Monday, April 30, 2007

Something that's not Bush's fault

My father-in-law recently found himself in the unusual position of defending President Bush. A confirmed Democrat, he rarely misses a chance to bash the current commander-in-chief. But while he was on a business trip to Europe, well-educated, professional colleagues from Switzerland started insisting that 9/11 was a massive put-on, actually executed by agents of the Bush administration to provide a pretext for waging war in the Middle East.

As my father-in-law put it, "Europeans are insane."

Actually, I can't fault Europeans alone. Last summer, I ran into a friend I hadn't seen in a while at a wedding reception. After verbally attacking the meat-eating majority at the gathering for not conforming to his new vegan diet, he launched into a tirade about how the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition executed by government agents.

So it's not just the Swiss who are bat-shit crazy.

I'll note, though, that the French, in particular, have been enthusiastic consumers of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. They made a book touting pretty much the theory my father-in-law encountered into a major bestseller in the wake of the attack. That book has been reprinted in a multitude of countries, and the product it peddles thrives on the antipathy much of the world feels for Bush and his cronies.

But it's still lunacy.

I'm not going to bother engaging in a point-by-point rebuttal of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'll just ask: Do you really think that a government that routinely loses laptop computers containing important data when it's not leaking like a sieve by design, and which regularly screws up important missions, is actually capable of carrying out a massive conspiracy to attack and defraud the American people?

If so, you have a higher regard for government competence than I do.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do you really think that a government that routinely loses laptop computers containing important data when it's not leaking like a sieve by design, and which regularly screws up important missions, is actually capable of carrying out a massive conspiracy to attack and defraud the American people?"

Yes. And yes, government had a hand in perpetuating 9/11 attacks which it then used for its own purposes. Called "false flag" operations, this is a technique of deluding sheep that has probably been around since Genghis Khan.

Before you listen to me or anyone else on the matter, you owe to yourself to at least research 9/11 and draw your own conclusions.

April 30, 2007 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Zeph said...

Probable, no. Possible, sure. Governments have pulled such tricks before, and the Media is much more interested in selling a good story than in seeking any truths.

April 30, 2007 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more thing regarding government competence. Have you ever seen their efficiency and competence in collecting taxes they think they are owed? I can assure you, you will see ruthless efficiency. Just because they CAN be incompetent doesn't mean that they are not capable of putting the hammer on the nail when it bests suit their interests. Obviously corporate America sees them as competent in serving their interests otherwise we would have seen the end of this government a long time ago. No, the 9/11 attacks did not go off as seamlessly as they had planned. They botched that big time, but they still accomplished their goal, which was to terrorize a population into supporting wars without end and giving up their rights.

April 30, 2007 9:15 AM  
Anonymous andrew said...

Take off the tinfoil hat, anonymous. Seriously.

April 30, 2007 9:25 AM  
Blogger Johnny Lemuria said...

My view on conspiracy theories is this: Will believing this change my postion on anything significantly? If not, why worry about? I honestly don't think I could consider Dubya any scummier than I do now, with or without 9/11 being on his head. I already want to shove a rocket up his ass and fire him through a cheese grater: the blood of a few more thousand people on his hands won't make much difference.

April 30, 2007 12:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is it that conspiracy theorist such as your self are really quick to call those who believe in science "lunatics" or scientific theories "lunacy"... but you never seem to try to make a scientific argument for your position. And yet you do so in a way that makes it clear to use that you think you're the scientific one and we're just crazies who reject science.

The most compelling argument agianst your conspiracy theory is a simple one: What caused WTC 7 to fall?

Never mind the towers, which obviously couldn't have fallen via the mechanism described in your conspiracy theory-- anyone with a scientific mind who has even done basic calculations can see it.

The big gaping hole in your theory is WTC 7-- which was not hit by any airplane, or damaged in any serious way. Which had a small paper fire and a few buildings blown out... yet it collapsed.


Its weird, each political movement has its own knee-jerk rejection of science and ebracement of faith-- the conservatives have creationaism, liberals have global warming, and some libertarians have 9/11.

Particularly ironic since libertarians (real ones anyway) do not trust government.

Finally, in response to your "they're incompetant" theory-- the federal government regularly kills 5,000 americans-- tehy are doing it in Iraq, they do it each year with additional legislation that denies people their rights ultimately causing many to die.

You don't need some super capability to keep it quiet-- just as the Nazis got away with the gas chambers for years, and or yearss after the war most germans denied that the holocaust happened-- the truth can get out and people will naturally reject the truth simply because it is too abhorrent for them to comprehend.

Unlike you I won't say that this is lunacy, but I will say it is not the correct conclusion one reaches from an objective review of the facts.

April 30, 2007 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That should have been, "a few windows blown out" not "buildings blown out." Doh.

Apologies for the misspellings... I think faster than I can type.

April 30, 2007 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ever lose your car keys or misplace them?

So then, your a lousy driver?

April 30, 2007 7:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I don't personally subscribe to any 9/11 conspiracy theories, I will tell you this: I wouldn't be surprised at all if something like that turned out to be true.

Government's endless craving for more power and revenue should be apparent now more than ever, and we should recognize that the point has long passed where government stops working for the people and starts working primarily for the benefit of the power elite who control government. The US government in particular is now the most expensive, most powerful government and world empire in the history of organized coercion -- with military bases in some 150 countries around the world -- and guess what? It's still not enough. Every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before. Every year government seizes more power over the people, slowly but surely eliminating our god-given right to freedom.

I sure hope that the US government had nothing to do with 9/11, but again, I wouldn't have much reason to be surprised if it turned out to be true. After all, war IS the health of the state: the quickest, surest route to more power and revenue.

May 1, 2007 10:00 AM  
Anonymous ZibzZabber said...

Incompetence would be to not follow up when a hijacker turns himself in and confesses to the entire plot a year before the attacks. But to tell the agents working the case to forget about it and put him on a plane, I'm not so sure.

Incompetence couldn't make a very sound and structurally redundant third building collapse so perfectly it would appear to be a controlled demolition even though it was never hit by a plane and the structural damage it did have was all on one side of the building. So much so that a demolition expert was sure it was a controlled demolition. Even the incompetent should want to investigate the physical evidence that a eutectic reaction occurred on the surface of a steel sample from building 7 that had gaping holes -- some larger than a silver dollar. Even the incompetent know that since a fire and flying debris can't do this, it should be investigated... even if they don't know eutectic compounds can be used in controlled demolition.

Could incompetence be why Norman Mineta's testimony completely contradicts Dick Cheney's testimony (unrecorded, behind closed doors, not under oath) who claims he wasn't even there at the time. What were the orders? If they stood, that must mean they were executed, right?

May 1, 2007 10:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Bush was involved personally, it would have failed. That's for sure. But this false flag operation was outsourced to secret circles or rogue elements of the military and intelligence agencies, foreign and domestic. All you need was posess the key political functures (Cheney), the head of the military (Myers), proceed a few wargames that confused others and provided protectice cover for the OP, protect the patsies beforehand and the cover-up afterwards. All other issues can be explained by hierarchical orders, compartimentalization, fear and surpression. The motive, means and opportunity, sound questions at every other crime, are given formidable- for the NeoCons and Likudniks wet dreams of their new Pearl Harbor, "Rebuilding Americas Defense", "A clean break" and "Catastrophic Terrorism- tackling the new danger".

May 2, 2007 9:26 PM  
Blogger Killtown said...

Read this and tell me if you still think all these 9/11 facts are just a bunch of coincidences:

250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns'

May 2, 2007 10:06 PM  
Anonymous John said...

Your argument is one of the dumbest there is, that they couldn't have done it due to incompetance. What a load of BULL! Do you think a person or a group that was incompetant would win a Presidential election? Either Bush is cleverer than he seems, or the people around hime are very clever, and I tend to think the latter. Open your eyes and look into this yourself before making general and totally unfounded statements. By the way your cheap line about the Vegan trying to convince everybody that 9/11 was a conspiracy is the usual attempt to prove us as loonies through association. I'm a European and proud of the fact. I'm proud that I can see write through the War on Terror and the real reasons. And finally, if you don't think the government could do it, go to Wikipedia and look up Gladio, Operation Ajax, Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, all declassified documents. Inform yourself about Pearl Harbour and you'll find it was not as we originally throught. You call yourself a libertarian? Maybe, but you are not informed, sir.

May 2, 2007 11:51 PM  
Anonymous Your Daddy said...

You need to stop spouting off your opinions and actually read up on the events of and around that day. Do you care that 2.3 trillion dollars of DOD money were announced missing on 9/10/2001? Do you care that the accounting wing of the pentagon(1/5 chance of hitting it and it just happened to have been the only side renovated to deal with anybody home McFly?) was nailed, destroying the means of tracking down that 2.3 trillion? If you don't have knowledge about a topic you're better off keeping your mouth shut. When you call people questioning the governments conspiracy theory(A conspiracy is when 2 or more individuals collude in an illegal act. A theory is a well educated attempt at explaining something. Now that you understand the definition you should understand that the government position IS a conspiracy theory too. Feel stupid? Good!) lunatics you're not presenting any evidence. None. In fact, you are engaging in the same tactic as propagandists. You are associating an unconditioned stimulus (lunatic) which elicits an unconditioned response (the feeling that someone isn't sane) with a completely unassociated stimulus(9/11 truthers). Are you being paid for this? I would hope so because otherwise you just look like a fool that doesn't have the slightest clue about the topic.

May 3, 2007 1:33 AM  
Blogger Shrink Rat said...

Any courageous investigators of the events of September 11, 2001 should probably read the most recent book by Dr. David Ray Griffin.

"The reviewers not only make it clear that this is a book worth reading, but their statements are interesting in their own right.
“David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods. This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations? International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen.”---Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA.

“Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed.”—-Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States

"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."---Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration.

“David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called ‘the official story of 9/11/01,’ which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans.”---Meria Heller, Producer Host of the Meria Heller Show (

The country is dividing between those who can't handle the truth and those who seek the truth. 

Truth has always been the enemy of the statists, of the fascists, of the purveyors of lies and of war.

The 9/11 Truth Revolution seeks the truth.

It behooves every critical thinking American to actually investigate the truth rather than listening to disinformaiton efforts typified by the repeating of insipid and erroneous complaints such as 'the government is too incompetent'. The neocons have been surprisingly competent. And any who try to argue that they have not been; e.g., using the Iraq occupation as an example, should probably read their historical mentor and guiding light, Leo Strauss.

- Dr. Richard Welser
forensic neuropsychologist

May 3, 2007 4:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can call the goverment incompetent but they are doing and getting exactly they want. Explain that away.

May 3, 2007 6:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good morning, Mr. J.D. Tuccille:

My name is Erin S. Myers (prior service army hilomech, FAA pilot/A+P mech, metal work designer/engineer/fabricator and complex system integration researcher and trouble shooter... boring shit, right? I think so.)...

Appeals To Authority become common as dirt in the months and years following 911. A veritable blizzard of smooth talking professionals and know-it-alls from mostly government or gov/dependant labs as sycophantic ass-kissers extraordinaire... telling Americans 24/7 how "as strange as it may seem... trust me, the freedom-hater hijacked planes and jet fuel did it."... following on those heels... came the most asinine recommendations for security-through-hegemony looking more like domination, control, and a blatant recipe of ingredients to cook up a steaming hot cauldron of Middle Eastern chaos stew.

Deceive yourself as long as you can... but to pretend that the very same people who wrote this shit BEFOR 911, sat 'dumbfounded' at the controls ON 911, and have had some of their wildest dreams coming to fruition SINCE 911.... as "incompetent"....

Only a sadly naive man-child you define yourself to be.

Best of luck to us all.


May 3, 2007 6:55 AM  
Blogger gary said...

Well, this seems to be the 18th comment to this post about 911. Quickly going through your 8 previous posts and looking at the numbers of comments, most being either 0 or 1 each, I can see that you've finally found a readership, albeit one that is taking you to task for your display of sloppy thinking.

May 3, 2007 8:06 AM  
Blogger Pat said...

Great post; you have certainly attracted the bat-shit crazy nutbars from 9-11 Flogger.

There are a couple good debunking sites on the web; I recommend and for ease of use. We debunk the kooks at

May 3, 2007 8:30 AM  
Blogger b. j. edwards said...

Of course, your are right, J.D., as you can see by the irrational reactions of the 9/11 Deniers who have jumped on you.

They have been whining incessantly that 9/11 was an "inside job" for five years now, ignoring completely that they have been easily and repeatedly debunked for the last 4 1/2 years.

We can only shake our heads and laugh at these sad little nutters.

I think this says it best:

May 3, 2007 10:41 AM  
Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Many people who have worked in the government or for the government seem to think there are issues surrounding 9/11. Perhaps you should look into why these professionals have questions...

May 3, 2007 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the administration is smart enough to plan and execute an elaborate 911 plot, but too dumb to plant WMD's In Iraq? The Moonbots are out in full force I see.

How about that conspiracy to collapse the freeway in Oakland? Designed to withstand earthquakes it collapsed into its own footprint after a small gas fire erupted on it. According to Rosie this is only the second time in history steel melted causing a collapse. Shrely this is another Neo-Con conspiracy.


May 3, 2007 11:05 AM  
Blogger b. j. edwards said...

"Many people who have worked in the government or for the government seem to think there are issues surrounding 9/11."

Despite being shown otherwise for years. That is why you all are known as 9/11 Deniers, Swing Dangler.

May 3, 2007 12:27 PM  
Anonymous your daddy said...

It is very telling to read posts from bedunkers who never address any facts. They set up straw men arguments to knock down. Each of the bedunkers that has posted on here doesn't seem to mind that the DOD stole/"lost"(yeh right) 2.3 trillion dollars the day before 9/11. If the bedunkers were anything but paid cointel and those suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance they would be pissed off that THEIR tax dollars have vanished!!

How 'bout it bedunkers? Where are your concerns for the PEOPLE's missing money???

May 3, 2007 2:18 PM  
Blogger John Doraemi said...


I like Nafeez Ahmed's original and classic repsonse:

9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis

There are many ways of approaching this bogus incompetence argument. The way I prefer is to point at Bush sitting in the classroom. Just who is being incompetent here? The Secret Service is incompetent?

They weren't incompetent when they moved Bush out of his high rise 2 months previously in Genoa Italy when a warning of suicide hijackings of commercial jets was received. (LA TIMES 9-27-01)

You're saying that they were competent when they only had warnings, but when REAL suicide hijackings crash into two major US buildings, they suddenly don't know how to secure the president and move him to a safe undisclosed location?

Why was Ari Fleischer holding up a sign telling Bush, "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET?" (Wash. Times 10-7-02) Don't say anything, WHY?

Cheney was deeply involved in the stand down and the confusion in our air defense system. We can link him to being the man in control of the exercises -- perhaps 15 or more, which means scheduling so many on the same day, that day.

Cheney admits that his story was in discussing whether or not to put a scrambled jet in the same airspace as hijacked jets (Tim Russert interview) knowing full well that was standard operating procedure.

Mineta has him issuing orders related to the Pentagon attack, and lying about the time he arrived in the PEOC.

Rumsfeld was supposed to give "approval" for scrambling fighters, but he never did. He pretended he didn't know what was going on for an hour and a half until an unknown plane smashed into his own building! On the other side of the complex, of course.

Go into my 70 facts below and see the testmony of Robert Wright, Sibel Edmonds, and Thomas Pickard.

Incompetence my ass. The incompetence is in the journalism I keep seeing.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

May 3, 2007 2:29 PM  
Anonymous RonPaul4Pres said...

I'm glad there are people here who know that all of the questions have been answered. For 4 years I've been trying to find an answer for the eutectic reaction anomoly. If one of you could point me to the study or research that explains this, I would be very grateful. Until this is explained, you can't factually rule out demolition since, as an earlier poster mentioned, plane crashes, flying debris and even extermely hot fire could not do this.

Professor Jonathan Barnett (expert in structural and fire protection engineering who led the first team studying the steel for FEMA) said "Before you spend millions of dollars [on further investigations], you need to know what to spend it on" and identified this as topping the list. FEMA also said it needed additional study but it's not mentioned in the NIST report so if one of the informed people (like BJ) can point me to the study that explains this, you'd be adding much more to the conversation than your previous posts. Strangely though, this Jonathan Barnett who made multiple trips per week (between 10/01 and 05/02) said he witnessed the steel being cut up and sold as early as a October 2001 so he may be bat-shit crazy too just like all the other investigators, engineers, journalists and politicians who claim the same thing. Since all the websites that support the official conspiracy theory say this is wrong, those people must be bat-shit crazy too.

Anyway, you can make me believe the official conspiracy theory by explaining this. Who is going to take 5 minutes of their time to help me out?

May 3, 2007 3:55 PM  
Blogger b. j. edwards said...

"I'm glad there are people here who know that all of the questions have been answered."

We have been waiting for you 9/11 Deniers to show us that "9/11 was an inside job"; that the WTC towers could not have collapsed from the combination of fire and damage done by 767s; that WTC 7 could not have collapsed from the combination of fire and damage from debris from the collapsing WTC 1; that you have refuted NIST and ASCE; that only explosive demolition could have been responsible for the destruction and that "only a few good men" would have been in on the "conspiracy" and responsible for setting up the whole destruction of 9/11.

Yessirree, every time we ask you to provide us you evidence, you punt, show us nothing at all, repeat debunked nonsense, or whine that "we are only asking questions!"

After five years that is all you have to show for yourselves. We just laugh at your ignorance and childishness.

Sorry, kids, your time is up. It's over. Everyone out of the pool.

May 3, 2007 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Wonderduck said...

"What caused WTC 7 to fall?

The big gaping hole in your theory is WTC 7-- which was not hit by any airplane, or damaged in any serious way. Which had a small paper fire and a few (windows) blown out... yet it collapsed."

Wow. Just... wow. A small paper fire?

WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane. Good on you for noticing that! Here's what it WAS hit by.

Of course, having parts of one of the tallest buildings in the world fall on it wouldn't cause any damage, right?

May 3, 2007 6:09 PM  
Blogger Shrink Rat said...

Review by Thomas C. Fletcher (Petaluma CA USA)

Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a monumental accomplishment by David Ray Griffin. He exhaustively and definitively destroys the pretensions of four major "9/11 debunking" publications published in 2006, shortly before the fifth anniversary of the events. Although the book is organized into chapters dealing with each one of the four publications in turn, Griffin has such a broad knowledge of all the evidence pertaining to the events, and such command of logic and argument, that the book is thoroughly cohesive and progressively builds an integrated critique of all dimensions of the official theory. Debunking 9/11 Debunking will effectively serve as a veritable encyclopedia of not just the facts of 9/11, but of the best arguments to debunk the official (and semi-official) lies about the facts. Griffin, as usual, avoids speculation and focuses on showing that the official story of what happened that day cannot be true.

Before the four central chapters, Griffin provides an Introduction ("Conspiracy Theories and Evidence") in which he distinguishes between rational and irrational conspiracy theories and discusses the "double standard" used by the mainstream and left-leaning press, i.e., the confused (or self-serving) way in which both fail to make this distinction and then assert that critiques of the official account are "conspiracy theories" while completely obfuscating the fact that the official story is itself a conspiracy theory. He deals in detail with tendencies of human thought that make it difficult for people to look at unfamiliar and threatening evidence ("paradigmatic" and "wishful-and-fearful thinking"), as well as the main a priori reasons put forward by such debunkers for why alternative theories needn't be taken seriously ("incompetence," "someone would have talked," "overwhelming evidence for al-Qaeda's responsibility," etc.). The Introduction concludes with a discussion of the role of scientists and scientific explanations in 9/11 conspiracy theories, and shows that just as there are rational and irrational conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, both scientific and unscientific theories to explain the events have been put forward. The rest of the book shows that science and reason are all on one side, that of the alternative, not the official, 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Chapter 1 zeroes in on the Vanity Fair article by Michael Bronner, "9/11 Live: the NORAD Tapes", which was published in the September, 2006 issue of the magazine. Bronner claimed to provide the real story of the military's response to the hijackings, based on his privileged access to the "NORAD tapes", i.e., selections from the audio tapes recorded by NORAD (and the FAA) as the events took place. Griffin proves conclusively that the story told by Bronner is an elaborate and clever psyop filled with lies. First, the tapes, which only surfaced in 2004, are contradicted by volumes of independent evidence, which Griffin exhaustively details. Second, Griffin's extensive new research, especially long interviews by email with a former FAA air traffic controller, Robin Hordon, and with the current military liaison at the FAA's Boston Center, Colin Scoggins, who was on-duty that day, shows that the story told by Bronner about the FAA's slow response to the flight emergencies of all four planes is simply incredible. He presents a detailed, nuanced analysis of the important distinction between the "Emergency Protocol" and the "Hijacking Protocol", and shows that the military (with the help of Bronner and the 9/11 Commission) is attempting to defend itself from charges of a stand-down by claiming that their responses were controlled by the slower "Hijacking Protocol". Finally, Griffin makes an extremely strong case for the high probability that the "tapes" themselves are fakes, likely the product of voice morphing-technology and cherry-picking of real tapes to make a false audio record.

In Chapter 2 Griffin turns to the book Without Precedent by the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, published in August, 2006. He proceeds to dissect, with his usual rigor and precision, the lame efforts of Kean and Hamilton to debunk different alternative conspiracy theories. He turns their own arguments against them by showing that every type of flaw they find in alternative theories is actually far more accurately descriptive of their own, official, irrational conspiracy theory. Griffin completely destroys their efforts to debunk the stand-down theory and theories that assert that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and notes that they avoid all mention of the alternative theories about the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings (and again, as in The 9/11 Commission Report, they never mention the collapse of WTC 7). Griffin then exhaustively shows that their criteria for identifying "conspiracy theories" all apply best to their own theory, in that they begin with their conclusion, they exclude vast amounts of relevant evidence completely (most notably the fact that Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of the Commission, is a close associate of the Bush administration and completely skewed its "investigation"), their continued adherence to theories already disproved by facts, their ignoring of facts contradicting their theory, their uncritical acceptance of dubious evidence, their reliance on third-hand evidence, and their disdain for open and informed debate. Griffin's destruction of their pretensions to have provided an objective, rational analysis of "conspiracy theories" could not be more total.

In Chapter 3 Griffin takes up the online publication by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) entitled "Answers to FAQs", from August 30, 2006. The title refers to frequently asked questions about NIST's earlier Report on the destruction of the Twin Towers, which had failed to provide an explanation that satisfied many readers, and resulted in a flood of questions to the agency. In its "Answers to FAQs" NIST pretends to set all such questions to rest. Griffin shows, again with extraordinary thoroughness and incisiveness, that NIST has failed to debunk the controlled demolition theory of the Tower's (and WTC 7's) destruction. He shows that the planes could not have caused the extensive damage to the columns and fireproofing claimed by NIST; that the fires were nowhere near as hot, long-lasting, and extensive as claimed; that NISTs theory of "collapse" cannot, therefore, be true; that NIST fraudulently "tweaked" its computer models of the situations in the Towers, changing parameters until it generated the result they wanted; that, entirely unscientifically, they never even considered the hypothesis of controlled demolition as a possible explanation; that NIST claimed there were no explosions within the Towers just before they fell (the massive evidence for which Griffin summarizes); that NIST claimed there were no other types of evidence for controlled demolition (the voluminous evidence is then presented in exhaustive detail by Griffin); and finally, Griffin asks, "What about WTC 7"? NIST still has not provided the public with a report on the collapse of Building 7, despite its mandate to do so; as Griffin details, this is probably due to the very substantial difficulty they will have in explaining the collapse in any way other than as the result of a controlled demolition.

In a blockbuster of a last chapter, Griffin in Chapter 4 destroys Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Myths, a short book expanding a 2005 article in that magazine. He starts out with a thorough deconstruction of Senator John McCain's propagandistic Foreword, and then reviews the history of the involvement of Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security, in the book's production, and the fact that the editors of the book deny this relationship. Griffin then explicates the logic underlying the task facing Popular Mechanics. Specifically, it "must show that every one of the key claims made by the leading critics of the official story is false. Why? Because each of these claims challenges one of the essential claims of the official story. If even one of those essential claims is disproved, then the official story as such is thrown into doubt. Critics do not need to show the falsity of every essential element in the official account; they need to show only the falsity of one such element." Griffin then proceeds to demonstrate, in great detail, that the book utterly fails to accomplish its purpose with respect to even one essential claim of the leading critics of the official story, let alone all of them. He follows the order of the book and shows that the arguments presented to debunk critics of the official account of the planes and the alleged hijackers' flying skills, the stand-down, the destruction of the World Trade Center, the events at the Pentagon, and Flight 93 all fail, quite miserably and even comically. Along the way he exposes the many rhetorical tricks and deceptions used by the editors to fool gullible readers.

The book's Conclusion returns to the role played by the press, showing that its uncritical acceptance of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11, due to its reliance upon the authority of the government and its unfounded assumption that official and semi-official publications have been genuinely scientific, objectively neutral reports, has perpetuated an irrational and unscientific theory and suppressed far more rational and scientific alternatives. Griffin provides examples of this misplaced trust in the government in writings by left-leaning journalists, including Alex Cockburn and Matt Rothschild. He believes the left press may be able to see the errors they have made, and make a turn toward the truth, but holds out little hope for the mainstream press, which largely has vested interests in the government agenda of "the war on terror." Griffin concludes with suggestions for how US citizens and people in other countries could organize and mobilize to demand a genuine investigation into 9/11, leading to judicial proceedings.

Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a tremendous book, which should be read by everyone. By utterly destroying each of the well-funded, best efforts of the government to defend its case in the court of public opinion, the book effectively finishes off the official conspiracy theory. With this book in its arsenal, the 9/11 truth movement is set to take the offensive. It is time to launch this Debunker Buster at the hardened fortresses of the mass murderers within. Do what the perpetrators fear most. Read this book!

May 3, 2007 7:17 PM  
Anonymous RonPaul4Pres said...

B.J., you quoted me so I'm assuming your comments are directed at me. I don't believe we've ever met or communicated before so I don't how you can be waiting for me to show you anything. I also never made the statement that I had proof that 9/11 was an inside job. If I did, I certainly wouldn't be asking questions about physical evidence that contradicts the official theory; I'd be showing my proof. I'm not the one claiming to know what happened, NIST is. And if neither they nor any of the supporters of their theory can offer an explanation for the euctectic reaction evidence then it eliminates the fire based collapse theory as possible. This isn't something that randomly occurs in nature. It's the reason why the researchers contracted by FEMA felt this was so important. If no theory can explain where those compounds came from then "WTC 7 could not have collapsed from the combination of fire and damage from debris from the collapsing WTC 1" because fire and damage from debris don't cause euctectic reactions.

I provided verifiable evidence and politely asked for an explanation (or a link to an explanation). Instead, you ignored it and said I'm repeating stuff that has already been "debunked". OK, I'll repeat it again, where is the "debunking" of this evidence? If you can't "debunk" it or provide a link to a "debunking" then you are either a liar or you believe something based purely on faith... no different than the people who claim to know George Bush was involved in the attacks. Faith doesn't cut it for me so I will wait for you to provide me with the explanantion that you claim exists.

May 3, 2007 7:18 PM  
Blogger Shrink Rat said...

To: RonPaul4Pres,
I know you probably already know this but always expect disinfo shills like 'Edwards', to misquote, to use ad hominem extensively, to make assertions about evidence which they cannot source, to mistate 'evidence', to distract, to tendentiously argue minutia which they mistate, ad nausem. All to derail a thread, to ridicule and generally act like the gov. disinfo shills they are. The techniques are always the same except that some are more clever about it than others. As for Edwards, I think he needs to go back and do remedial shill school 101. Or perhaps he should go over to jref and see how 'shilling' as an art form has been perfected. But don't ever expect him to engage in scientific, empirically-based rational discourse on any topic. Because he cannot. Shill school doesn't teach them that.

May 3, 2007 7:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn!!! This Mr Tuccille has fomented a veritable revolution! Now, for Christ's sake, cut through the crap and allow yourself to think.

May 3, 2007 9:12 PM  
Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Pat said:

We debunk the kooks at


Sorry! Just couldn't help myself!

Paddy, love, you do nothing of the sort. The lot of you are little more than hacks, churning out the same dismissive rubbish for months on end--when you're not being Nico Haupt's stenographers.


May 3, 2007 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Christ, most of the 9/11 conspiracy theories listed here are just the same old recycled shtick from years ago. These “questions” have been asked and answered countless times. Get some new material or give it up. If it wasn’t for the internet, most of you guys would be relegated to a street corner, handing out pamphlets next to the unwashed nut with the sandwich-board announcing that the “end is near”. On second thought, there's a good chance that you ARE that nut with the sandwich-board.

May 4, 2007 9:08 AM  
Blogger Shrink Rat said...

As I noted above, the disinfo shills prefer ad hominem.....

they are not capable of rational, empically-based argumentation. At least they have never displayed it.

Much like 'anonymous' above. Now, now, don't bother the adults....'anon', go back outside and play with the other children....

May 4, 2007 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I await the reason why the number of scientists and engineers who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy is so minuscule, and why the vast majority of scientists and engineers from around the world have not denounced the “official version” of why the towers fell. If you insist on labeling them all disinfo government sheeple, there will be no choice but to mock you (and your ilk) again.

May 4, 2007 1:15 PM  
Anonymous RonPaul4Pres said...

Anonymous, I waited a day for BJ's answer since he claimed all these questions have been answered and he has not provided an answer (he seems to have lost interest). Now it is you that is claiming that this question "has been asked and answered countless times" so I will ask you... Where is the answer you speak of? It seems, like BJ, you will make statements but when asked for something to back up those statements (in this case it's as simple as cut and pasting a link), you can't do it. Why is that?

For your benefit, I'll recap. After the attacks, FEMA called Professor Jonathan Barnett (an expert in civil and structural engineering with a Ph.D. in fire protection engineering) to join the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). Even though the removal and destruction of steel samples, in Barnett's own words, "hindered FEMA's BPAT investigation". Barnett still identified findings that required further investigation and examination. Topping that list were the findings of R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. (professors of materials science and engineering) who conducted metallurgical studies on steel samples brought back from WTC Building 7. Their findings, which the NY Times called the "deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation" revealed that a eutectic reaction had occurred, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. Being the experts they are, they were "shocked" by this and, along with FEMA, called for further metallurgic investigations, NIST funding and access to more samples. Their calls went unanswered by NIST who, to this day, haven't explained the phenomenon.

To date, the only research I can find where someone has tried to find a potential source for these eutectic compounds is Dr Stephen Jones. The only person who has even attempted to touch the issue from NIST is Dr. Frank Greening who suggested that aluminum from the planes could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." Dr. Jones tested this hypothesis and was able to eliminate it (as well as many others).

Since this evidence must be taken into account for any theory to be plausible (it has yet to be accounted for by NIST) and you (and others) keep claiming all of these questions have been answered, I, again, politely request a link or even a cut and paste answer to these findings. If you can't provide either of those then you are a liar or just repeating something you heard somewhere else. So, provide the answer you claim exists or disappear like BJ (that way I'll know you don't know the answer and you won't have to embarrass yourself by actually posting that).

May 4, 2007 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OMG, you're not recycling the THERMITE theory, are you? I thought that was ridiculed to dead months ago. I’ve got an abridged answer for you – there was a BIG fire. Weird (warning: big word)
metallurgical things can happen in fires, particularly at elevated temperatures. An absence of an answer to every single peculiar thing that happened on 9/11 is not evidence of a government conspiracy to destroy WTC 7 in the most idiotic and convoluted way possible. It just staggers the imagination that anyone is still believing this stuff.

May 4, 2007 3:59 PM  
Anonymous RonPaul4Pres said...

"OMG, you're not recycling the THERMITE theory, are you? I thought that was ridiculed to dead months ago."

Where did I state a theory? My post consisted of facts and questions you claimed have been answered. I don't know how much you know about science and research but there is no field of science that I know of where ridiculing is an acceptable way of eliminating evidence.

"I've got an abridged answer for you – there was a BIG fire. Weird (warning: big word) metallurgical things can happen in fires, particularly at elevated temperatures."

I have to imagine the only reason you would post nonsense like this is because you can do so anonymously. Any intelligent person with an ounce of pride should be embarrassed to be associated with a comment like that. You can abridge your answers as much as you want, it doesn't make it true. To back up your abridged answer, point me to an example of, or research showing, high temperature fires causing eutectic reactions. I'd also like to put you in touch with a couple of materials science professors (you know, metallurgy experts) who don't think it's quite that simple. I'm sure they'd love for you to enlighten them with just how simple it is. Let me know (of course you'd no longer have your embarrassment shield of anonymity since I'd have to give them your email address).

"An absence of an answer to every single peculiar thing that happened on 9/11 is not evidence of a government conspiracy to destroy WTC 7 in the most idiotic and convoluted way possible. It just staggers the imagination that anyone is still believing this stuff."

OK, it appears you are admitting that there is no answer for the presence of eutectic compunds. You could've saved face by just saying that instead of surrounding it with a bunch of nonsense. Anyway, can you point me to where I said that the eutectic reaction evidence is evidence of a government conspiracy to destroy WTC 7? I can't find where I said it so I'm confused as to whether you're debating yourself or if you're purposely using a straw man argument.

The experts contracted by FEMA felt this was such shocking evidence that it was one of only two things they asked NIST for funding and samples to investigate further. Are you saying that the experts hired by the government just couldn't comprehend your simple, abridged answer? By your logic, if an autopsy of a man who supposedly died of a heart attack showed he had poison in his system, we shouldn't investigate the origin of the poison because it's obvious he died of a heart attack.

Well, at least you admitted that there is no explanation for the eutectic compounds. Hopefully, you agree with the experts and think this needs to be investigated even though NIST didn't.

May 4, 2007 7:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uh, if you did not bring up the eutectic reaction to suggest that thermite was used to take down WTC7, then why did you mention it at all? Merely because it was a metallurgical curiosity? When I said that most of the conspiracy theorists “questions” have been asked and answered, did you intentionally dig for something that was unrelated to any conspiracy theory?

May 5, 2007 6:08 AM  
Anonymous RonPaul4Pres said...

"When I said that most of the conspiracy theorists 'questions' have been asked and answered, did you intentionally dig for something that was unrelated to any conspiracy theory?"

First... No, in fact the only reason I responded to both your and BJ's comments is that they were posted after I posted these unanswered questions which led me to believe that both of you were implying this extremely relevant question had already been answered. I even reiterated the question to make sure. Of course, I understood it was a possibility that neither of you had actually read the previous comments before posting your own but I wasn't going to assume that. If I did, I would've asked why are you responding to posts you did not read.

Second... the "unrelated to any conspiracy theory" part of your statement doesn't make sense to me. Anything can be related to a conspiracy theory. I bet there isn't a single piece of information about the JFK assasination, the OKC Bombing or 9/11 that hasn't been used in someone's theory. Just because a fact has been taken out of context or manipulated in some way to support someone's theory, doesn't mean it diminishes the importance or relevence of the fact.

"Uh, if you did not bring up the eutectic reaction to suggest that thermite was used to take down WTC7, then why did you mention it at all?"

I was trying to illustrate that, regardless of what many people seem to believe, an adequate and acceptable investigation into the events of 9/11, and specifically the collapse of the 3 WTC buildings, has yet to be done. The investigations that have been done only told us what we already knew and, in some case, gave us multiple possibilities for what might have happened. All the important, unanswered questions remain unanswered and in many cases, no attempt was made to find an answer. The point is, the largest crime ever committed on U.S. soil still needs to be properly investigated. The question is, what will it take to get this done?

May 7, 2007 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Cheapshot said...

"Finally, Griffin makes an extremely strong case for the high probability that the "tapes" themselves are fakes, likely the product of voice morphing-technology and cherry-picking of real tapes to make a false audio record."

The tapes are real, they are not fakes.

May 16, 2007 5:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home