have predicted” notwithstanding ignoring a summary of a breifing paper warning of what happened happening).
        OK fine. Fell through the cracks. Data overload.

        But everybody kept their jobs and these same failures were tasked to find out what did happen. Lots of evidence that they shaped their findings across the board with what they wanted to do (kill people and take their shit).

        Think about it. We were outraged over so many innocent people killed over a political beef, so we responded by killing a f#ck of a lot more innocent people (there I go again) over a political beef.

        And because people were whipped into a fervor, they were OK with that. On On PBS frontline the other night, I saw some CIA bigwig talk tough about kicking ass behind the scenes to defeat Al Qaeda with unsavory tactics, and the Frontline announcer following it with “we will never know just how well these successful tactics were merely because the attacks were thwarted and they can’t give you any details (but keep giving us gobs of cash) I mean, that’s some f#cked up metrics right there. My cat protects you from heffalumps and woozles and the proof is that you haven’t been attacked as well. Pay up.

        I got sick and turned it off. I can only stand so much of domestic Pravda.

        I think your profile indicated you’re an attorney as well, no? Jurors are told to weigh credibility, but it’s their decision as to whether false testimony negates some or all of other testimony. Motive, opportunity , past record, previous statements, etc all factor in.

        You say you’re an attorney, but you are not embarrased to talk of the noise cutting equpment makes? You do know there’s chemical reaction compounds that cut through solid metal like butter, right? (and leave melt traces such as were photographed of the intense reaction on columns). And you know explosive technology has progressed beyond crates of unstable TNT bouncing on the back of a buckboard over a bumpy road, right? There’s stuff that you can try to burn with a torch and it won’t. There’s stuff you could roll into a ball and drop kick it off the roof and it won’t trigger without the required detonator. And I’m sure there’s stuff they can do stuff with that we don’t know about because that lessens its effective use. But all that is rendered moot by some guys with boxcutters who parleyed those into control of aircraft soon to be guided missiles, prompting arguments of needing stronger cockpit doors. That dead from CO fumes golfer was tailed the minute the plane veered from the flight plan. But planes with their transponders turned off roamed the skies freely on 9/11 even after the initial hit, one even having all the time in the world to make its circuitous route to the most heavily defended building on the planet. Stand down orders and fighters sent on snipe hunts conveniently in the other direction as part of their war games still had some nimrods saying how fortunate all these assets were in place when it happened when the mock exercises was the excuse as to why the response times were delayed at every level in the first place. When you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, is the truth.

        I’m sorry if sparring this way (*I* find it the best way to sharpen my own arguments and correct my own errors when needed) has hurt your delicate feelings (are you sure lawyer is a good career choice for you?) but disingenous or dull?, stoned or stupid?, agent provacatuer? are legitimate questions based on the quality of some of what you’ve presented as compelling.

        LIHOP or MIHOP, people lied, people died, and no one’s tried.

        Ask me no questions, and I’ll tell you no lies. Incuriouser and incuriouser.

        Many years ago (after Hasenfus shot down) Bernie and I saw a guy from the Christic Institute (Daniel Sheehan?) in their lawsuit against Iran-Contra lecture about how much they got right even though they were blocked and snowballed at every turn and how the deniers and the echo chamber fixated on the 10% of their speculations they got wrong. So this remarkable organization got the dirt on some very nasty individuals and groups CONSPIRING to do some really nasty shit that no one could believe because of the fact that it was so nasty and these were men of integrity who happened to be lining their own pockets along the way (Richard Secord ring a bell?) and the Christic Institute lawyer (not an expert in narrow fields but with a hunger for truth and a nose for BS) recounted in thorough and accurate detail what was being done knowingly in our name by people who absolutely knew it was effed up and illegal, and offered one of my all time favorite quotes –.

        “I’m sorry to disillusion you, but would you rather be illusioned?”

        And then Saint Reagan had to give a sppeech where something he told us all wasn’t true turned out to be true and “plausible deniability” entered the lexicon.

        Thanks for announcing in advance that long rebuttals will no longer be forthcoming because of your boredom and taking offense trump any actual need to address and resolve questions and glaring inconsistencies. I guess I have more passion on this particular issue.

        Famous cartoon of a guy sitting at his PC and announcing OH MY GOD — TWO PEOPLE JUST DISAGREED ON THE INTERNET!!

        Don’t take it personally. I don’t.

        Heed the clarion call.

        BRING OUT YOUR CHAMPIONS!

        My answer is always the same.

        Let’s rumble.

      • MRW
        September 7, 2011, 3:09 pm

        Antidote,

        I never heard about that suitcase and conveyor belt item.

        But I did laugh on 9/11 when I heard that they left suicide letters or letters to family in their suitcases, those same suitcases which were supposed to make it on planes they intended to blow up.

        Reminded me of the AR death row convict during Clinton’s time. The con was convicted when Clinton was Gov, but put to death while Clinton was Prez. The con couldn’t finish his last meal, so he asked if he could eat it later.

        The American people were just like that convict.

      • Antidote
        September 7, 2011, 4:09 pm

        well, I never heard of that convict. Not a bad analogy to the American people. As to the strategic planning re the New American Century prior to 9/11, it reminds me of would-be bank robber Albert Bailey of Bridgeport, Connecticut, who phoned ahead to instruct the bank to have the money ready. Police arrested him as soon as he entered the building and described him and his accomplice as “not too bright”

        If the truthers are right, or even partially right, Bush, Cheney & Co should all be behind bars for life, or order their last meal. Fat chance

  13. GuiltyFeat
    September 6, 2011, 4:12 am

    I don’t understand how Robert Fisk even exists. If you read Mondoweiss, you learn daily how the Zionists control the mainstream media and filter everything through their twisted, Israel-first view. There can be no dissent.

    And yet, Robert Fisk, an award-winning journalist, has been living in Beirut for 35 years churning out such detailed critiques of America and Israel that they invented a verb to describe their debunking. It’s unbelievable.

    Fisk must be a Mossad plant. There’s no way he could exist otherwise.

    • Cliff
      September 6, 2011, 6:29 am

      Institutional bias. Not 100% but close enough in a meaningful enough capacity.

      And the idea is mostly with respective to the American media. Are you only capable of this lame superficial point scoring?

      Manufacturing Consent.

      • Donald
        September 6, 2011, 1:38 pm

        “And the idea is mostly with respective to the American media. Are you only capable of this lame superficial point scoring?”

        He is capable of better (I’ve seen it), but in the past several days it’s been mostly lame superficial point scoring.

      • GuiltyFeat
        September 6, 2011, 5:46 pm

        Thanks Donald. I’ll try harder to get away from the point scoring kind of comments.

        Do you think there’ll be a reciprocal attempt by the MW editorial team to get away from the point scoring kind of posts?

      • Donald
        September 6, 2011, 10:35 pm

        “Do you think there’ll be a reciprocal attempt by the MW editorial team to get away from the point scoring kind of posts?”

        I think most of the posts are fine, but now and then I think one falls flat, or Phil claims more than he should. You probably think it happens more often than I do.

    • LanceThruster
      September 6, 2011, 12:53 pm

      Control is also exerted by how much a story resonates in the echo chamber. This provides plausible deniability. Look at how some stories (with almost the exact language verbatim) bounce around the echo chamber’s 24/7 news cycle, whereas others are relegated to what amounts to the equivalent of the back pages of the print media.

      Do you not think that front page visibility or positioning above or below “the fold” has any relevance?

    • annie
      September 6, 2011, 11:24 pm

      I don’t understand how Robert Fisk even exists. If you read Mondoweiss, you learn daily how the Zionists control the mainstream media and filter everything through their twisted, Israel-first view. There can be no dissent.

      i am not aware fisk is published by any mainstream american news source. by mainstream i mean nyt, wapo, cnn, etc. the independent is not mainstream american news. i don’t think zionist control mainstream media all over the world. if they control AJ in 03 we wouldn’t have bombed them their offices in afghanistan.

  14. LanceThruster
    September 7, 2011, 9:55 pm

    For the record Northof49, these guys/gals? at 911-research (their comments are in red) write like you do – clear, informed, thorough, with just the right amount of scorn (though with the case they/you make, I don’t really feel there is an upper limit on scorn).

    Check out how they shred this bit of “expert analysis”.

    link to 911research.com

Leave a Reply