You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
CrisisPapers Donating Member (271 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-25-06 03:41 PM
Original message
The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Thu May-04-06 04:09 PM by EarlG
| Ernest Partridge |

This essay is guaranteed to make many readers very angry with me. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

Last month I was a guest on a progressive radio talk show. About half-way through the hour-long program, the conversation was going well, until I expressed some doubts about the "controlled demolition" hypotheses of the collapse of the World Trade Center. That comment sealed the fate of the remainder of the hour, as it prompted an unvarying succession of angry rebuttals and a deluge of alleged "facts" supporting the view that the WTC towers were brought down by pre-set demolition charges, and that the Pentagon was not struck by a Boeing 747. And so I felt obliged to take a closer look at the theories and evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

After many hours watching videos this weekend of long presentations by David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones and James Fetzer, several other videos both affirming and rejecting "the official version" (OV), and reading numerous articles, it appears to me that the OV of the destruction of the World Trade Center is not credible. Too many anomalies are not explained. A closer look at the conspiracy theories (CTs) indicates that these too can not be true. Too many improbable assumptions. Thus one must conclude that the 9/11 attack on the WTC never took place.

No wait, that's absurd. Of course it took place! So what we are left with is an abundance of contrary claims, unconfirmable "evidence" leading to utter confusion and no firm conclusions - none, that is, regarding the World Trade Center attack. The Pentagon attack, however, should present little doubt: American Airlines Flight 77 struck the building.

The Evidence Problem

All accounts of the attacks, whether the official version or any of the numerous conspiracy theories, rest upon weak evidence "weak," that is, to all those who did not examine the evidence at the scene, or did not have access to evidence with a secure "chain of custody." For all others, including myself and presumably all who read this, the evidence is 2nd, 3rd and Nth-hand hearsay. The best evidence available to us, when relevant, are photographic and video images, and even these are subject to various interpretations.

Until recently, the public could rely on published evidence from government scientists and government-supported scientific research, as well as reputable media. But no more. We now know that the Bush Administration alters or withholds scientific reports to conform to policy, dogma and pre-conceptions. The Bushites also lie outright in defense of their policies. As for the media, even that most reliable and respected "newspaper of record," the New York Times, has become a font of misinformation, including the Clinton Whitewater non-scandal, false and misleading reports of the Florida 2000 vote count, and Judith Miller's notorious reports of Saddam's alleged WMDs.

Even so, the critical reader should be capable of identifying and dismissing bizarre assertions, such as Morgan Reynold's claim that no aircraft struck the twin towers on 9/11 this in spite of thousands of eye-witnesses and a vast number of photo and video images.

The same critical reader can identify and set aside pronouncements that are devoid of supporting evidence, such as this narrative by James Fetzer of the fate of American Airlines Flight 77 which, if it didn't hit the Pentagon, as Fetzer contends, must be somehow accounted for:

Flight 77 went off the radar screen in the vicinity of the Kentucky/Ohio border. This whole dotted path is a hypothetical or an imaginary path that the plane may have taken, but it was not recorded on radar. And my belief is in fact the plane actually went down in the Kentucky Ohio vicinity... Then a plane, probably an A-13 Sky Warrior was substituted here very close to Washington DC.

Fetzer gives us no citation of the alleged disappearance from the radar screen. (I have heard nothing about this "radar disappearance." Have you?) Then it gets much worse: "hypothetical or imaginary path," "may have taken," "my belief." Not a shred of evidence is offered in support of this fantasy.

The World Trade Center

Much of the "evidence" presented by the WTC conspiracy theorists is demonstrably false, fallacious or irrelevant. For example:
  • "The temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel." True but irrelevant. This is a persistent criticism by the CT. However, the OV does not claim that the steel melted at the impact points (melting temperature, 2700F), only that it was weakened. The temperature sufficient to weaken steel by fifty-percent (1170F) was well within the range of the burning jet fuel and office supplies.

  • "The debris was quickly collected without inspection and shipped off to Asia for recycling." False. It was relocated to a collection site at Staten Island, where it was examined by forensic engineers, and where personal effects were identified. (Here, here, and here are three of the 54,000 Google hits from a search for "World Trade Center" and "Staten Island" and "Debris")

  • "No steel frame building has ever collapsed because of a fire." Another "fact" repeatedly asserted by CT-s. Irrelevant, even if true. The WTC towers were brought down by a combination of fire and structural damage caused by the impact from the planes. (The collapse of WTC Building #7 was not caused by either fire or impact from planes - a problem for the CV which we will discuss later).
Now look very carefully at these images of the collapse of the WTC towers, here (north tower, 35:20. 36:40), here (south tower, 5:37), and here. (The numbers in parenthesis indicate the time locations in the videos). Notice that the collapse begins at the points of impact. Below the points of impact, the towers remain in place as the disintegration proceeds from the top down.

Next look at these video images of controlled demolitions (131:40) and also the collapse of WTC #7 (1:05). In all these cases, the collapse begins at the base, where the charges were set.

Assume now what your eyes plainly tell you: that (a) the collapse of each tower begins at the point of impact, and (b) that the collapse proceeds from that point downward. Next, try to weave these assumptions into the standard CT hypothesis that the towers were brought down by pre-located explosive charges. What results is this highly improbable scenario:

Charges had to be set beforehand at the points of impact, the 94th to the 98th floors of the north tower, and the 78th to the 84th floors of the south tower. Both aircraft, in stunning feats of piloting skill, succeeded in striking precisely at those pre-arranged locations. However, all charges placed below those points of impact were either duds or were insufficient to precipitate collapses. The towers stood firm as the demolition moved downward from the impact points.

In rebuttal, one might point out that the towers were supported by both the outer walls and an inner core. Might not the charges at the base have caused the collapse of the inner core, while the outer walls remained intact? This would account for the downward vertical plunge of the north tower.

Nice try, but it won't wash. If the core collapsed within, the accumulating debris from above would have demolished the outer walls below. This did not happen.

However, the official version is not without problems, and the conspiracy theory is not yet out of the contest. There remain some troubling anomalies for the OV:

Foremost among these is the collapse of WTC Building No. 7. Five hours after the towers came down, this forty story structure collapsed. And this time, as you can see here (1:05), the collapse followed the exact pattern of a controlled demolition: beginning at the base and falling uniformly on its own "footprint." The best that the OV can offer as explanation is that the foundation was weakened by fire, by seismic shock of the collapsing towers, and by the overload of debris from the towers. It is not a compelling explanation, to say the least. Perhaps this explains why an account of the collapse of WTC #7 is missing from the 9/11 Commission report.

Prof. Steven Jones, to my mind the most credible of the 911 critics, claims that melted and congealed steel was found in the rubble, and that it originated at the base of the standing buildings. The only plausible cause of melting with these properties, Jones claims, would be a high temperature explosive such as thermite. Jones is well-qualified to make this assessment. He is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with a specialty in metal-catalyzed fusion.

And this is just the beginning of a long list of anomalies that undercut the official version. Among them:
  • There were numerous reports of explosions below the impact points at the time the towers were hit. Others report that there were explosions before the planes hit.

  • Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were destroyed.

  • When news of the attack reached the Florida school where Bush was visiting, the Secret Service failed to remove the president from that previously publicized location.

  • There was a flood of "put options" (anticipations of loss) on American Airlines and United Airlines stock, within the week before 9/11.

  • Several prominent individuals, among them San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and John Ashcroft were warned not to fly on 9/11. In addition, events involving other key individuals were "rescheduled" away from the WTC on 9/11.
The governments, New York City and State, and the Feds still have a lot of splainin' to do.

The Attack on the Pentagon

Unlike the WTC attacks, the Pentagon is rather simple and cut-and-dried. The official version is correct: The west side of the building was struck by American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 747. The evidence is clear, unequivocal and overwhelming. The alternative conspiracy theories (impact by a fighter plane or cruise missile) are plainly false, and at times simply pathetic.

This conclusion is compelling when we apply the "Hume test" to the conspiracy theory: namely, the improbability of CT being true, despite the evidence for OV. Specifically, for CT to be true, we must also assume that:

Hundreds of eyewitnesses on the George Washington Parkway at morning rush-hour were either (a) victims of mass-hallucination, or (b) taken aside and threatened or bribed to testify falsely that they saw a commercial aircraft.

Immediately after the impact, squads of conspirators rushed to the scene to plant body parts, personal effects, and bogus aircraft parts (some, like the engines and landing gear weighing several hundred pounds). Others dumped aviation fuel, to "falsely" suggest involvement of an airplane.

Alternatively, eyewitness testimony of those claiming to find these parts were also coerced, and published photographic evidence faked. All press reports were also concocted to give credence to the official version.

Finally, some explanation must be presented as to the fate of Flight 77 and its passengers, which somehow disappeared without any further trace at the precise time the alleged military aircraft or cruise missile approached and struck the Pentagon.

Sorry, but its just too much for me to swallow.

What Does it all Mean?

How then are we to explain the Bush Administration inaction before 9/11, and its willingness to take full advantage of this "new Pearl Harbor?" I don't know, but that doesn't keep me from speculating. So here's my hunch and it's only a hunch which I am willing to revise or abandon if and when more evidence appears. The Busheviks were forewarned ("Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"), but they expected attacks on the scale of the USS Cole and the African embassies: perhaps a few dozen. They did not take countermeasures because they saw a policy advantage in such a "mini-Pearl Harbor." For such a purpose, the attack on The Pentagon would suffice. They did not expect the destruction of the World Trade Center. However, after 9/11 the die was cast, and so they eagerly launched their "war on terror," along with the policy outrages that were to follow: the USA PATRIOT ACT, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo. The Iraq War, we now know from Richard Clarke and the Downing Street memos, was on the drawing boards long before 9/11, awaiting just such an event to set it in motion.

All that is little more than a guess. But we can arrive at some more substantial conclusions from our unresolved examination of the 9/11 attacks.

First of all, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission is a travesty. Too many phenomena are unexplained. The evidence must be revisited and validated, and the critics' anomalies explained. And this must be done fearlessly and independently of any political biases or agendas.

Second, the critics of the official version should, as much as possible, get their facts straight, whereupon they must then cease presenting falsehoods as evidence; e.g., that the debris was shipped immediately, uninspected, to Asia; that the the OV assumes that steel melted; that no physical evidence of the plane was found at the Pentagon, etc.

Third: there is no shame in suspending belief - i.e., in being a skeptic. Conversely, it is shameful to jump to a conclusion and a conviction on insufficient and conflicting evidence. Acceptance of the official version, or conversely of the conspiracy theory, are not our only alternatives. Both views are vulnerable and leave many crucial questions unanswered. Far better that we admit to ourselves and tell the world that we simply do not know. Suspension of belief is not a conspicuously American trait. But it is a stock-in-trade of honest scholars and scientists. And it is spur to further investigation, which is most assuredly called for in this case.

Finally, partisan passions should not get in the way of a rational assessment of the evidence. Personally, my web publications testify that I yield to no one in my contempt for Bush and his crime syndicate. I would like as much as anyone to see these crimes pinned on Bush, Inc. But the evidence (however weak) is what it is.

What happened on 9/11? Who is responsible? The questions remain open even as they remain urgent. The American people deserve answers, and more immediately, competent and sustained investigation leading to these answers.

-- EP

Edited by Admin to note that Ernest Partridge has posted a supplement to this essay, which can be read on the Crisis Papers website here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View CrisisPapers  Apr-25-06 03:41 PM   #0 
  - Bravo ..... thank you!  BOHICA06   Apr-25-06 03:47 PM   #1 
  - Bravo! He said AA 77 was a 747!! Even though it was a 757!! Yip-ee!!  file83   Apr-26-06 01:22 AM   #48 
     - Indeed. GREAT ESSAY, my foot.  spooked911   Apr-26-06 06:31 AM   #60 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-26-06 02:08 PM   #98 
     - Ah, well--that invalidates the whole thing then.  smoogatz   Apr-26-06 12:59 PM   #89 
  - Its much deeper then anyone can imagine  Mrspeeker   Apr-25-06 03:51 PM   #2 
  - Most people are LIHOP  serryjw   Apr-25-06 03:54 PM   #3 
  - Or why the jets were not scrambled immediately,  colorado_ufo   Apr-25-06 10:36 PM   #39 
     - Honestly I think they were not scambled  serryjw   Apr-25-06 10:53 PM   #41 
  - The Pentagon  SpiralHawk   Apr-25-06 04:00 PM   #4 
  - This does not make me angry at is very interesting.  judy   Apr-25-06 04:01 PM   #5 
  - Well said. nt  glitch   Apr-25-06 07:26 PM   #36 
  - bushco blocking any investigation + then alloting very little $$ to the  bobbieinok   May-01-06 04:24 PM   #227 
  - look: buildings simply do NOT fall straight down  ixion   Apr-25-06 04:01 PM   #6 
  - Gravity Pulls...  jberryhill   Apr-25-06 06:44 PM   #33 
  - but doesn't usually cause buildings to collapse,  rman   Apr-25-06 07:18 PM   #35 
  - yeah, in a vacuum  ixion   Apr-25-06 08:14 PM   #38 
     - I see... so, uhmm...  jberryhill   Apr-27-06 11:24 AM   #142 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-27-06 07:39 PM   #162 
           - That's an eight story building...  jberryhill   Apr-28-06 09:27 AM   #169 
              - The rotating top should have kept on rotating;  petgoat   Apr-28-06 11:05 AM   #171 
              - Not when the forward lower end hit the remaining part...  jberryhill   Apr-28-06 02:11 PM   #174 
                 - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-28-06 02:44 PM   #177 
                    - It WOULD be interesting to model  jberryhill   Apr-29-06 02:59 PM   #180 
                       - According to Dr. Thomas Eagar, the architect of the  petgoat   Apr-29-06 04:57 PM   #182 
                          - The final banking maneuver...  jberryhill   Apr-29-06 08:51 PM   #187 
                             - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-30-06 10:56 AM   #195 
                             - That's what I mean by "you'd expect to see"  jberryhill   Apr-30-06 08:04 PM   #202 
                             - Ever flown a real aircraft?  TrogL   May-02-06 06:14 PM   #244 
              - "what do you need the planes for?"  LiberalVoice   May-02-06 08:49 AM   #236 
  - Yes, they do.  MervinFerd   Apr-26-06 12:34 PM   #82 
  - Not at FREE FALL speeds, sorry nice try.  Twist_U_Up   Apr-26-06 03:43 PM   #107 
  - Oops - posted in the wrong spot - sorry about that.  Jazz2006   May-02-06 12:44 AM   #229 
  - None of the buildings fell at "free fall speed". Sorry, nice try.  Jazz2006   May-02-06 12:56 AM   #232 
     - "That particular myth" comes from the Eagar and Musso paper  petgoat   May-02-06 11:08 PM   #249 
  - see my response to the other poster who thinks  ixion   Apr-26-06 04:21 PM   #113 
  - That's the problem with starting from a faulty premise.  Jazz2006   May-02-06 12:52 AM   #231 
     - uh, yeah they did  ixion   May-18-06 06:05 PM   #267 
  - Okay... I'm still looking for the part where he's skeptical  IanDB1   Apr-25-06 04:06 PM   #7 
  - I'm with you - not the best example of critical thinking.  greyl   Apr-30-06 09:27 PM   #205 
     - Agreed. There are huge glaring errors in the supposed 'skeptical' piece.  Jazz2006   May-02-06 12:58 AM   #233 
        - Thank you for sharing. Where I went to school, we were  petgoat   May-03-06 01:11 AM   #250 
  - K&R for more discussion of this.  The Witch   Apr-25-06 04:07 PM   #8 
  - Valid points, good attitude. I usually am a skeptic myself.  Notoverit   Apr-25-06 04:17 PM   #9 
  - Okay, I'll add my two cents  MissWaverly   Apr-25-06 04:29 PM   #10 
  - Good point  iconoclastNYC   Apr-26-06 11:57 AM   #73 
  - also, don't you think building 7 should have survived  MissWaverly   Apr-26-06 04:04 PM   #109 
  - what part of "gravity works" don't you understand?  TrogL   Apr-26-06 06:06 PM   #114 
     - Hello?  LiberalVoice   May-02-06 08:58 AM   #237 
        - even constructed a house of cards?  TrogL   May-02-06 06:10 PM   #243 
           - Ah, the "House of Cards" theory. Yes, in the 1970s, people  petgoat   May-02-06 06:49 PM   #246 
           - Oops, it's the WTC7 report that has been outsourced, not  petgoat   May-03-06 01:13 AM   #251 
           - yeah, well they used to build them like brick shithouses  TrogL   May-03-06 12:59 PM   #254 
              - The core was a brick shithouse.  petgoat   May-03-06 01:45 PM   #257 
           - House of cards?  LiberalVoice   May-02-06 09:48 PM   #248 
              - A fine, logical rebuttal  TrogL   May-03-06 01:37 PM   #256 
                 - what do you mean by "struts"? And what do you mean by  petgoat   May-03-06 03:53 PM   #258 
  - A lot of people here share your broad skepticism  leveymg   Apr-25-06 04:34 PM   #11 
  - Rec'd before it hits the dungeon.  hootinholler   Apr-25-06 04:41 PM   #12 
  - You are correct, Hoot  MissWaverly   Apr-25-06 04:45 PM   #14 
  - Exactly  LiberalVoice   May-02-06 09:02 AM   #238 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-25-06 04:44 PM   #13 
  - I work for an airline...  Turn CO Blue   Apr-25-06 04:47 PM   #15 
  - How would the employees know what happened? If it hit Where are the pics?  Vincardog   Apr-25-06 05:00 PM   #17 
  - The employees who were at work that day...  Turn CO Blue   Apr-26-06 10:41 AM   #69 
     - Does that data come from the FAA?  iconoclastNYC   Apr-26-06 12:02 PM   #74 
     - That data exists in SEVERAL formats through SEVERAL sources.  Turn CO Blue   Apr-26-06 12:47 PM   #85 
     - So, what did American Airline's employees know about wargames on 9-11?  EVDebs   Apr-26-06 01:24 PM   #93 
  - Nope  MissWaverly   Apr-25-06 05:21 PM   #24 
  - Wargames of 9-11 and FAA/Ptech involvements...  EVDebs   Apr-26-06 01:18 PM   #92 
  - What makes you think all employees would have to be in on it?  rman   Apr-27-06 10:24 AM   #134 
  - I'm a former airline employee as well  MellowOne   May-03-06 01:26 PM   #255 
  - Hey Crisis can you go as far as Glad It Happened?  Vincardog   Apr-25-06 04:58 PM   #16 
  - The official version is also a conspiracy theory  GuvWurld   Apr-25-06 05:01 PM   #18 
  - Perception of Reality  petgoat   Apr-25-06 05:11 PM   #21 
  - Thanks for the good read  Sinti   Apr-25-06 05:46 PM   #26 
  - Thanks Sinti. Also check out my new book, We Do Not Consent.  GuvWurld   Apr-25-06 05:53 PM   #27 
  - Damn straight. EOM  K-W   Apr-27-06 01:16 PM   #149 
  - A genuine, unbiased, and brutally honest investigation must be done  Sinti   Apr-25-06 05:07 PM   #19 
  - Everyone should be encourage to testify on tape  MissWaverly   Apr-25-06 06:18 PM   #30 
  - Thank You for a Thoughtful Essay  petgoat   Apr-25-06 05:07 PM   #20 
  - Why isn't this in the 9/11 forum where it belongs?  Beam Me Up   Apr-25-06 05:11 PM   #22 
  - Shhhhh... maybe they won't notice and send us to our rooms n/t  Sinti   Apr-25-06 05:18 PM   #23 
  - Answer  Pissed Off Cabbie   Apr-25-06 11:02 PM   #42 
  - The guy doesn't even get the most basic facts right...  file83   Apr-26-06 01:30 AM   #49 
     - He's a straw man...  Pissed Off Cabbie   Apr-26-06 01:33 AM   #50 
        - It's a clever diversion  Pissed Off Cabbie   Apr-26-06 01:44 AM   #52 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-26-06 12:52 PM   #87 
  - it attacks many criticisms of the official 9-11 story  bobbieinok   May-01-06 04:20 PM   #226 
  - I watched it happen...  iamahaingttta   Apr-25-06 05:25 PM   #25 
  - mystery planes  MissWaverly   Apr-25-06 06:07 PM   #29 
  - So are you saying Islamic terrorists used explosives to  petgoat   Apr-25-06 06:32 PM   #31 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-25-06 06:38 PM   #32 
  - Okay, and then FEMA and NIST are covering up the  petgoat   Apr-25-06 06:52 PM   #34 
  - Sorry...  iamahaingttta   Apr-26-06 06:44 AM   #62 
  - Thanks for trying. I saw your answer. I'm surprised that they  petgoat   Apr-26-06 01:41 PM   #96 
  - Actually, that's more plausible than a Gov't agency.  MervinFerd   Apr-26-06 03:45 PM   #108 
     - Well the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building was  MissWaverly   Apr-26-06 04:17 PM   #112 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-26-06 12:09 PM   #75 
  - NIST doesn't buy the pancake theory either.  petgoat   Apr-26-06 01:45 PM   #97 
  - it's on its way to my house  MissWaverly   Apr-26-06 04:11 PM   #110 
  - The people who made it  iconoclastNYC   Apr-26-06 10:46 PM   #124 
     - Well, that's a good thing then  MissWaverly   Apr-27-06 04:35 PM   #159 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-28-06 03:28 PM   #178 
  - Fallacy of the undivided middle  TrogL   Apr-27-06 01:04 PM   #148 
  - Many thanks for an excellent dispassionate analysis.  scarletwoman   Apr-25-06 05:59 PM   #28 
  - If only for the lack of a single conclusive official explanation  rman   Apr-25-06 07:27 PM   #37 
  - Thank you Mr. Partridge.  Independent_Liberal   Apr-25-06 10:46 PM   #40 
  - The single, loudest alarm bell for me, weeks after it happened, was  Catrina   Apr-25-06 11:24 PM   #43 
  - good post, Catrina!  mimitabby   Apr-26-06 03:24 PM   #105 
  - What Catrina said  Lydia Leftcoast   May-01-06 12:10 AM   #216 
  - thank you very much  Douglas Carpenter   Apr-25-06 11:35 PM   #44 
  - You have made an assumption which may not be true:  Beam Me Up   Apr-26-06 01:41 AM   #51 
  - to carry out such grand conspiracies as some are suggesting  Douglas Carpenter   Apr-26-06 02:35 AM   #54 
     - Again, your assumption.  Beam Me Up   Apr-26-06 03:00 AM   #55 
  - Compartmentalized, like the mafia and the army  rman   Apr-26-06 05:13 AM   #59 
     - You don't even need a stand-down order. Just disrupt the  petgoat   Apr-26-06 02:19 PM   #99 
  - wtc  dajudem   Apr-26-06 12:06 AM   #45 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-26-06 12:56 AM   #46 
     - Great Post B-M-U. Here is a song for you  Twist_U_Up   Apr-26-06 04:45 AM   #58 
     - Thanks, twist-you-up.  Beam Me Up   Apr-26-06 09:47 AM   #67 
     - Edit:  Beam Me Up   Apr-26-06 09:46 AM   #66 
     - as a matter of fact I have looked...  dajudem   Apr-26-06 03:05 PM   #103 
        - Well first we could start with a real investigation.  Twist_U_Up   Apr-26-06 03:39 PM   #106 
        - Good grief.  Beam Me Up   Apr-26-06 07:14 PM   #115 
  - Skeptic, eh? Flight AA 77 was a Boeing 757, not a 747.  file83   Apr-26-06 01:17 AM   #47 
  - I won't refute all of your points, although all are easily refutable . . .  OneBlueSky   Apr-26-06 02:04 AM   #53 
  - Did you notice how he got the model of the plane for AA 77 wrong?  file83   Apr-26-06 03:34 AM   #56 
  - what a joke  Twist_U_Up   Apr-26-06 04:21 AM   #57 
  - Thanks for Posting the Family Members' Questions  petgoat   Apr-26-06 02:26 PM   #100 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-26-06 06:40 AM   #61 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-26-06 12:53 PM   #88 
     - I noticed that, it's pretty obvious what has been going on here.nt  mirandapriestly   Apr-26-06 08:59 PM   #119 
  - I theorize a conspiracy on a conspiracy theory. (CoCT)  Festivito   Apr-26-06 06:46 AM   #63 
  - If the the WTC fell because of controlled demolition  iconoclastNYC   Apr-26-06 12:25 PM   #79 
     - It takes about a week to rig a building to fall w/demolitions into its  EVDebs   Apr-26-06 12:45 PM   #84 
     - Yup.  iconoclastNYC   Apr-26-06 12:50 PM   #86 
     - WTC7 and other blgs insurer is suing  EVDebs   Apr-26-06 01:08 PM   #90 
        - Didn't the insurer lose that case?  Jazz2006   May-02-06 12:49 AM   #230 
     - Lucky for the perpetrators...  LiberalVoice   May-02-06 09:18 AM   #239 
     - Where do you get your estimate?  petgoat   May-02-06 06:54 PM   #247 
     - You're playing right into the hands of those who did this to us.  Festivito   Apr-26-06 01:11 PM   #91 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-26-06 07:43 AM   #64 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-26-06 10:57 AM   #70 
  - We need to focus on whats KNOWN not the mysteries  iconoclastNYC   Apr-26-06 12:20 PM   #77 
     - Very important point - this is emphasized by Michael Ruppert  pberq   May-03-06 03:56 PM   #259 
  - I'd also add the K.I.S.S. principle  eridani   Apr-26-06 08:16 AM   #65 
  - What?  iconoclastNYC   Apr-26-06 12:21 PM   #78 
  - Covert Controlled Demolition  rman   Apr-26-06 12:33 PM   #81 
     - Yes, WTC 7 is where skeptics and questioners should devote effort  eridani   Apr-27-06 03:34 AM   #131 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-26-06 10:24 AM   #68 
  - CrisisPapers, your doubts hinge upon the radar screens and wargames  EVDebs   Apr-26-06 11:19 AM   #71 
  - Tell me its satire; cold fusion dork is the "most credible" critic?  patcox2   Apr-26-06 11:41 AM   #72 
  - He's not the cold fusion Laughingstock  iconoclastNYC   Apr-26-06 12:18 PM   #76 
  - Thanks---but not quite skeptical enough......  MervinFerd   Apr-26-06 12:32 PM   #80 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-26-06 12:44 PM   #83 
  - You claim WTC7 burned furiously for several hours  petgoat   Apr-26-06 02:33 PM   #101 
  - It burned. And it didn't fall UP  MervinFerd   Apr-26-06 09:50 PM   #122 
  - "Assumes Facts not in Evidence" is some lawyer talk I picked  petgoat   Apr-26-06 11:14 PM   #125 
  - "it burned" vs "there were fires on a few floors"  rman   Apr-27-06 11:10 AM   #141 
  - The Meridian Building...  jberryhill   Apr-29-06 03:07 PM   #181 
     - Torn down is not collapse.  petgoat   May-03-06 03:49 AM   #252 
  - Nobody knows why WTC7 fell - only FEMA studied it and they can't explain  rman   Apr-27-06 11:08 AM   #140 
     - A strange Conspiracy Theory....Quote FEMA!  MervinFerd   Apr-27-06 10:27 PM   #164 
        - I didn't say FEMA suggests CT  rman   Apr-28-06 04:46 AM   #166 
        - You are forgetting the rule of logic to be applied here...  jberryhill   Apr-28-06 09:35 AM   #170 
           - "If you cannot explain...then the answer has to be..."  petgoat   Apr-28-06 11:16 AM   #172 
           - YES! The Conspiracist Prime Directive.  MervinFerd   Apr-29-06 06:11 PM   #184 
              - What proves the coverup is the coverup.  petgoat   Apr-29-06 10:01 PM   #190 
                 - If the hijackers are still alive, who flew the planes????  MervinFerd   May-01-06 09:05 AM   #220 
                    - "Logic, Mr. Goat."  petgoat   May-01-06 11:08 AM   #222 
  - I'm inclined to agree with much of what you say.  smoogatz   Apr-26-06 01:31 PM   #94 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-26-06 01:35 PM   #95 
  - they said that Hani Hanjour could not even drive a car  MissWaverly   Apr-26-06 09:07 PM   #120 
     - Funny, I never once thought about the fact that those planes were not  itzamirakul   Apr-27-06 12:25 PM   #144 
        - Flight 11 came down the Hudson, flying right over the Indian  petgoat   Apr-27-06 12:33 PM   #145 
        - yes, but these individuals could barely fly cessnas  MissWaverly   Apr-27-06 04:33 PM   #158 
           - It was a beautiful, cloudless morning...  jberryhill   Apr-30-06 12:24 AM   #193 
        - interesting maybe so, but how did they get from where they  MissWaverly   Apr-27-06 04:28 PM   #157 
  - Most of the questions could be answered tomorrow.  gordianot   Apr-26-06 02:58 PM   #102 
  - What conspiracy theory is complete without  dajudem   Apr-26-06 03:10 PM   #104 
  - I don't believe this issue...  Mr_Jefferson_24   Apr-26-06 04:16 PM   #111 
  - Excelent reply.  Beam Me Up   Apr-26-06 07:17 PM   #116 
  - There are many questions and few actual answers.  gordianot   Apr-26-06 08:25 PM   #118 
  - U.S. To Keep Evidence From Families  Bushwick Bill   Apr-26-06 08:18 PM   #117 
  - Wishful thinking.  dailykoff   Apr-26-06 09:21 PM   #121 
  - Frankly, I wish the conspiracy theory worldview was true  Douglas Carpenter   Apr-26-06 11:28 PM   #126 
     - So let's see, there are no conspiracies.  petgoat   Apr-27-06 12:11 AM   #128 
     - obviously I did not say that  Douglas Carpenter   Apr-27-06 01:52 AM   #129 
        - The 9/11 conspiracy is not that al Qaeda attacked.  petgoat   Apr-27-06 02:07 AM   #130 
        - So.......You don't REALLY think.....  MervinFerd   Apr-27-06 01:26 PM   #150 
           - I never said any of that Straw Man stuff. nt  petgoat   Apr-27-06 01:57 PM   #151 
              - Will you go to the 9/11 Forum and denounce it? nt  MervinFerd   Apr-27-06 03:53 PM   #156 
                 - No, and here's why. Unlike you, I won't pan a book I've never  petgoat   Apr-27-06 04:47 PM   #160 
        - So, conspiracies exist but we should not theorize about them?  rman   Apr-27-06 07:14 AM   #133 
           - by all means theorize to your heats content  Douglas Carpenter   Apr-27-06 10:29 AM   #135 
              - "They are attractive because they simplify problems  petgoat   Apr-27-06 10:38 AM   #137 
              - Tell me, what are the underlying causes of resentment against America  rman   Apr-27-06 11:01 AM   #139 
              - I absolutely agree they should be exposed  Douglas Carpenter   Apr-27-06 06:31 PM   #161 
                 - I know it goes back a lot further - doesn't mean it's not conspiracy,  rman   Apr-28-06 04:48 AM   #167 
     - a letter from Howard Zinn  reorg   Apr-27-06 04:29 AM   #132 
        - Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor can be read (and downloaded) online  petgoat   Apr-27-06 10:30 AM   #136 
  - David Hume: "On miracles"  MervinFerd   Apr-26-06 10:29 PM   #123 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-27-06 12:06 AM   #127 
  - David Hume, Miracles, and Conspiracies  Ernest Partridge   Apr-27-06 10:41 AM   #138 
     - Problems with the OV of Pentagon and WTC  petgoat   Apr-27-06 12:23 PM   #143 
     - Yes.  dailykoff   Apr-27-06 12:44 PM   #147 
     - This type of Hamletic soliloquizing  dailykoff   Apr-27-06 12:43 PM   #146 
     - And this is what is so frightening...  Mr_Jefferson_24   Apr-27-06 02:21 PM   #152 
     - A (Paranoid) Conspiracy Theory, in common usage, IS....  MervinFerd   Apr-27-06 02:25 PM   #153 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-27-06 03:31 PM   #154 
     - OK, WTC7 was only well done......  MervinFerd   Apr-27-06 03:48 PM   #155 
        - I do not believe I heard anyone say it was a Jewish conspiracy  Douglas Carpenter   Apr-28-06 12:02 AM   #165 
        - You are right.  MervinFerd   Apr-29-06 06:08 PM   #183 
           - unfortunately I see your point on this  Douglas Carpenter   Apr-29-06 07:45 PM   #186 
              - Hofstadter--The paranoid style in American Politics  MervinFerd   Apr-29-06 10:39 PM   #191 
        - You are quite desperate in trying to include "Invisible Jewish Elves"  rman   Apr-28-06 04:58 AM   #168 
           - Trying to link 9/11 skepticism with anti-semitism, to be precise. nt  petgoat   May-03-06 03:57 AM   #253 
     - Black helicopters  Lydia Leftcoast   May-01-06 12:22 AM   #217 
     - Some additional thoughts....  MervinFerd   Apr-29-06 06:41 PM   #185 
        - "we WERE attacked by insane religious thugs"  petgoat   Apr-29-06 09:50 PM   #189 
           - Yes, we WERE attacked by Fanatics. Get over it.  MervinFerd   Apr-29-06 10:55 PM   #192 
              - "we WERE attacked by Fanatics. Get over it. LOGIC! MR. GOAT!"  petgoat   Apr-30-06 11:25 AM   #196 
                 - Investigations of disasters are always embarrassing....  MervinFerd   May-01-06 09:21 AM   #221 
                    - Investigations of disasters  petgoat   May-01-06 12:37 PM   #224 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-27-06 08:48 PM   #163 
  - I will take issue with the statement that the attack on the Pentagon is  Time for change   Apr-28-06 12:32 PM   #173 
  - WaPo says 77 disappeared from radar  petgoat   Apr-28-06 02:31 PM   #175 
     - Yes, I agree that Mineta's testimony would tend to support the fact  Time for change   Apr-28-06 02:39 PM   #176 
  - this still baffles me  dmoded   Apr-29-06 12:13 PM   #179 
  - Al Qaeda was a joint project of the CIA and the Saudis, created  petgoat   Apr-29-06 09:32 PM   #188 
     - thanks for the welcome  dmoded   Apr-30-06 07:33 AM   #194 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-30-06 12:50 PM   #197 
           - A theologian????  TrogL   Apr-30-06 01:01 PM   #198 
              - How about some of these other people  TrogL   Apr-30-06 02:44 PM   #199 
              - Dr. Van Romero of New Mexico Tech is an expert in  petgoat   Apr-30-06 06:48 PM   #200 
              - Jesus fucking christ!  greyl   Apr-30-06 09:30 PM   #206 
                 - Thank you for sharing. nt  petgoat   Apr-30-06 09:57 PM   #207 
                 - Is that supposed to be an argument? nt  petgoat   Apr-30-06 11:58 PM   #215 
                    - No, commentary because of your continuous use of Van Romero  greyl   May-01-06 10:37 PM   #228 
                       - My use of the Van Romero quotes is in no way misleading.  petgoat   May-02-06 01:18 AM   #234 
                       - It's subtle but meaningful.  greyl   May-02-06 10:10 AM   #240 
                          - "Dr. Van Romero's current opinion"  petgoat   May-02-06 06:18 PM   #245 
                       - self-delete  petgoat   May-02-06 01:21 AM   #235 
              - New Orleans Was Destroyed by a Locomotive  jberryhill   Apr-30-06 08:08 PM   #203 
              - The news reports at the time said again and again that FDNY  petgoat   Apr-30-06 10:04 PM   #208 
                 - I have no doubt that they heard all sorts of things  jberryhill   Apr-30-06 10:33 PM   #211 
                    - Can you suggest a mechanism by which the concrete floors are  petgoat   Apr-30-06 11:57 PM   #213 
                       - No  jberryhill   May-01-06 11:29 AM   #223 
              - Nice Straw Man. Eyewitness testimony is only consistent with,  petgoat   Apr-30-06 11:56 PM   #212 
              - Deleted message  Name removed   Apr-30-06 07:14 PM   #201 
                 - He could sell Cold Fusion, too.....nt  MervinFerd   Apr-30-06 09:24 PM   #204 
                    - He wasn't selling Cold Fusion, he was investigating it. It was  petgoat   Apr-30-06 10:07 PM   #209 
                       - Oh........nt  MervinFerd   Apr-30-06 10:23 PM   #210 
                       - Hunter would kick your ass  greyl   Apr-30-06 11:58 PM   #214 
                          - Thank you for sharing. Is that supposed to be an argument? nt  petgoat   May-01-06 12:58 AM   #218 
                             - It's a summation. nt  greyl   May-01-06 07:25 AM   #219 
                                - You invoke a dead man to kick my physical ass since you can't  petgoat   May-01-06 12:40 PM   #225 
                                   - No, I'm sticking up for a dead man  greyl   May-02-06 10:54 AM   #241 
                                      - I've debunked the Roberts story myself, here and elsewhere,  petgoat   May-02-06 06:05 PM   #242 
  - The TERRIBLE problem of Cow Abductions----You laugh! But it's REAL  MervinFerd   May-03-06 05:17 PM   #260 
  - I know it's real. It's called "rustling".  petgoat   May-12-06 01:13 AM   #265 
  - Ernest, here is a critique of your piece...  reprehensor   May-04-06 12:32 PM   #261 
  - Kick and another rebuttal.  Bushwick Bill   May-11-06 09:41 PM   #262 
  - You didn't have to do what you did  blogbart   May-11-06 10:13 PM   #263 
     - Sorry.  Bushwick Bill   May-11-06 10:44 PM   #264 
        - Oh no apology please!  blogbart   May-18-06 12:45 PM   #266 
  - I wish Sibel Edmonds could tell us what she knows.  wiggs   May-19-06 12:37 PM   #268 

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC