Explosions indeed, but caused by water and aluminum: a new theory about 911?

Yup, they came up with yet another theory to 'explain' the collapse of the Twin Towers.  This time, the Twin Towers fell, I kid you not, because of an explosion caused by a mix of water and aluminum.  You can read all about it here.

Well, I would say that the glass is clearly half-full, because at the very least they admit that explosions did cause the collapse.  That is in itself very good news indeed.  You just got to love this quote:

The aluminium-water scenario would also account for explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse that have fuelled conspiracy theories suggesting that the structures had been booby-trapped.

Yeah,  good thing the 'conspiracists' kept bringing these explosions up, or nobody else would have...

I wonder whether "exploding water and aluminum" can also account for the unexploded thermitic material found in the WTC dust?

But then, 9/11 Truth debunkers do really believe in miracles, don't they?

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory (HILARIOUS VIDEO! MUST SEE!)

The Legend of 9/11 — 10 Years On

Why 9-11 Truth Has Won

By Allen L. Jasson for MWC News

The 9-11 Truth Movement has clearly won the fight. The two key facts essential to defeat the official explanation and establish critical need for a new, wider, criminal investigation are the free-fall collapse of three WTC buildings (proving the complete absence of structural resistance) and the presence of thermite in large quantities (as the prime explanation for the absence of structural resistance). These facts have been established irrefutably as a matter of repeatable and verifiable science.

Free-Fall Collapse

It took a high school physics teacher to recognise and then take the necessary steps to prove that the buildings collapsed at a rate approaching gravitational free-fall. He did this using a frame-by-frame analysis measuring the distance fallen between frames and calculating velocity and hence acceleration based on the sampling rate (i.e. the time between frames) of the video. This is probably not publishable work because it’s not new science; it’s really just application of science that’s been established for over 200 years. However, it’s repeatable and verifiable by anyone in possession of the tools and knowledge required to perform the frame-by-frame analysis on the numerous video footage of the collapsing buildings. Indeed, similar work can be seen in many physics textbooks, which use sequences of photographic images of accelerating objects taken at fixed time intervals to illustrate the concepts of acceleration and velocity.

Presence of Thermite

Thermite is a mixture of substances based on Aluminium, Iron and other elements, which, when ignited, burns at temperatures sufficient to melt steel (which is not possible with jet fuel). It can be used to cut steel girders. Nano-thermite is a more technologically refined form in which the particles are of microscopic dimensions (of the order of nanometres) evenly mixed in accurate proportions and which can be used as an explosive. This is now common knowledge but must be stated for completeness.

Prof. Steven E. Jones, who was at the time of his work, Professor of Physicist at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City showed the presence of substances arising from the action of thermite to melt steel in samples of melted steel obtained from girder fragments taken from the debris of the WTC buildings and used in monuments to commemorate the event. His peer-reviewed and verifiable scientific work has been published in scientific journals as proof of the use of thermite to cut the steel girders and weaken the structure of the buildings. The use of thermite in this way is also corroborated by the observed molten metal pouring from holes in the stricken buildings before and during their collapse and the presence of pools of molten metal in the rubble, still white hot and molten weeks after the collapse. If this were aluminium, even the people who removed it would surely know.

Danish scientist, Niels Harrit, PhD Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, has published with others, a peer-reviewed paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal describing work he did to establish the presence of nano-thermite in four independently sourced and chain-of-custody verified samples of dust taken from the debris of the WTC towers. Its mere presence is significant. Microscopic characteristics of particles in the separate samples were the same, indicating that the particles derived from a common source. Quantitative analysis of the samples extrapolated to the total volume of rubble indicated very substantial quantities of the explosive were present - tonnes of it!

The presence of large quantities of nano-thermite suggests it was used as an explosive as part of a controlled demolition of the buildings. The use of nano-thermite in this way is also corroborated by the many observed “squib” explosions flashing out laterally from the sides of the buildings just below the wave of collapse as it moved down the building, by the many reports by firemen, rescue workers and survivors of explosions seen or heard within the buildings before their collapse and by the fact that thousands of tonnes of steel, concrete and glass were pulverised almost completely to dust in a wave that moved at near free-fall speed down the buildings, ahead of the collapse, ejecting fragments and steel girders sometimes hundreds of feet laterally as it went.

The proven presence of these two forms of thermite is taken to explain the complete absence of structural resistance to collapse of the buildings allowing free-fall descent and implies pre-arranged, controlled demolition. The evidence for controlled demolition is also corroborated by the visible pattern of collapse with apparent implosion and systematic collapse of each of the buildings into its footprint. This pattern has been easily observed and recognised by untrained spectators and is also confirmed by experts in controlled demolition who testify to the difficulty, the time in preparation and expert knowledge and experience required to achieve it.

The Victory for 9-11 Truth

Of course, there is a long way to go yet; merely establishing the facts, even irrefutable and critically deterministic facts such as these, in such a politically intense matter as this is not in itself sufficient. However, the 9-11 Truth Movement has four elements to its case, which must inevitably deliver victory:

1. It has defeated the conspiracy-theory stigma by turning the argument around to show that the official explanation is itself a quite absurd conspiracy theory

2. It has adopted a very clever strategy of offering no theories at all but simply proving the falsity of the official explanation in order to demand a proper investigation

3. It has amassed a vast amount of other evidence combined with highly astute and logical analysis applied by some very capable and articulate champions

4. A great many relevant professionals who possess the technical understanding of diverse aspects of the 9-11 event have put the weight of their professional credibility behind the 9-11 Movement – and the number is growing rapidly.

Despite the daily, universal reach to the minds of ordinary people by a corrupt mainstream corporate media, curiously and intensely committed to the obviously inadequate official explanation, the cause of 9-11 Truth has a massive following not only internationally but also in the US where the insulating power of the mainstream corporate media is supreme.

With all of this inertia, credibility and focus of the 9-11 Truth Movement the now irrefutably established critical facts represent a breach of the dam wall; the flood is imminent and inevitable. Faced with widespread and intense opposition to a foreign invasion the government simply “stayed the course” but faced with general public rage against a system suspected of having committed violence against its own people in a context of widespread economic despair aggravated by anger over financial corruption, just weathering the storm is probably not an option. The flood will come.

And After the Flood

The first immediate casualty of this breach of the wall is the 9-11 Commission Inquiry itself; the question will be no longer if there was a cover-up but why. Interest must inevitably turn to the reasons for resistance to the inquiry, constraints on its terms of reference and power to summon witnesses, the lack of cooperation of some who gave evidence including Bush and Cheney and the obvious inadequacy of its report. The 9-11 Inquiry Commission will itself need to be examined as part of the new inquiry.

Another casualty will be the public trust in the corporate mainstream media. The nature of the WTC event is that once controlled demolition is acknowledged as fact the reality of it seems obvious and self-evident. Given that the necessary investigations to prove it as fact were so relatively straightforward and, from the point of view of forensic criminal investigation, so obvious, why has the mainstream media so vigorously supported objection to it. Is this the event that breaks the spell?

The first and most obvious question to be addressed by the new inquiry will be that of “How did the thermite get there?” Large quantities of it were present; not easily brought into the building and installed for controlled demolition without attracting notice. The first and most obvious person to question is Larry Silverstein, whose on-the-record and apparently careless remark that “We decided to pull it” appears to let slip an inside knowledge and a failure to realise that the time between the plane collisions to the two main towers and the collapse of WTC Building 7 would be insufficient to prepare to “pull it”, which is taken to mean a controlled demolition. There will also be renewed attention to witness reports of a full power-down of the WTC, the first in the life of the buildings, on a weekend shortly before 9-11.

Another aspect of 9-11 that will receive great attention will be the apparent stand-down of national air defence. How is it that the world’s most substantial and at-the-ready national air security facility, capable of responding to a hijacking anywhere in the country within five minutes was delayed in responding more than 45 minutes and failed to intercept any of the four alleged hijackings?

Stand-down appears also to have taken place within the CIA itself. While Condoleza Rice lamented that no one could have foreseen such an event numerous warnings had in fact, been received of just such a threat. Of course, it’s one thing to receive an abstract warning and another to tangibly identify an actual threat in progress. However, one branch of the CIA lamented that they had indeed identified the hijackers and their intentions and had compiled a file on their activities. Yet when the file was presented to higher authority they were ordered to suspend their investigations. This is certainly an aspect of the event that will attract the interest of the new inquiry.

The 9-11 Truth Movement has established a very large body of evidence and analysis. The wiser factions of the movement have studiously avoided attempts to explain the broad picture of what actually happened on September 11th 2001 or the “how” and “who” but rather, have directed their attention to establishing evidence for or proving critical elements - controlled demolition - refuting the official explanation. This fundamentally accounts for their success.

However, these two critical and deterministic facts, which establish the case for controlled demolition beyond doubt, will create the magnetic field of force that attracts, aligns and solidifies the many other salient facts of the evidence accumulated by the 9-11 Truth Movement into a monumentally persuasive case for some sort of high level, perhaps government involvement.

Only a formal, full, thorough and open investigation with a genuine intention to ascertain the truth can achieve the necessary detail and understanding required to explain exactly what transpired in all of the four alleged hijackings. But the contributors and supporters of the 9-11 Truth Movement are already clear about the current, official explanation; if there is any truth at all to it, it’s far from the whole truth.

The 9/11 Truth movement are all 'kooks'? Think again!

Why am I not hearing the endless rumble of jaws dropping to the floor?! (UPDATED!)

For those of you who have been regular readers of my blog it is no secret that after 8 years of doubts and confusion I have finally come to the conclusion that 9/11 was an "inside job".  I would refer those who are not aware of my fairly recent "conversion" to the "truther" camp and of the motives which caused it to my paper "How I became a dedicated 9-11 Truther" which you can download from here (this is actually a letter I wrote to a friend and it lays out why I strongly believe that there can be no doubt whatsoever about the fact that 9/11 was an "inside job").  Please do read it as I will write the rest of this post under the assumption that you have read my paper where I substantiate and reference the following facts:

1) The US government and corporate media do not have any explanations about how the WTC1 and WTC2 fell.  NIST simply did not investigate the events which followed the "initiation of collapse".  In case you wonder what happened to the previously official version of the "pancaking" theory - NIST quietly dropped it.  Let me repeat this once again. THERE IS NO "OFFICIAL VERSION" FOR THE COLLAPSE OF WTC1 and WTC2.  None.  Ziltch.  Nihil.  Notin'. Niente.  As in "absolutely no nothing".  Got it?

You never heard about this?!  I am not surprised.  But it gets even better, watch this:

2) The US government admitted that WTC7 feel in free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds.  Why is that important?  Simply because that means that a number of floors of WTC7 simply disappeared instantaneously and symmetrically from under the roof of WTC7.  There is only one possible way to remove a section of a building instantaneously: by explosive power.  Yes, the admission by Uncle Sam that the WTC7 feel for at least 2.25 seconds is an implicit admission that explosives were used.  Let me repeat this one too: UNCLE SAM HAS DE-FACTO ADMITTED THAT EXPLOSIVES WERE USED IN WTC7.

Amazing, jaw-dropping stuff I would say, no?  So why do I not hear the endless rumble of jaws hitting the floor all over the USA and the rest of the world?  Maybe I should drive home the point even more forcefully?  Ok, lemme try this:

Since Uncle Sam has admitted that only explosives can explain what was observed on September 11th, Uncle Sam has also admitted that he is guilty of that crime.  No outside agency,  nevermind some semi-mythical 'al-Qaeda' could have had access to a super secret building like WTC7.  Only Uncle Sam could have rigged that building to bring it down in a few seconds.

I still do not hear the endless rumble of jaws hitting the floor all over the USA and the rest of the world...

The 'official narrative' (its not even a theory) about 9/11 is so full of holes that one could easily write a 100 pages long paper analyzing all the impossibilities populating literally every aspect of it: from the exploded and non-exploded residue of thermitic material found in huge amounts in the WTC dust, to the impossible telephone calls allegedly made from the hijacked aircraft, to the non-existing plane wrecks in DC and Shanksville, to the absolutely amazing biographies of the putative hijackers all of which seem to have been US government agents, to the role of Pakistan and Israel, to the ridiculous claims about recovered flight manuals, passports, letters, to the impossible flight profiles of the aircraft in DC and NY,  etc. - none of it makes any sense at all.  Every single one of these absolutely nonsensical parts of the official narrative deserves its own investigation and the good news is that it has already been done, very effectively, by the 9/11 Truth movement (my personal "9/11 electronic library" is currently at 22.6GB (!) of data, most of it high-quality research by very smart folks which have literally eviscerated all the absolute crap of the official narrative) Yet nobody seems to care.

Why?

In my training years I was taught that the process of intelligence revolves around three distinct phases, called the "three As": acquisition, analysis, acceptance.

The first one - acquisition - is all about collecting the data and that has been comprehensively done by thousands of folks since 9/11.  The second one - analysis - centers on the careful analysis of the collected data, and I would say that the 9/11 Truth movement has also done a superb job in that respect too.  Which leaves the last one - acceptance - which is the process by which the intelligence community brings its conclusions to the attention of the decision makers.  It is in this final aspect that the 9/11 Truth movement has largely failed, at least so far:  amazingly, even though the truth about 9/11 is out there, only a couple of computer mouse clicks away - most people simply do not give a damn.

Worse, those who do not consider themselves as "truthers" often reflect an amazing degree of bigotry and hostility.  These are the folks who refer to "truthers" and their theories as "cooks", "garbage" and, my all-time favorite "conspiracy theories" (as if the official narrative is not one hell of an absurd conspiracy theory!).  Why do these "skeptics" so naively accept an absolutely ridiculous official narrative and show such a vitriolic hostility towards those who dare question it?

David Ray Griffin wrote a brilliant open letter to the left-leaning wing of such "skeptics" entitled Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles? which you can download from here.  Please do take the time to download and read it, it clearly shows that it is not the "truthers" who believe in miracles, but the so-called "skeptics".  Griffin addressed his letter to left-leaning despisers, but he could have addressed it to the right-leaning despisers too - they are equally unwilling (or unable) to cope with the mind-boggling implications of the fact that 9/11 was beyond any doubt an inside job.  Yes, the implications of this are truly appalling and, frankly, quite frightening and the aggressive reaction of the 'despisers" is not so much a reflection of their careful analysis and subsequent rejection of the evidence as it is a reflection of their fear to take a hard look at reality.  It is hard, if not impossible, to achieve "acceptance" when your audience is absolutely terrified by the implications of your analysis and conclusions.

The 9/11 Truth movement is composed of people who have all dared to think the unthinkable.  Some from day 1, some, like myself, from roughly day 3000, but who all eventually dared to plunge in the cold waters of facts and logic no matter where this might lead them.

In contrast, I find that most skeptics, in particular of the aggressive "despisers" variety are really what I call "existential cowards" - folks who choose delusion over the painful facts of reality.

There have been attempts by some in the 9/11 Truth movement to appeal to the common sense of the "despisers".  One of my favorite ones is this video:

Yet, one would have to admit that these efforts have not yielded the results one could have reasonably expected.  If anything, the more evidence the 9/11 Truth movement produces, the most vociferous hostility it gets from the "despisers".  So where do we go from here?

Social psychology has shown the many ways in which people can be lead to believe the exact opposite of what their own eyes are showing them (check out, for example, the research known has the "Asch conformity experiments") or how figures of authority can elicit an amazing degree of obedience to "authority" (check out  Milgram's work on obedience to authority).  Here I think of those who reject the evidence about 9/11 basically because Noam Chomsky or Ron Paul dismiss it.

We can, of course, find some solace in the words of Gandhi about how "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win", but I would not hold my breath for a final "victory" any time soon.  Yes, there are some absolutely amazing people in the 9/11 Truth movement (the names of Richard Gage, Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin immediately come to my mind), but these are all specialists, our movement still lacks a unifying Gandhi who would have the authority to speak for all and loudly cry out "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" when presented with the official myths and fairy tales about September 11th.  Sooner or later such a person will appear, I believe, but in the meantime I say that we should just keep working on the already huge corpus of 9/11 research without expecting to ever hear the endless rumble of jaws dropping to the floor.  Folks - it ain't coming and we might as well get used to this unpalatable fact.

Looking at how long it took my own jaw to drop (8 years!) I find some solace in the idea that we will be able to convince people, although not en masse, but one by one, one jaw at a time.  That should be the objective - small steps in the right direction while remaining steadfastly unaffected by the never ending stream vitriol and scorn from the existential cowards who are freaked out by reality.

The Saker

IMPORTANT UPDATE: since some have had problems downloading the docs I am referring to in this post, I have also uploaded them, zipped into one file, to Megaupload.  You can get them here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=D1A7YI9U

Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee

Written by Darcy Wearing and Richard Gage, AIA

Having had the privilege of speaking with Tom Sullivan, an actual explosive-charge placement technician, we have some new insights to pass along as to how controlled demolition works, where it started, and the effect that 9/11 had on the demolition industry. Sullivan gained his experience as an employee of the leading firm in this field, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI). Sullivan stresses though “I do not in anyway represent CDI and what I have to say is based on my own experience and training,” Sullivan attended high school with Doug Loizeaux of the Loizeaux family. The Loizeaux family, through the father Jack, independently started the whole controlled-demolition industry and turned it into a highly profitable business. Sullivan, before he became connected to CDI, was an independent photographer during his early years in Maryland. He would be sent to CD sites and take still pictures of the jobs. He became infatuated with the CD industry. The time came when he would do both, being the placer of the “cutter charges” on the primary joints, and photographing the jobs for promoting the business. Soon he would switch to full-time employee status of CDI -- as verified by AE911Truth’s verification team. "It was very interesting, but also very hard work, long hours, especially in the cold weather," Sullivan reflects. He stated that the days began early, around 6 a.m., and they would work until the sun was down. Sullivan had the experience of preparing a building by placing the cutter charges throughout the primary joints, and then, of course, watching it all come down. Sullivan notes that many weeks are required to “prep,” or weaken the buildings before demolitions. Steel frame buildings don’t just fall into their footprints at free-fall without major work throughout the building – even some before the placement of explosives. Sullivan emphasized as an aside, “Fire cannot bring down steel-framed high rises -- period.” One of Sullivan’s most exciting jobs was the colossal Kingdome in whose reinforced concrete structure he personally placed hundreds of deadly explosive charges. Working for CDI was, Sullivan stated, “a very unique experience.” He also said, "they were a close-knit family -- referring to the familial values of the Loizeauxs." “I learned from watching," said Sullivan. "There is no school that will teach you this, just hands on hard work." Sullivan took hundreds of project photos, through which he developed a deep passion for the trade. When asked, what made CDI the best in the business, he commented, “their family had all the experience because they ’invented’ the art of CD. They spent years traveling around the world, showing and educating people how this art form works.” Unfortunately, the business came to a screeching halt after 9/11. "People were scared -- if they were to hear a loud bang it was probably some kind of terrorist attack," says Sullivan in frustration. "Fear took over and there was no more business." Even Mark Loizeaux (CDI’s President) has been quoted as saying 9/11 ruined him. Sullivan had no choice but to leave CDI. Curiously, CDI had a role in the WTC cleanup through a subcontract under Tully Construction. On September 22, 2001, CDI submitted a 25-page "preliminary" document to New York City's Department of Design and Construction, a plan related to the removal and recycling of the steel.[¹] Sullivan stated that he knew from the first day that the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was a classic controlled implosion. Asked how he thought it might have been done he posited, “looking at the building it wouldn’t be a problem -- once you gain access to the elevator shafts…then a team of expert loaders would have hidden access to the core columns and beams. The rest can be accomplished with just the right kind of explosives for the job. Thermite can be used as well.” Brent Blanchard, the photographer from the controlled demolition company Protec, has said, in criticism of the CD theory, that there would have had to been detonation cords strung all over the place and casings left in the rubble pile from the cutter charges. So we asked for a response from Sullivan. He noted that: Remote wireless detonators have been available for years. Look at any action movie -- and of course the military has them. The reason most contractors don’t use them is that they are too expensive -- but in a project with a huge budget it would be no problem. As for the casings -- everyone in the industry, including Blanchard, would know that RDX explosive cutter charges are completely consumed when they go off -- nothing is left. And in the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case. Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984. We asked Sullivan if all the floors in WTC 7 would have to be loaded with explosives in order for a successful controlled demolition. He responded, No, with steel framed buildings you really need only to load the bottom third to bring the building down. While at CDI we had a job in Hartford Conn, the CNG building, where we did just that. And it worked out beautifully. Recalling that Ron Craig, a Hollywood movie explosions expert claimed in a debate with us, that there would have been many blocks of broken windows if it were a controlled demolition. Sullivan reflected, The key word here is controlled demolition – in other words careful placement of charges -- always focused and precise. We are not talking about setting off a bomb here. The amount and type of explosives is an art and collateral damage can often be completely avoided. We asked about Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) who claimed publically in his infamous press conference at the “unveiling” of the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 that there would have been a loud boom coming from a massive explosion if this had been a controlled demolition, and asked him about that. Sullivan said, “With any implosion there is never just one big explosion but rather waves of smaller explosions -- not unlike the percussion section in a symphony -- as each loaded floor is progressively set off.” And as Sullivan watched the towers collapse that day, like so many did, he pondered at how fast it all took place, and how suddenly and symmetrically they were brought down. "I knew it was an explosive event as soon as I saw it, there was no question in my mind," said Sullivan. Most of us agree -- it's not by chance that the first tower just happened to collapse -- then the second in the same manner. What convinced him completely is when he watched Tower 7 fall that day, "I mean, come on, it was complete destruction. I've seen buildings fall like that for years -- that was the end game for me." Keep in mind that Sullivan did this for a living for several years -- it is like second nature for him to see this type of demolition. If anybody would know, it should be him. But we went ahead and asked him, “Is there any chance that normal office fires (the official cause of the ’collapse’) could have been responsible for the smooth, symmetrical, free-fall acceleration of building 7? “Not a chance,” he retorted. We just wanted to be sure. When we asked him if he followed any of the 9/11 Commission hearings or that of the NIST reporting, he had the same answer for both "I have no tolerance for people who lie to me about what I know to be true. I threw my hands up in disgust and never watched another hearing after the first. As for NIST, I didn't even watch because I knew what to expect." He did however follow the final report on the collapse of Tower 7 and said it angered him that they could actually convince so many of their fraudulent claims. Sullivan first came into contact with AE911Truth through a friend that sent him the 9/11: Blueprint for Truth DVD. He watched it and was very excited that there was actually an organization out there trying to inform people of what he was trying to say since that fateful day. “AE911Truth is the most focused and organized group there is today in the 9/11 truth movement. There is no speculation," he said. "Blueprint for Truth is factual and impressive information based on science and physics, and was clear and concise." When asked if he agreed with the evidence the DVD brings forth, Sullivan responded, "It contains extremely compelling evidence." The final question we asked in this interview was, "How many architects and engineers does it take speaking in unison until people hear that there is a problem?" His response, "As the number grows it will be harder and harder to deny them -- but deny them they will." Note: 1) Sullivan came out from the East Coast to deliver a short but electrifying presentation on Friday and Saturday night, May 7th & 8th at the joint presentation of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. He joined Richard Gage, AIA, and Erik Lawyer on stage for 10 minutes and answered some key questions about the demolition industry, the CDI family of Loizeauxs, and the way the 3 WTC skyscrapers were destroyed. Prior to these milestone events he appeared with Gage and Lawyer on KPFA radio Berkeley on the program “Guns & Butter” with host Bonnie Faulkner who had a number of great questions for him. 2) "DO NOT COPY" watermarks on images were added by Tom Sullivan. These images may not be copied other than in the context of this article, or with his specific approval. source: http://cms.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/315-explosive-evidence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html

"A Firefighter, A Demolition Expert, and an Architect Look at Ground-Zero"

My favorite radio show host (Bonnie Faulkner) host yet another highly interesting discussion on my favorite US radio station (KPFK 94.1 in San Francisco) in her weekly show Guns and Butter, this time with with firefighter and founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Erik Lawyer; controlled demolition expert, Tom Sullivan; and architect and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage.

You can listen or download the show here:

Guns and Butter - April 28, 2010 at 1:00pm

Click to listen (or download)

I *highly* recommend this show as it shows how different professions are now coming together to debunk the government narrative about 9/11. Also, this show reflects the growing vitality of the 9/11 Truth movement.

Great stuff - don't miss it.

The Saker

The 9/11 Truth Gestapo

One of the main reasons which kept me away from the 9/11 Truth movement for 8 years was the tone and tactics of some of the most vocal members of the 9/11T movement. The video below is a perfect example of the kind of tactics these guys use:



Seeing this video made me recall one evening in Melbourne, FL, where I had travelled to listen to Amy Goodman make a presentation. Amy was about halfway through her presentation when some young guy suddenly jumped up and began screaming that "9/11 was an inside job! 9/11 was an inside job!". Amy calmly thanked him for having made his point and asked him to sit down and please let her continue. They guy then got even more hysterical and began yelling at her "why don't you say that 9/11 was an inside job!!!". Amy calmly retorted to him "look, I don't tell you what you have to say, what gives you the right to tell me what I have to say?!". By then, the entire hall was booing and hissing at the screaming truther and it took the campus police to finally get the guy out. And what was the result? The rude and arrogant behavior of that truther turned roughly 300 people completely off the topic of 9/11. I know, I was one of them.

The sad reality that next to such wonderful gentlemen like Richard Gage, Steven Jones and many others, there is a real "9/11 Truth Gestapo" out there which, just like the Saudi or Afghan "mutaween" morals police (The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice) feels that it has the right to hound and harass any and all persons who happen not to endorse the 9/11 Truth movement. This "9/11 Gestapo" has made folks like Amy Goodman, David Rovics and Noam Chomsky the targets of special vitriol since all of them are anti-establishment resisters with a track record of standing up to Uncle Sam which very few of us can match (that all three of them are Jews probably also makes them prime targets for anti-Jewish bigots who think that all Jews must be crypto-Zionists).

I am not sure about Noam Chomsky, but I know for a fact that both Amy Goodman and David Rovics do support a new and independent investigation into the events of September 11. But that is not good enough for the "9/11 Gestapo police"! No, they want *everybody* to already pre-judge the findings of this investigation and, God forbid, anybody would dare to doubt or, even worse, disagree with the *dogma* that "9/11 was in inside job"!

I am absolutely convinced, beyond any doubt, that 9/11 was, indeed, and inside job. And I would be delighted to have Amy Goodman, David Rovics and Noam Chomsky to declare that they came to the same conclusion has I did. But that hardly give me the right to constantly harass them with rude and obnoxious demands that they think just like I do. That kind of 9/11T fascism is not helping the 9/11T movement at all.

Some folks out there seem to like Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura and the rest of the "screaming" truthers a lot. I guess stuff like "Prison Planet" "American conspiracies" or "Infowars" sound great to their ears. To me, this sounds like just another version of the kind of what I call "Texan crap" we had to put up with for 8 years of Dubya. You know, cowboy stuff. The kind which appeals to IQs at, or under, room temperatures.

There is no denying that this, shall we say, "cowboy 9/11" stuff does appeal to some people. And for all my dislike for Alex Jones (he does even sound and look like Dubya, no? "Give me a visor!" as Caliendo would say), he has been in the 9/11T movement a heck of a lot longer that yours truly. So I have to set some of my own preferences aside and not begin doing exactly what this "9/11 Gestapo" does: to assume that everybody who does not agree with me is therefore evil, dishonest or some kind of 'gatekeeper'. But not making assumptions about the motives of these people, I still have the right to clearly state that I believe that their demeanor, tactics and mindset alienate the right side of the Bell Curve and that is very bad for the entire 9/11 Truth movement.

The idea that we will all walk to the 9/11 truth in lockstep is morally wrong and practically misguided. The truth about 9/11, as any other truth, will only come out of a free and contradictory discussion, in which many different views will be heard and judged on their merits. In the meanwhile, as a very practical matter, we should consider everybody who agrees to a new investigation into 9/11 as an ally and a person we should express thanks and gratitude to, and not a target for scorn or harassment.

The Saker

Case study: US corporate media vs 911 Truth media

Check out this video of an ABC producer interviewing the two authors of the Loose Change film series.




-------
Commentary: to see these two young Americans standing up to the corporate whore interviewing them deeply touches me. Frankly, it fills me with hope that such people are still out there. They are the living proof that the USraelian Empire has not succeeded in stupidifying all young Americans and that, as the Russian singer Vladimir Vyssotski wrote, 'boots cannot crush the human soul'.

I have been observing, literally for years, how the "truthers" are called "conspiracy theorists" while self-righteous morons who don't have the brains or guts to question the "Party line" condescendingly smile at the "truthers" and lump them with of tin foil hats, flat earth societies and UFOs. So for those of you who have only disdain for these people let me say this to you:

I have come to conclude that the "truthers" are among the best, brightest and most courageous people in the USA and I am deeply grateful to all of them for opening my eyes to what really happened on 9/11.

The Saker

Some thoughts of a newcomer to the 9/11 Truth movement

It has been about 6 months now since I wrote my first post here about the 9/11 Truth movement. Following this initial article, I posted another one trying to encourage my readers to go and dig for the facts by themselves. Hoping to encourage independent research, I have now posted some 9/11 links on this blog, and an RSS feed from 911Truth.org. So far, the reactions to the new "truther" orientation of the blog have been rather restrained. My sense is that some of you knew about all this all along, and some are politely refraining for expressing their disapproval for what they probably see as a useless exercise in "conspiracy theories". Fair enough. Having myself spent eight years being a "9/11 agnostic" I certainly can relate to the incredulity of those who believe that while the US government has plenty of ugly deeds on its conscience, the idea that 9/11 was some kind of "inside job" is really "too much".

Today, I would like to spell out here what exactly brought me around and made me into a committed "truther". The second thing I would like to do, is to give some "shortcuts" to those who are "on the fence" or confused about this entire topic.

Let's begin by the one thing which really opened my eyes. For this, I need to first identify the reasons for my previous 9/11 agnosticism.Basically - I believed that the US government could not have pulled off such a major operation as the covert installation of hundreds of tons of explosives inside WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 without this somehow becoming public. Likewise, I did not believe that having used at least three planes (2 in NY and the one which crashed in Shanksville) the putative "conspirators" would have chosen a rather convoluted "no plane" option to strike the Pentagon. Finally , I did believe very strongly that the USA "had it coming" for decades already and that an organization like al-Qaeda had clearly warned the USA that it would retaliate for the perceived occupation of Saudi Arabia by "infidels" and for the US support Israel. So I applied Occam's Razor and decided that there is no need to seek some really complex and convoluted solution when the simple and straightforward explanation made sense and seemed to be supported by all the facts.

This reasoning looked all fine and dandy to me until I came to a truly momentous realization: the "official theory" did not explain one major fact: there is absolutely no way that the planes could have brought down the three buildings in New York. Not only that, but the way the buildings fell simply cannot be explained by a gravitational collapse induced by fire.

Let me stress something crucial here: one need not have an explanation for HOW something happened if this something is observed and irrefutably established. Or, put in another way - the fact that somebody cannot explain a phenomenon is not a logical basis to dismiss or deny the phenomenon itself.

Let's take for example the following fact: the US government - through NIST - officially recognized the fact that the WTC7 building fell at a free-fall speed for 2,25 seconds (for a detailed discussion of this please check out the video which I posted here). Do those 2,25 seconds really matter? Hell yes!! What this means is that the US government admits that for 2,25 seconds WTC7 fell without any kind of resistance to slow it down and this, therefore, means that there was nothing under the collapsing section. So this begs an obvious question: since we now know that there was nothing under the collapsing section and since we also know that there was a steel frame building there seconds before the collapse - what happened in between those two events? There is only one possible answer to this question: the steel-framed section of the building which would have normally slowed down the collapsing section of the building was removed a) extremely rapidly b) symmetrically. There is only one technology which can do that: explosives.

The above is simply not a matter of opinion. This is a fact. Likewise, it is a fact that fires could not have removed a section of WTC7 the way it was observed. At this point, we are faced with two basic and mutually exclusive options:

a) to deny the reality of indisputably established facts
b) to accept the compelling logic of Conan Dolye's Sherlock Holmes who said: “When you have eliminated the impossible (in this case - fires causing the observed collapse - VS), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Furthermore, we also know that WTC1 and WTC2 could not have collapsed as a result of the combined effects of the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires (anyone doubting that should watch 9/11 Blueprint for Truth - a presentation by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization which now counts over 1000 members).

Unlike the case of WTC7 for which we do have a de-facto government admission that only explosives could have cause the observed collapse, the case of WTC1 and WTC2 not yet elicited any kind of oblique admission by the US government. What Uncle Sam did was even more basic: its latest report officially analyzes the events leading up to the collapse, but does not look at anything which happened once the collapse was initiated. In other words - the government does not even have an explanation, theory or even hypothesis of what could have triggered the type of collapse which was actually observed by millions, if not billions, of people.

So let's now put it the simple and direct way: the ONLY explanation for the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 is a controlled demolition by pre-planted explosives. This is not "one of the" theories - it is the ONLY theory (a theory is an explanation which makes it possible to explain that which is observed). I need to repeat this again: the US government has already admitted that WTC7 did collapse at free fall speed for 2,25 seconds and the US government has simply no explanation at all for the any of the building collapses which happened on 9/11.

Since all the WTC center building were highly secure (especially WTC7 which had all the following organizations as tenants: DoD, CIA, FBI, IRS, USSS and many others) is unthinkable that any entity not affiliated with the US government could have covertly introduced hundreds of tons of high-explosives in these buildings, and most definitely not "al-Qaeda". Again, we need to turn to the compelling logic of Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated the impossible (in this case - a non-US government entity bringing in tons of explosives into WTC1/WTC2/WTC7 without being caught - VS), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

That's it.

That is all it takes to establish beyond reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an "inside job".

There is no need to explain all the seemingly unexplainable events which happened on that day, nor is there any need to explain HOW what we know happened was actually organized and executed. When a crime is committed, the forensic experts can establish that, say a murder was committed with a knife before the police investigators establish who did it, why or how. Put it differently, the fact that the police cannot establish motive, means and opportunity or charge a suspect beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that no murder happened.

This is why the all the numerous members of the 9/11 Truth movement all agree on one key demand: a new, independent and free, investigation into the events of 9/11 (conversely, those who oppose such an investigation are accessories to a clear case of obstruction of justice!).

What about the Pentagon?!

Here I need to caution any newcomers to the 9/11 Truth movement: the fact is that the 9/11 Truth movement is deeply divided on this issue. Many "truthers" are absolutely convinced that no plane ever hit the Pentagon, while many others are equally sure that only a plane could have caused the damage which was observed. The debate on this topic is so heated that both sides sometimes resort to exactly the same tactics as the other: dismissing eyewitnesses are "notorious unreliable" and accusing each other of being government plants, disinformation agents.

Let me candidly share my own view on this with you: I have seen many pictures of the damage on the Pentagon and I cannot imagine that an aircraft would simply vanish the way this one seemed to have vaporized itself. Not only that, but I think that a plane hitting a building at full speed would cause much more structural damage then what is actually seen on the photos. However, and this is a big however, I am not an expert on air crashes. Not only that, but the idea that whoever would have used 3 planes in NY would suddenly decide not to use one at the Pentagon makes no sense to me whatsoever. Nor do the "alternative" theories such as a cruise missile strike or a "bombing flyover" of the Pentagon by a mysteriously disappearing aircraft. On this issue I personally still remain a total 'agnostic' and I am quite willing to be convinced either way.

I am aware of the fact that some 9/11 truthers are constantly warning the rest of us that there is a real risk that the US government is deliberately muddying up the waters around the Pentagon attack to commit as many truthers as possible to a "no-plane" theory only to better ridicule us all by eventually releasing an indisputable video showing a plane hitting the Pentagon (and we know that they have many such unreleased videos). I think that this warning should be taken very seriously by all.

But let's come back here to Occam's Razor. Here is how Wikipedia sums it up: "When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question". In practical terms for the 9/11 Truth movement this translates into a fundamental principle: we do not need to refer to whatever happened at the Pentagon to prove that 9/11 was in inside job.

The official narrative (it does not even deserve to be called a "theory") so full of holes that even a fully empowered independent investigation would have a very hard time making sense of it all. There are literally dozens of issues which should be investigated: the damage to the Pentagon, of course, but also the real fate of United 93 (was it shot down?), the impossible phone calls made from the aircraft, the lack of debris in Shanksville, the close connections of the supposed hijackers to the CIA and FBI, the role of "high-fiving" Israelis and the so-called "Israeli students" spy network, the financing of the alleged hijackers by the Pakistani ISI (whose head was in DC on 9/11), etc. These are all valid topics worthy of careful analysis, but they are not needed to establish that 9/11 was in inside job.

The big news of 2009 was the publication by a group of prestigious scientists in the Open Chemical Physics Journal of a of a peer-reviewed article entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" which established that the dust from the WTC buildings which was collected in NY is full of not only of residue of explosives, but even from unexploded materials (see also Jim Hoffman's paper"Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust"). Not only had a "smoking gun" been found, a "loaded gun" had been found too. This was, of course, terrific news for the 9/11 Truth movement, a monumental achievement for the scientists involved in the research and publication of this seminal paper. But establishing that explosives have now been found is not needed to make the case that 9/11 was in inside job.

Why is this so important? Because any discussion about HOW 9/11 was done can turn into a refutation of WHAT was done that day. For example, the explosives expert Ron Craig has regularly attacked Richard Cage with the following fallacy: since he - Ron Craig - would not have been able to bring down the WTC buildings with regular explosives without a number of phenomena which were not observed on 9/11 and since he - Ron Craig - knows of no other explosives which could have brought these buildings down the way they were seen to collapse, it follow therefore that explosives could not have been used and the cause of the collapse itself and all the phenomena seen and heard that day could only have been a gravity induced collapse. Ron Craig is basically saying this: "since I cannot explain it - it did not happen".

So here is what is so crucial: the 9/11 Truth movement should never accept to be placed in the position of having to explain what kind of explosives were used, how they were placed, how they were detonated, how they were brought into the buildings, or how they were manufactured. Our position should be crystal clear: we know that the buildings were brought down with explosives, we think that we have some solid evidence about at least some of explosives which were used, we even have a very good idea of how they might have been brought in, but none of that is central to our thesis: that 9/11 was in inside job. What the 9/11 Truth movement needs to reply to the Ron Craigs out there is: we have proven that the buildings were brought down with explosives and since you claim to be an explosives expert we don't you find out how exactly this was done instead of denying the facts?!

The main point is this: the way those who are still 9/11 "agnostics" must focus their internal debate about what happened on 9/11 is exactly the same as those who have joined the ranks of the "truthers" must focus the debate when talking to sceptics: First, only stick to those few but crucial facts which are sufficient to prove that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives as demonstrating this is enough to prove the fundamental thesis of the entire 9/11 Truth movement that 9/11 was an 'inside job". Second - refer all other outstanding issues to a future independent 9/11 investigation. This way, we can transform each challenging question thrown at us into yet another reason for a new investigation.

This pretty much sums up the conclusions to which I have come. I am open to other opinions and to criticisms, and I am not in any way claiming that what I wrote above is THE truth about 9/11. It is simply an outline of where I am at this moment in time. My goal in posting all this is to "compare notes" with others in a similar situation and to encourage the doubting agnostics to take a second, hard, look at the facts. Lastly, my hope is that some newcomers (such as myself) might steer clear of some of the logical traps and pitfalls which are placed ahead of them by the proponents of the official narrative.

The Saker

Milestone reached for Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth

The website of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth (ae911truth.org) reports that 1000 architects and engineers have now signed the AE911T petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation (another 6158 individuals from other professions have also signed this petition as of today).

I would like to extent my heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to all the folks at AE911T for having reached this milestone, in particular since their work as been the most influential in transforming me from a longtime "911 agnostic" into a committed "911 truther".

And to all of you who still cannot believe that "9/11 was in inside job" I will say the following: keep doubting, but keep an open mind and keep educating yourself about what happened on that day. Please remember this simple truth:

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Kind regards,

The Saker

Two very interesting 9/11 Truth interviews

Two good interviews have been made recently. Check them out:

Rosie O'Donnell interviews William Rodriguez (the "last man out")

Radio Truth in Australia interviews Richard Gage (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)

Russia Today reports about NY denial for independent 9/11 investigation

-------
Commentary: Frankly, I was not surprised one bit when the NY Supreme Court rejected the referendum. Several things are absolutely clear to me:

a) The USA is run by a powerful Nomenklatura which, just like in the old USSR, has absolute control of all branches of government and the US corporate media.

b) It is obvious from day 1 that Nomenklatura would under no circumstances allow for a real, independent, subpoena-empowered 9/11 investigation. It went as far as to try nominate - of all people! - Henry Kissinger to head the first 9/11 Commission (only protests by the victim's families made them back down).

c) There is overwhelming evidence of a massive and multi-layered cover up of the real circumstances of the events of September 11th 2001.

d) There is strong body of circumstantial and corroborating (and even, in some cases, direct) evidence which points to the fact that, at the very least, elements of the following governments were directly involved in 9/11: US, Israel, Pakistan. Furthermore, the Zionist Lobby and its puppets are dead set against the 9/11 Truth movement. It is reasonable to conclude from this that it has a vital interest in denying a real investigation into what really happened that day.

The rejection of the NYCCAN referendum was therefore the only possible outcome.

I personally suspect that should the truth about the 9/11 events come out, it would shed such a light on the control of the US Nomenklatura over the USA that it could lead to its overthrow by an overt rebellion of an outraged the general public. That is the only logical conclusion I can come to. The efforts to investigate and ascertain the true circumstances of the 9/11 events might therefore well be the single most powerful political weapon in the hands of the anti-imperialists to overthrow the imperial Nomenklatura which currently occupies the USA.

The Saker

Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied

NYCCAN communique:

Yesterday afternoon, Justice Edward Lehner of the State Supreme Court rubberstamped Referee Louis Crespo’s recommendation that the decision to establish a local commission to investigate the events of September 11th not be put before the voters on November 3rd.

After showing interest in weighing both sides’ arguments in the hearing, the Judge’s short decision gives no indication of having considered the arguments put forth in the Petitioners’ memorandum of law, nor any acknowledgement of the need for a new investigation, which the City of New York callously dismissed as “irrelevant”.

On a dark day for democracy, the patriotic call for answers by hundreds of 9/11 families, first responders and survivors has been stifled, and the will of the people of New York City once again denied.

Judge Lehner ruled that modifying the petition to make it “legally permissible” would result in it being “inconsistent with the law sought by the signatories of the Petition” despite the fact that all 80,000 signatories agreed by signing the Petition that “If any provision of this law is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”

The deadline for inclusion on the ballot falls just before the election, making it possible to appeal Judge Lehner’s decision. NYC CAN is weighing all options and will make an announcement early next week on this issue, as well as on how it will be moving forward on other fronts. Regardless of the outcome in court, the quest for answers continues full throttle. This fight is only the beginning.

I betcha you that you did not know that! Now go and find out more.

Ok, this is hardly "new news". It's actually pretty old news already. But still, I decided to post this info here simply because I am under the strong feeling that the vast majority of people out there are simply not aware of these facts. So, here we go. Did you know that

I) That in 2006( three years ago!) the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) dropped the famous "pancake theory" about how the WTC buildings fell on 9/11? Here is a quote from their final report:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. (source: NIST report FAQ) .

Nevermind the part about "the NIST investigation showed conclusively ...". My point is not to challenge their newest theory, but to point out that the initial "official" theory was quietly dropped and that nobody seems to be aware of that. Ask your friends and colleagues why and how the WTC buildings fell - and I betcha that you will get the "pancake theory".

II) That NIST also admitted that WTC7 fell in free-fall? Check out this video showing how NIST had to cave in to "truthers" and reluctantly admit that free fall did occur:





So, no pancaking and an officially free falling WTC7...

What to find out more?

Here is a partial list of sources I have found so far:

Videos: (watching these is the best first step)
9/11 Blueprint for Truth (2008 Edition)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314#
Fabled Enemies
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407#
9/11 Attack on the Pentagon
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7134448689829125037#
9/11 Press for Truth
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3865048042993700360#
Improbable Collapse : The Demolition of our Republic
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782#

The 55 articles of the Journal of 9/11 Studies: (second best step)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Professional Organizations: (specialized approaches)
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
Journalists & Other Media Professionals for 9/11 Truth
http://mediafor911truth.org/
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
http://l911t.com/
Journal of 9/11 Studies (Scientists)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Patriots Question 9/11
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
http://stj911.org/
Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
http://mp911truth.org/
Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth
http://rl911truth.org/
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth
http://www.pl911truth.com/
Veterans for 9/11 Truth
http://v911t.org/

Internet sites: (just a few of the hundreds out there)
http://911truth.org/
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://911blogger.com/
http://911physicstruth.wetpaint.com/
http://forum.911movement.org/

I did also look at the various "debunker" sites but, frankly, their level of argumentation is so clearly dishonest (not to mention the constantly condescending and insulting tone of their arguments) that I pretty soon stopped bothering with them. Still, I will list one here which is particularly liked by debunkers:

http://www.debunking911.com/

Also - check out the "debunking" links offered here:

http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

But, frankly, if you are interested in the "official' version you might as well read the NIST report itself.

If you can recommend any further resources, please list them in the comments section.

Many thanks in advance!

The Saker

A typical example of "debuking"

Charlie Sheen has recently released a video on YouTube asking Barak Obama for a meeting and a new investigation into 9/11. Here is the video:

Far more interesting than the video itself (which I personally find rather mediocre), is the response from the 'debunkers'. Check out this one:
-------
Charlie Sheen and Pathetic Conspiracy Theorists

By Greg Gutfeld

Charlie Sheen has penned a fictitious conversation with President Obama regarding the 9/11 attack.

See, the star of "Scary Movie 3" — and "Scary Movie 4" — believes that Bush/Cheney planned it all and feels Obama should investigate it immediately, in an effort to answer a "bottomless warren of unanswered questions."

Now, never mind how repulsive this is to anyone personally affected by the terror attack. Sheen is just awesome for revealing what makes conspiracy theorists so pathetic.

First, the egomania. In this "open letter," Sheen writes that the president admits liking "Two and a Half Men." And here I thought Martin was the crazy one in the family.

Second, there's the mental masturbation. When it comes to "truther" obsession, the questioning will always be — as Sheen says — "bottomless." That's the joy of conspiracy: It's an endless bag of Doritos, except instead of chips you get comebacks like "that's what they want you to think," and "open your eyes, dude."

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

And third: the contradictions. Sheen claims that 9/11 was the pretext for the "systematic dismantling of our Constitution." He says this without realizing that since 9/11, not a single person has shut him up. His relentless babble has done more to prove there is no cover-up than anything, ever! Damn, I wish the government would silence him or at least get him a haircut better suited for a middle-aged man.

But look, I love Sheen because he's a man unencumbered by self-awareness. Think about it: The world's most famous clueless druggie, gambling-addicted, whore-banger thinks he's uncovered a conspiracy and we should all believe him.

How cute is that?

And if you disagree with me, then you're probably a racist.

-------

That's it. Now, there is nothing surprizing at all that the debunkers would systematically resort to ad hominem attacks, but the amazing thing is that they still succeeded in framing the public perception of the issue at hand. The loud shrieks of the debunkers are essentially achieving the same effect as the labal "anti-Semite": they immediately "switch off" any possibility for a logical discussion of the issues. Add to this the "well-known fact" that listening to a "truther" or an "anti-Semite" is, in itself and self-evidently futile, if not outright immoral, and you will see why the 9/11 issue is not going anywhere.

New 911 investigation in New York?

The 911 Truth Movement

Eight years have now passed since the attacks of 911, and for these eight years I have steered clear from the debate about what exactly happened on 911. Mostly, I defined myself as a '911 agnostic', meaning literally that I had no knowledge of what took place that day. However, being an agnostic does not mean not thinking about a topic. I watched every single 'truther' movie out there, read quite a few books on this topic, compared and contrasted the 'truther' and 'debunker' arguments and stances. Now, eight years later, a number of aspects of this debate have become clear in my mind and I would like to share with you some of my thoughts.

From the very beginning one thing did strike me: the systematic vilification of those who doubted the official version of the events on 911 by not only the corporate media and their talking heads, but even a lot of people in the blogosphere. '911 kooks' was the most frequently used term to refer to the 'truthers'. From the outset I was shocked by that. Why should those who ask question be vilified in such a manner? Does the US government not have a well-known history of false flag operations? Was the CIA not involved at every single step of the creation and growth of what became later known as al-Qaeda? If there any doubt at all that the folks in power on 911 are evil to the very core and more than capable of killing not thousands, but millions of innocent people to achieve their goals? Last, but not least, who benefited most from 911 if not the US Imperial High Command and the Israel Lobby?

The answers are rather obvious, aren't they?

But then why were 'truthers' vilified? I suppose that the fact that there are real crackpots and kooks among the 911 Truth movement did not help. Some of these guys are, indeed, raving lunatics and plainly idiots. And having the likes of Alex Jones screaming all sorts of things on the streets of NY with his megaphone did little to help the image of the 911 Truth movement (Alex Jones is the kind of guy I just love to hate. Everything about him offends me, his tone, his behavior and, worst of all, his voice). This is all true, but none of this is in any way a logical reply to the issues which were raised by the 'truthers'. I mean - if a person says 'how could WTC7 collapse in free fall' it is just not enough to answer 'Alex Jones is a lunatic!!!!'. Even though the latter might be true, this is hardly an adequate reply. Yet this kind of 'argument' is mostly what I saw from the alternative blogosphere.

The other thing which amazed me is that from day 1, the Dubya administration did pretty much everything it could to prevent a real investigation from 911. Why would they? The logical thing to do for them would have been to make a huge and open investigation looking into every single aspect of the 911 attacks with maniacal care. After all, if a bunch of Saudis armed with cutters lead by a small group of people sitting in a cave in Afghanistan really did commit these acts, as the government says they did, why not maximize the outrage of the public opinion by keeping an endless flows of details about this operation coming in day after day after day into the public domain?

But no - every single step taken to investigate these events was at best a farce and at worst a pathetic attempt to bury the truth forever. Let's just take one simple example: there was enough debris left on 911 to send samples to every single laboratory on the planet. Yet, all of it was removed at warp speed and, of all things, sent to China! (keep in mind that legally speaking the debris from WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 represented evidence on a crime scene). Now how can the politicos in Washington complain when the 'truthers' allege that traces of thermate were found in the 911 dust? Hey - had they kept the stuff they could easily, rapidly and painlessly disprove such allegations! But they kept nothing (or if they did, they are hiding the stuff).

Not only that, but the government's story changed time after time after time. This is as true for the list of alleged hijackers as it is in the case of the mechanisms which brought down the buildings. With that type of constantly changing stories, it is no wonder that people start asking questions, I would say.

Yet another kind of response to the Truth movement was what the Papist call the 'argument of authority'. It goes like this 'if Ron Paul does not question 911, neither will I'. Frankly, this is kind of dumb, in particular in the case of a politician who, no matter how courageous and honest, simply cannot afford to say anything and everything he thinks. Yet, a lot of people did exactly that, and not only Ron Paul supporters - exactly the same argument was made with Noam Chomsky's name. I personally have a great deal of respect for both Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky, but that respect does not translate into a mindless and unconditional support for everything they say or, in this case, do *not* say.

Another thing which got me thinking is the amazingly dishonest arguments used by 'debunkers'. Only yesterday evening I read the following thing on a debunker website: "the truthers say that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, yet they also says that the way the light poles were cut down is suspicious - but how could a cruise missile cut down these poles? Obviously, an aircraft did this!"

This kind of "argument" is fundamentally un-scientific. The scientific method consists of making an observation, asking a question, form a hypothesis, conduct an experiment and then either accept or reject the hypothesis; in the latter case a new hypothesis has to be made taking into account the outcome of the experiment. In the case of 911, it is the government who presented us with a hypothesis (the official version) and this hypothesis did not fit the observed facts at all. What the truthers primarily did is to challenge this hypothesis. But the 'debunkers' instead of re-working their initial hypothesis immediately challenged the 'truthers' to present a more solid explanation. This is not logical or scientific at all.

In reality, of course, the 'truthers' did force many revisions of the official version. It's just that the government and the debunkers will never admit to it. That, and the fact that some of what has been observed is, not matter what the 'debunkers' say, very hard, if not impossible, to explain.

Consider this: the 'debunkers ' love to call the 'truthers' 'conspiracy theorists'. Yet these very same 'debunkers' fully buy into the official government version(s) which, as it happens, is nothing but a big conspiracy theory (and a utterly incredible one, I would add). How are the real 'kooks' here - they folks who question the official theory or those who fully buy into it, even when it changes over and over again?!

I realize that all of the above is little more than my personal, subjective, impressions and musings. True. And I don't claim to have the answers. In that sense, I am still a '911 agnostic' I suppose. But one thing I do know is that 911 was never properly investigated or, even much less so, adequately explained. Therefore, the 911 Truth Movement demand for a new, independent, and fully transparent investigation is absolutely legitimate and to reject it is fundamentally un-democratic. If millions of dollars can be spend by the US taxpayer to investigate Clinton's sexual actuvities with Monica Lewinsky, then the death of 3000 Americans surely deserves a real and independent investigation, no?!

The other thing which strikes me a indisputable is that the 911 Truth movement cannot be reduced to a bunch of 'kooks', 'conspiracy theorists' or 'loonies'. This the likes of Alex Jones make you sick, then please watch the following video and ask yourself whether these guys are 'kooks' too:




If you can dismiss it all (not just some stuff here and there, no I mean dismiss it *all*) as kookery - good for you! I personally most definitely cannot.

Then try this one:


(there are some glitches at the end of this video - please keep watching)

Are these guys also just 'kooks'? You know - they might be. But if they are, then these 'kooks' sure are doing a world-class job investigating what happened that day. More relevantly, they are doing the *government's* job and that is where the real outrage is!

I still don't have a clear idea of what happened that day. While there is no doubt in my mind that the official version is absolute bullshit, at least as currently presented by the 'debunkers', I don't insist on any one version of the events. But I definitely agree with Sherlock Holmes' view that "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

I suppose that this makes me a 'truther' too.

The Saker

PS: for a typically obnoxious and condescending vilification of the 911 Truth, movement check out this recent video by National Geographic, complete with all the bells and whistles including David Aaronovich. The video will show you all the tools used by the corporate media to silence doubters and truthers.