Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Debunking conspiracy theorists' paranoid fantasies about Sept. 11

By balsamic vinigga in Op-Ed
Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 10:54:34 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

by Gerard Holmgren debunker@hotmail.com

Copyright Gerard Holmgren. Jan 2003.

This work may be freely copied and distributed without permission as long as it not for commercial use. Please include the author's name, the web address where you found it and the copyright notice.

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one ,often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. "The CIA killed Hendrix" " The Pope had John Lennon murdered ", "Hitler was half Werewolf", "Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone" etc,etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.

So its hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is - sadly - a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."


Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours ,crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposturous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog , they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (ill)logical conclusions.

According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns,knives,box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID ( but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched ? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

"Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"

"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."

"Very strange", thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or boxcutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."

Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time ,the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis.They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.

Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated,and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, "Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?"

"You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And so on...

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion , the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story.

"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? " The answer of course is that its just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen...

This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The "improbability drive" , in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world). There is a principle called "Occam's razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.

Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.

Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is near impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with boxcutters and knives, and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously), but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.

So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of "our freedoms" , it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -really impeccable Islamic behavior - and then got up at 5am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.

It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist , too trapped in the constant rotation of the mental fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi-believable.

Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.

Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vapourizing the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.

There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosine,and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800 C has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourizing 65 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of kerosine - let alone the boiling point - which is what would be required to vapourize a plane. And then there's about 50 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosine.

For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as "mumbo jumbo". This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosine, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute. Blissfully ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vapourized into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.

"Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact." they state with pompous certainty. "Watch any Bruce Willis movie."

"Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation - other than Bruce Willis movies ?"

At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and plan their escape by means of another stunning backflip.

"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin.

Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vapourized into nothing.

"But not big planes, with that much fuel ", they shriek in hysterical denial.

Or that much metal to vapourize.

"Yes but not hijacked planes!"

"Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?"

"Now you're just being silly".

Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground,or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vapourize into nothing. What's so special about a tower that's mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "Its a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."

Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves ( if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vapourization of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit. loop...

But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosine. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant veritcal collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosine.

For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosine which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vapourizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosine is enough to

:completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft

:have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel ( melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel )

:still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.

This kerosine really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosine heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vapourized. And never again will I take kerosine lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp - the next - kapow! Vapourized into nothing along with with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.

Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why.

"Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir"

"No miss, the kerosine heater blew up and vapourized everything in the street, except for my passport."

"You see sir, the schoolbus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."

Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.

The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly kerosine was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat. (Although 2000 C isn't really required, 100C will generally do the job.) This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.

That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft.

You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vapourized by the fuel tank explosion maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.

So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.

This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space inbetween. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12 ft diameter through three rings ( six walls).A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.

But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell - why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well ? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is "mumbo jumbo". It conflicts with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it "must be wrong" although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.

Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned.They nervously maintain that the plane was vapourized by it's exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. (That's a wonderful fruit loop.) Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly backflip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage). As for what happened to the wings - here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly, (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an "irrecoverable angle." How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in "retaliation" are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Who do you suspect is responsible for the attacks on 9/11/2001?
o The Bush regime working under the influence of the elite world central-banking powers determined to create a new world order and enslave the world under a police state tyranny. 50%
o Arabs that hate our freedoms and/or are pissed off at our long history of meddling in the middle east. 34%
o Other. (please write in) 15%

Votes: 97
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by balsamic vinigga


Display: Sort:
Debunking conspiracy theorists' paranoid fantasies about Sept. 11 | 138 comments (112 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden)
Wait, I'm confused ... (2.00 / 3) (#3)
by zrail on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 11:02:03 AM EST

So, for the purposes of this story, does "conspiracy theory" == "main stream media and the government's official story"? Is he doing that so he'll appear more credible? Or is this some sort of satire that I don't understand?

I agree the title is misleading. (none / 1) (#6)
by shinnin on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 11:21:48 AM EST

I assume it's a clever attempt to equate methods used by mainstream media reporting / government communication with conspiracy theory. ;>

Actually, it worked pretty well for me.

[ Parent ]

if the title was... (3.00 / 3) (#10)
by JahToasted on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 12:15:14 PM EST

"jews did wtc lol", people would vote it down without reading it. The title is misleading to get people to read it.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]
It's bait.. (none / 1) (#14)
by shinnin on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 12:32:16 PM EST

...to get rational thinkers hooked on conspiracy memes.

[ Parent ]
So? (none / 1) (#41)
by JahToasted on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 02:29:17 PM EST

every title is bait to get thinkers hooked on some memes.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]
So what? (none / 0) (#60)
by shinnin on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 04:18:08 AM EST

That's a general observation, mine was specific.

[ Parent ]
answer b) <nt> (none / 0) (#7)
by bml on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 11:45:35 AM EST



The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]
You unpatriotic shit (1.04 / 24) (#5)
by glor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 11:08:29 AM EST

Don't you fucking understand that 3000 people DIED on Sept. 11?  Limpwristing about who to blame like this just makes America weaker.

--
Disclaimer: I am not the most intelligent kuron.

You know (2.50 / 6) (#8)
by aphrael on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 11:54:42 AM EST

while I think BV's theory here is nonsense, I also think attacking people you disagree with under the guise of disputing their patriotism is scandalous.

[ Parent ]
They were mainly yanks (2.18 / 11) (#30)
by Stick on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:47:33 PM EST

A few real people were killed but it was mainly worthless McDonalds niggers.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
Dead Americans lol [nt] (1.00 / 3) (#66)
by Hatfield and the North on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 09:22:48 AM EST



[ Parent ]
You will soon find your throat (none / 1) (#116)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Tue May 03, 2005 at 10:55:12 PM EST

at the bottom of your rectum!

GGGGWWWWWWWAAAAAAARRRR!!!!!!!

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

I want America to be weaker (none / 0) (#96)
by ak1 on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:45:38 PM EST

A weaker America is definitely better. The US funded and still fund paramilitary units in a friend's South American home country, spreading fear and terror, and that's why the US are to be hated.

[ Parent ]
Truth is stranger than fiction. (2.77 / 9) (#12)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 12:23:00 PM EST

In this case, the truth was indeed stranger than we could have imagined.

Regarding the WTC plane's wreckage, it's quite simple. The wreckage of the plane was in the building, since that's where it was heading when the fuel exploded. The mass of the plane was stopped by the central core, which had been built to withstand impacts of that kind. That's why you didn't get huge chunks of metal flying out the other side. So, as the buildings went down, the plane's bits would have been ground up pretty thoroughly by the rest of the building.

As for your inability to imagine a flaming skyscraper the size of the WTC (with all the flammable materials within and a planeload of fuel) sustaining a core temperature hot enough to soften steel; your mind is too small. Get a bigger one.

Blacksmiths can work steel with a furnace the size of a workbench. Big bushfires, mostly burning wood, reach upwards of 1500 degrees, centigrade, routinely. (I've got a piece of aluminium in the shape of a crumpled little puddle in my hand right now. It's from one of the domes that was recently destroyed by a bushfire, along with the rest of the observatory, here in Canberra. What are planes made of again?)

Nice try, no banana.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

Don't you find it a bit strange? (2.40 / 5) (#19)
by Argon on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 12:52:42 PM EST

I mean, the building collapsing is not quite that odd, but collapsing so neatly?

Ok, it could be a coincidence, but both buildings collapsed the same, controlled, way. I found that very strange the first instance I saw the images, and I wasn't the only one, some friends stated the same, even a civil engineer.

Ah, and the plane was completely annihilated in the crash and subsequent collapse, but the passports survived? That was a bit too much, wasn't it? And no one even suggested that the passports might have been in the building prior to the crash, but were, without a doubt, IN the plane.


[ Parent ]

Not having read the 9-11 report... (2.50 / 4) (#21)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:06:52 PM EST

...I can't comment on the passport thing. However, since I've been suspicious ever since that news report a couple of days afterwards about the convenient Koran and flight manual left in a car at the airport, I think the truth is this:

9-11 happened exactly the way it seemed to. The government knew it was going to, and instead of stopping it, they used it for their own nefarious purposes. They didn't plan it, no missile was fired at the Pentagon, etc.

The buildings didn't actually collapse neatly. Remember that four other buildings were seriously damaged when bits fell on them? I've seen the footage. You can clearly see big chunks peeling off and outwards, before the dust obscures everything.

If it had been the Chrysler building, I'd be suspicious that it didn't fall over sideways. But the WTC's sheer size ensured that it wasn't going to be able to tip much to one side or the other before falling straight down, since the structure wouldn't support it.

Oh, and the "it couldn't have fallen as fast as gravity" thing? Remember that the failure point had dozens of floors above it. If the weight of dozens of floors of WTC hits the ones below with the kinetic energy gained by that much weight dropping even a few metres, they ain't stopping shit.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Even after all the evidence against it (2.75 / 4) (#31)
by Argon on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:47:45 PM EST

I find it difficult to believe that any government would do such thing to its own people. So, I'm inclined to believe in the terrorist guided plane crash into the WTC.

However... I do not exclude the quite plausible possibility that some people tried to do damage control and brought down the building before its time.
Also, regarding the Pentagon hit, I would also believe in a missile hit in order to masquerade the downing of a civilian plane by the USAF.

The result was quite convenient to the Bush administration and their expansionist agenda. But I can't bring my self to the state where I would believe in a world where a government would do such a thing to their own people.


[ Parent ]

really? (3.00 / 4) (#35)
by balsamic vinigga on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:52:27 PM EST

But I can't bring my self to the state where I would believe in a world where a government would do such a thing to their own people.

History is filled with examples of this.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]

Examples (none / 0) (#120)
by cep on Fri May 06, 2005 at 04:07:38 PM EST

History is filled with examples of this.

Then give some examples, just three or four. If history is full of them, you should easily be able to do so :)

[ Parent ]

Here you go (none / 0) (#130)
by Milo Minderbender on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:55:38 AM EST

Some examples

--------------------
This comment is for the good of the syndicate.
[ Parent ]
I trust nine of them, anymore. (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by starry on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 08:49:11 PM EST

I'm in Bloody Canada because of our current Administration.
if you want to read my sworn statement to the "Crown" in Canada... Bullets and drug dealers were a daily a norm for me in DC (I am a native)... I have paintings with bullet holes from stray shooting sprees, a regular occurance in front of my studio. (I like to think they add to the value)

- a Fed in a white van in front of your house monitoring all your electronic communications for more than 8 months is another thing - and I was living in a different neighborhood at the time - not the one on the Hill with the bullets flying around me.

I have a friend who was taking a short-cut across the Pentagon parking lot that day to the Metro (he lives behind it and if you know anything about the Pentagon there are acres of parking lots)- he said that the first think he thought was that it was a missile.


Sincerely,

Starry


[ Parent ]
I mean NONE of them... LOL, (none / 0) (#52)
by starry on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 08:51:58 PM EST


Sincerely,

Starry


[ Parent ]
Blah, I doubt that. (3.00 / 3) (#55)
by cburke on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:24:30 PM EST

9-11 happened exactly the way it seemed to. The government knew it was going to, and instead of stopping it, they used it for their own nefarious purposes. They didn't plan it, no missile was fired at the Pentagon, etc.

I don't believe that.  Sure, they used it for nefarious purposes after it happened, but I don't believe they allowed it to.

Bush's administration really just wasn't in tune with terrorism before 9/11.  He ignored warning signs because he didn't understand them, not because he wanted disaster to occur.  Despite all the attempts he has made afterward to appear this way, Bush simply isn't a good war president, and has no aptitude for it.  He was caught completely off guard.  He didn't sit around for ten minutes on 9/11 because he knew it was just a U.S. covert operation going as planned, he sat around because he had no clue how a leader would act in that situation.  And despite putting on a better P.R. front since, this cluelessness has carried forward into his endeavors since.

[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#123)
by Mason on Sun May 08, 2005 at 04:00:29 AM EST

When we dispute Bush's role and how much he knew, we can't dispute one point:  that he is a very vain man.  There is no way that he would have premeditated sitting there dumbfounded in a classroom while the defining event of his presidency was occuring.

I'm tempted to accept a general sort of malevolent ignorance from the man.  That his disinterest in counter-terrorism wasn't just narrow-minded stupidity, but rather a conscious desire to get a chance to vindicate/surpass his father through the long-discussed invasion of Iraq.  But the weakness of his character makes any specific knowledge of 9/11 pretty much impossible.

And 9/11, just like most of Al Qaeda's efforts, has been more of an attack on the corrupt and westernized Saudi royals than it was on the US.  Jihad has never been about conquering America and putting up a bunch of mosques in Wyoming, but rather an acting-out of the tensions of Saudi society.  Westernization is only a threat because they see it at home, not because it is on the other side of the planet.

A crusading America was meant to polarize the middle east and destabilize the overly-secular regimes of the region.  That's gone decently well.

It isn't always about us.  Yes, America is a target because of our various actions in the region.  But the Arab fundies need us as a bad guy, so that fundamentalist Islam still has relevance in an increasingly modernized middle east.  In the exact same sense, much of America's response to 9/11 was orchestrated for the American public, not because of any of the real geo-political situations in the middle east.

When the fundamentalist fringes of two cultures meet, it's always true love.

[ Parent ]

We can all think back (2.60 / 5) (#24)
by balsamic vinigga on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:13:13 PM EST

to our befuddlement on that morning.  Remember all the conversations you had right after it happened?  People just couldn't understand how such a plan could be so successfully executed by a handful of arab terrorists.  It just didn't make sense.  This was a rational reaction that hasn't been properly satisfied by investigation.

Instead we've been misled to believe that our pre-911 airport security was flawed, and that the federal gov. needed provisions provided under the patriot act to have properly protected us from the terrorists.

The terrorists are attacking us from many angles.  Physically on 911 and mentally under the aftermath.

3000 lives are a tragedy.  But the mass brainwashing of millions of people is the most frightening.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!
[ Parent ]

3000 lives? (3.00 / 5) (#36)
by Argon on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:55:26 PM EST

You mean, 3000 AMERICAN lives, because, since then many more human lives have been lost, and not due to terrorists attacks, but by bombs of a "vengeful" country.

I remember seeing the interviews of New Yorkers and from all that I saw a single guy being reasonable and saying that the US response shouldn't create even more random death. I guess that such reasonable person is now in jail accused of unpatriotic behavior.

Yes, I agree with most what you say... But I just do not want to believe in the horror of having such monsters ruling the world's single superpower.


[ Parent ]

Think back some more (3.00 / 2) (#85)
by duffbeer703 on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 04:43:33 PM EST

Remember how everyone was looking for "arab terrorists" after the Oklahoma City bombing? I remember people being befuddled when a nice white boy with a UHaul full of fertilizer could take down a building.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/news/722_hijackervideo.html

All of the screeners but one had been subjected to secondary screening. All had been let through. The weapons used by the hijackers were carefully selected to pass inspection.

What is most frightening is the fact that people like you let their screwball political stances completely obscure their judgement.

[ Parent ]

People believe... (none / 1) (#90)
by OzJuggler on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 06:35:46 AM EST

..whatever they want to believe.
If this is your theme, then may you never watch a movie or read a novel ever again.

Its tragic that when faced with the possibility that a small group of terrorists successfully hijacked and flew aeroplanes into buildings out of hate and religiously fanatical reasons, versus the possibility that US hawks facilitated the whole thing to gain pretexts for war and capturing foreign assets, many people think the second option is the simpler and more believable - or at least do not discount it straight away.

But then, you don't want to be talking to me. I'm one of those crackpots who was NOT surprised on 12 September when the shit hit the fan. Somewhere in the back of my mind I suspect the USA deserved the attack, it's just a matter of figuring out why. Because the hijackers were no more crazy or delusional than anyone else you'd find in church on the sabbath. To think otherwise is to believe that 19 sociopaths, from countries where family values and warm ubringings are more common than in western countries, somehow found each other and stayed together long enough to plan and train for the attack.

The ultimate taboo on September 11 is the question of Why. Bush is allowed to answer the question, but no-one is allowed to ask why the terrorists did it. The topic is off limits. Yet this question has never been satisfactorily answered in the mind of the public.

(Pssst! How am I going? I think I'm getting the hang of this. Should I post this troll at the top level?)

OzJuggler
"And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.
[ Parent ]

If you have to believe in something, believe in me (none / 0) (#91)
by 15pso3n on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 08:45:38 AM EST

>many people think the second option is the simpler and more believable - or at least do not discount it straight away.

People have minds of there own and can use them for thinking and evaluating information, there is no need to believe in something. And there is no need to discount anything straight away, it can be discounted after looking at the facts. This is a serious issue, so one can spend some time to carefully analyze what (and yes, why) happened.

From what I've read in the comments here, and generally on this subject, the main argument of people who support the "official" theory is that they can't believe that the government will lie to them, or that such a big conspiracy can happen without being exposed by congressmen or media. And they believe that controlled collapse of high-rise buildings can happen spontaneously, and that whole USA administration, military and intelligence are grossly incompetent in doing their jobs.

Well, I'm not a believer, I've done my homework on 9/11, and I think that the actual evidence that the official story is bullshit is so overwhelming that anybody with critical mind won't buy it. That is, if he stops believing and starts analyzing.
-- Addict of drugs not yet synthesized
[ Parent ]

Not really (2.75 / 4) (#106)
by duffbeer703 on Sun May 01, 2005 at 08:00:59 PM EST

I don't believe that the government is always truthful, but blowing up the WTC as justification for war is just stupidity.

Your argument is paranoia fueled by political bitterness or anger.

For one, such an action wasn't needed to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq!

Second, the risk of failure or discovery for the US government while setting up the planes and building demolition is just too high.

Third, the utter failure of US intelligence and counterintelligce services was completely forseeable. FBI Counterintelligence, CIA & military intelligence are geared toward analyzing the activities of nation-states, not individuals.  These agencies were all created in the cold war era, and were still more suited to spy on the KGB than a few arabs in a cave.

I'd go an redo my homework if I were you. The subsequent actions of the US government have been completely successful in two ways:

- The invasion of Afghanistan eliminated the state that was openly harboring reactionary Islamic extremeists.

- The invasion of Iraq has created a decoy, or an American proxy-state in the middle east. Reactionary Islamists are focusing their attention towards Iraq, and not the west.

"Victory" in the war on terrorism to not have bombs exploding in NY or Los Angeles. Eliminating the "terrorists" is a secondary and relatively unimportant objective.

[ Parent ]

Where were you? (2.80 / 5) (#92)
by glothar on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 11:41:46 AM EST

[We can all think back] to our befuddlement on that morning. Remember all the conversations you had right after it happened? People just couldn't understand how such a plan could be so successfully executed by a handful of arab terrorists.

I remember that day pretty well. I remember eating pasta and old marinara because MPs were blocking the only way to the grocery store. I remember giving directions to some guy whose clothes were blackened from smoke as he tried to find his way back to Georgetown. I remember looking at a plane and thinking "That's not the approach they used to Washington National...". I remember hundreds of people talking about the 757 they saw flying low over 395 that morning, and the people on 110 who watched a jet hit the Pentagon.

Now, maybe I'm in the minority, but no one around me was talking about how it couldn't really be possible. But then, we were distracted by the smell of smoke in the air from only a half mile away from the Pentagon.

Where were you?

It's easy for nutjobs and morons to say "Ahh... it could have been a missile that hit the Pentagon." They didn't see the plane, and they prefer to ignore anyone who did.

That's really the basis of this whole article: Ignorance. If it didn't fit your own ideas, you ignored it. The thousands of people who saw the plane outside the normal approach to DCA (including me): Just ignore them. The hundred or so who got front row tickets on VA-110: Ignore them too. The cell phone call from the passenger on the plane after it took off from Dulles: Ignore it, it could've just been a hoax. The guy who talked to me after leaving his office in the Pentagon: Probably a CIA operative sent out to specifically deceive me, right?

Morons...

[ Parent ]

Anhiliated (2.80 / 5) (#33)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:50:05 PM EST

I mean, the building collapsing is not quite that odd, but collapsing so neatly?
No. Why should anyone find that odd? Gravity pulls downward. The WTC towers were build around a central supporting core, with a supporting outer structure, and floors spanned between the two to transfer loads. With the floors weakened by fire, the outer skins weakened by the crash, the central column was basically the only thing holding the building together. The floors pancake, riding the whole shebang down. If you watch the footage of WTC2s collapse, you'll notice that the top 30 floors actually tilt forward towards the weakened members outer support members (walls), thus breaking the support members on the other side (you can see the outer supportb buckle seconds before the collapse on the video). Only then do the top 30 floors start to pancake onto the bottom, one floor at a time, building up momentum along the way. Even a few seconds after the collapse you can see the central core still standing until the rest of the building pulls it down. The central core, when it finally collapse, didn't fall neatly at all, but collapsed across WTC 7 causing enormous structural damage.
Ok, it could be a coincidence, but both buildings collapsed the same, controlled, way.
Both buildings were built the same way. Both buildings received essentially the same damage (WTC 1, the second tower hit, and the first to collapse, actually had more of its outer support taken out than did WTC2 because Hani Hanjour sucked as a pilot and nearly missed the building entirely).
Ah, and the plane was completely annihilated in the crash and subsequent collapse, but the passports survived? That was a bit too much, wasn't it? And no one even suggested that the passports might have been in the building prior to the crash, but were, without a doubt, IN the plane.
The fuel is primarily in the wings and wing roots. The luggage is loaded into the belley of the plane, or into the overhead cabins. Computer simulations show that the wet fuel storage tanks burst immediately, but that the passeneger cabin didn't disentegrate until inside the building. Tons of wreckeage flew out the other end. Reportedly, a set of womans hands were found bound with wire, which matched reports from the plane that the stewardess had been bound with wire. The right engine of one of the aircraft flew out the other side, struck another building outside of the WTC complex, then landed on a pedestrian. Parts of the planes were found up to a half mile from the WTC site. The plane wasn't "anhiliated" by any semblence of the imagination.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
No much doubt about the planes (none / 1) (#38)
by Argon on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 02:08:19 PM EST

At least not in the WTC case, and it's not easy to fly a plane that big into a specific building. Specially if you don't have any training.

The Pentagon blast is a different story, where a plane hit is much harder to believe in.

Regarding the collapse of the building, I guess it could happen the way you describe. Besides if it would tilt to one side it would not collapse much further from if foundations due to its weight. But during the news cover of the incident, there were reports of damage (and risk of collapse) to nearby buildings due to the vibrations that both building were creating. In this scenario I would find it plausible that someone took the unpopular decision to cut the losses by bringing down both buildings. This would explain why the firemen were climbing so calmly inside the buildings.

[ Parent ]

Not a hard target (none / 0) (#74)
by An onymous Coward on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 11:05:31 AM EST

The pilot has to aim the plane into a small box to get it to land centered at the end of the runway, with enough space to stop, which is obviously done successfully all the time

"Your voice is irrelevant. Stop embarrassing yourself. Please." -stuaart
[ Parent ]
At a much lower speed (nt) (3.00 / 3) (#78)
by scorbett on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:49:59 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Fire Department's perogative. (none / 1) (#84)
by duffbeer703 on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 04:37:28 PM EST

<blockquote>In this scenario I would find it plausible that someone took the unpopular decision to cut the losses by bringing down both buildings.</blockquote>

Several of the surrounding buildings were structurally compromised by the collapse and by the vibrations. People at the scene could actually see one of the other buildings (WTC 6?) sway.

When such things happen, the Fire Dep't has the authority to pull the building.

I really cannot see why you find it so difficult to believe that unskilled pilots could hit a large building. Untrained Japanese pilots routinely hit US warships moving at high speed and taking evasive manuevers during the waning days of WW2. Even smaller destroyers and destroyer escorts (less that 150 ft long) were sunk all of the time.

[ Parent ]

Get a clue (3.00 / 9) (#40)
by Peahippo on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 02:13:33 PM EST

Your civil engineer friend needs to go back to college and learn something this time.

Something as big as a skyscraper simply doesn't act like you think it would.

Firstly, skyscrapers are generally built like trees. They have cores, which "slenderize" as they rise, and off these cores floors are attached like branches. The outer walls are generally curtain walls which support no weight. (However, the WTCs were built so that the walls did carry torquing loads, hence made the buildings stronger while reducing interior bracing against the torques. This freed up some internal space, which is always a concern when renting the office space later.)

Secondly, large structures like skyscrapers are effectively like tissue paper when it comes to their own weight. If you tried to "push the building over" (even assuming you had a pusher that didn't just sink into the building like a knife into jello), it would just collapse, since such a large structure isn't monolithic. It CANNOT act like a single thing. It CANNOT fall over on its side like a box, or anything like common comic-book and movie illustrations of earthquake damage. (I hate those. There's a reason why we real engineers use the phrase "Hollywood Science" to demonstrate how illustrators often get things wrong.)

For example, when large pipes are towed into ocean positions and flooded to form oil rig platforms, the engineers don't just let the ocean slosh into one end. A huge pipe the size of a skyscraper would collapse like a tube of tissue paper, even under the effect of ocean sloshing in. To sink such a beast properly, water has to be slowly pumped in, and still the engineers worry about the pipe collapsing as it sinks and rights itself in the ocean.

What I'm trying to say here is that once the top of an ANY skyscraper gets to falling as a mass for several feet, it becomes unstoppable. Then, since the building is just like tissue paper in a macro sense, it will neatly collapse in on itself. (Obviously, a controlled demolition has greater control. The WTC towers produced a lot of debris when they fell in such uncontrolled fashions. But the bulk of the mateial ended up in 2 enormous heaps upon the tower footprints.)

Like I said, your civil engineer friend is an idiot. Obviously, he's just a posuer who drank his way through college.


[ Parent ]
Neat? (none / 1) (#83)
by duffbeer703 on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 04:30:24 PM EST

I was down there a few days after collapse. "Neat" isn't a word that can be used to describe what happened there.

Debris were spread everywhere, and huge amounts of them fell into surrounding buildings, which subsequently collapsed or were demolished.

The outer walls of the WTC were the critical structural members. That's why the WTC truck bombing in the early 90's didn't collapse the building -- the outer walls were bearing the weight of the floors above. Once the heat from the flames and the breach from the aircraft weakened the structure enough, you were left with a cascading failure.

Your point about the artifacts surviving crash doesn't hold water either. Small debris routinely survive major disasters -- workable tapes and computer media were recovered from the shuttle Columbia disaster, and those debris were scattered over hundreds of miles.

If you're anywhere near New York, go to the State Museum in Albany. There's a WTC exhibit that you'd find interesting. There are all sorts of random debris that survived... ID cards, pens, half of a daytimer.

Its quite moving when you stand there and see heavy-duty titanium extrication tools carried by a fireman bent like a pretzel. Or the ID cards, wallets, credit cards. Or the mangled elevator doors or keyrings. I couldn't stay to see the entire exhibit.


[ Parent ]

WTC 7 (at least) was "Pulled" (none / 1) (#98)
by moondrop on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 05:44:40 PM EST

It's been revealed that the owner of the WTC property ordered that building 7 be pulled on 9/11/01. "Pull," in that conversation, meant demolish.
Interpret as you will. I just don't believe that 1) they would have had detonation charges in place "just in case", 2) they could have set it up so quickly, or 3) the media missed out on this fact. Then again, #3 is true.

[ Parent ]
And the pentagon thing... (2.20 / 5) (#25)
by DavidTC on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:21:26 PM EST

...is just gibberish. Wings really do fold back into airplanes, because, duh, there's no particular reason for them to be designed not to. You're not supposed to hit things with your wings while you're flying the damn plane around.

In fact, there are only three things wings can do when they hit a building.

They can be superwings, cutting through the building, but that's clearly absurd.

They can rip off and lay there. This does happen.

They can break and be sucked along with the rest of the plane because, duh, they're still connected. This happens all the time, also. Just because the bracing snaps doesn't mean the fuel lines and whatnot snap. They could have certainly gotten past the first row of offices.

As for the 'size of the hole', that's just idiotic. That's people trying to guess the size of the damage by a photo taken through an incredibly amount of smoke. There's an actual photo taken overhead, later that day, that shows exactly what happened to the Pentagon. There's a huge hole in it.

I also find this conspiracy theory very odd. Why, exactly, would the Pentagon fake an attack on itself using a fake airplane? They could have use a car bomb or a real airplane much easier. Hell, they could have just called it a rocket attack, if that's what they did.

And why fake an attack on themselves at all if they wanted terrorists, because, despite it being lumped in with the WTC attack, the attack on the Pentagon wasn't terrorism at all, it was a legit military target. I think 'They're attacking civilians instead of the miltary' would have worked better than 'they're attacking civilians in addition to the military' for fearmongering purposes.

And what happened to that airplane anyway? The Pentagon took it and killed everyone on board and...what? Dismantled it and drove it to the Pentagon. Doesn't that seem like a hell of a lot of work vs. actually flying the plane into the building? Or are we asserting those people and that plane didn't actually exist?

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

read the article yet? (none / 0) (#28)
by wre on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:29:56 PM EST

The author presumably claims that there was no airplane wreckage to be found at the Pentagon site.

[ Parent ]
I read it. (none / 0) (#42)
by DavidTC on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 02:31:53 PM EST

I was just commenting on all the possiblities.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]
Chunks of Metal (2.66 / 3) (#26)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:26:33 PM EST

That's why you didn't get huge chunks of metal flying out the other side
Uhm, you did. In the second WTC strike you can even clearly see one of the huge GE turbofans go flying out the side of WTC1 trailing a fireball along. The engine struck another building and disintegrated. One of the 200 lb compressors landed on a pedestrian, killing them.

And a note on aluminum - it's highly reactive. Aluminum reacts with atmospheric oxygen to form an aluminum oxide. Under hypoxic burning conditions, this oxide submlimates exposing fresh aluminum. Given that the Pentagon burned for three days, it's not inconcievable that the bulk of the aircraft aluminum burned off in this manner, leaving only the clipped section of the tail and wings and a few frame members to be hauled off. If you want to have some fun with aluminum, break open a mercury thermometer and pour it onto the aluminum. Watch with great horror as the aluminum turns into a yucky orange flaxy substance. This is why the FAA will not allow mercury aboard aircraft.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Aluminum oxide (none / 0) (#29)
by wre on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:38:35 PM EST

It's true that Al quickly oxidizes, but the oxidization only occurs on the surface. This thin oxidized layer then proceeds to form a barrier to any oxygen impinging on the surface.

You'll get some oxygen off the Al surface, but not much at all.

Even in thermite, which has powdered Al (huge surface area), the primary reaction is involving unoxidized Al.

[ Parent ]

Uhm..Thermite (none / 1) (#37)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 02:03:52 PM EST

The reaction for thermite is

Fe3O4 + 2Al + Heat -> Al2O3 + Fe - Heat


The "+Heat" means that heat is added to the reaction. Al in any form oxidizes immedately in atmosphere. By heating the thermite mixture, the oxidized aluminum comes off, exposing fresh aluminum, allowing the reaction to begin.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
My point is (none / 0) (#39)
by wre on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 02:09:27 PM EST

You can't expect a chunk of aluminum to bring in an appreciable amount of oxygen. The majority of oxygen will have to come in from elsewhere.

[ Parent ]
No no no... (none / 1) (#58)
by thelizman on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:02:51 AM EST

...that wasn't what I was saying at all. I was pointing out that you can burn aluminum below its melting point. It's second order chemical reaction. It takes longer, but three days at high temps could certainly burn off significant amounts of aircraft grade aluminum.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
+1, bound to spark debate. (1.42 / 7) (#16)
by The Amazing Idiot on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 12:44:12 PM EST

nt

+1 FP, HARD HITTING. (1.50 / 8) (#18)
by the ghost of rmg on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 12:52:01 PM EST

this story has the rmg seal of approval. vote for it as many times as you can.


rmg: comments better than yours.
rmg seal of approval. (none / 1) (#23)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:09:48 PM EST

Otherwise known as the "rmg kiss of death".

Don't listen to RMG, people! Vote the article up anyway!

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

+1, The Lunatic Fringe [n/t] (1.16 / 6) (#32)
by thelizman on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:50:00 PM EST


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
Pentagon plane (3.00 / 10) (#34)
by Stick on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:51:24 PM EST

This is what probably happened to it - Click


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
AWESOME! For more cool air disaster clips (none / 1) (#101)
by nlscb on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:26:56 PM EST

Click here and here.

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange
[ Parent ]

Bunker (none / 0) (#117)
by paranoid on Wed May 04, 2005 at 06:24:25 PM EST

It seems to me that there is a difference between hitting a concrete nuclear plant wall and hitting a Pentagon (or WTC) walls. Basically if you hit a barrier you cannot penetrate, you will be smashed and (if you are small enough) may evaporate. But it's either - or. Either you evaporate or you fly through all the walls, gradually dispersing the kinetic energy. Both things can't happen at the same time (though I didn't run a test myself).

And the fighter jet was somewhat smaller than a Boeing passenger jet.

[ Parent ]

the Pope didn't kill Lennon, you stupid fuck (1.28 / 7) (#43)
by fenix down on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 03:08:26 PM EST

Why the fuck would the Pope want to kill Lennon?  The Pope didn't fucking kill anybody, the CIA killed Lennon, you can't even be half-warewolf, that makes no fucking sense, and they aren't aliens, they're Republicans, and they killed Hunter Thompson because he was the only one with solid evidence about the cloning plan and was going to tell the media before he got too old to regularly check the grave site for signs of DNA extraction, thus maintaining the stalemate that was keeping Ted Kennedy alive.

What the fuck kind of retard thinks the Pope killed fucking Lennon?  What do you think, the Pope calls up Langley: "Hello, this is the Pope, can I borrow one of the programed assasins you've been training in Laos?  I need to kill that hippy that your Vice President/former director hates so much."

of course the pope didn't kill john lennon. (3.00 / 3) (#46)
by aphrael on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 05:44:26 PM EST

Stephen King did.

[ Parent ]
You're so bad at this. (none / 0) (#61)
by Paulsweblog on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 07:03:34 AM EST


--
Blood for blood and death for death.
[ Parent ]

OH SNAP (none / 0) (#82)
by fenix down on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 03:46:54 PM EST

He's right!

[ Parent ]
It's deliberate. (none / 0) (#88)
by DavidTC on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 10:00:18 PM EST

It's to confuse everyone else.

Don't fall for it. The CIA killed Lennon, just like they killed JFK, and everyone knows it. Ramblings abou Ted Kennedy is just a misdirection.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

+1 Haven't read it (1.00 / 3) (#49)
by stuaart on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 08:11:41 PM EST

but everyone else is giving it +1 so it must be good.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


Spoken like a man. (none / 0) (#62)
by Mylakovich on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 07:56:35 AM EST

Thinking isn't cool anymore, just let other people do it.

[ Parent ]
Fool! Fool! FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#64)
by HollyHopDrive on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 08:41:26 AM EST

Never admit that!


I make too much sense to be on the Internet.
[ Parent ]

No apparent motivation (2.55 / 9) (#54)
by cburke on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 09:53:37 PM EST

This was pretty funny, though I feel it would have been better if you tried harder.  E.g. you harped on kerosene a little too much, the weakness of the argument had too much time to become apparent.  Enjoyed it though.

Anyway, because I'm a lunatic conspiracy theorist, I'm going to tell you that the evil genius did in fact have a very sophisticated motivation for carrying out these attacks.  Sure, "they hate freedom" is ridiculous, but only because it is too simple and doesn't explain the actions.  I can certainly see why a naive person might be confused in the aftermath of 9/11.  Why would al Qaeda have done this?  What could they possibly hope to gain?  Only a fool wouldn't see that America's response would be brutal retaliation, and Osama is no fool.  How does getting their asses kicked help al Qaeda?

It turns out quite a bit.  Hopefully with hindsight this "conspiracy theory" becomes more plain:  al Qaeda hoped to gain exactly what they got -- an America on the warpath, dead determined to invade and occupy Arab and Muslim nations.  This has done miracles for their propaganda.  Much easier to convince the gullible that the U.S. hates Arabs and wants to destroy Islam when they can see bombs being dropped on their cities on TV, right?  

I don't know if Osama predicted the invasion of Iraq when he launched his scheme (he's smart, but he isn't Hari Seldon), but it certainly plays into the same scheme.  Plus it gets rid of an example of a successful secular Arab nation that always annoyed him.  Maybe he was just hoping we wouldn't be able to stop our war machine (and he was right).  Maybe he was hoping Iran would be our next target, though unfortunately for Osama even Bush isn't that dumb.

The part I haven't pieced together is why he felt the Taliban was a fair sacrifice, and why the Taliban went along with it.  For the latter, my guess is that the Taliban just wasn't that smart.

Naw, Bush being behind it all makes more sense. ;)

Motivations (2.00 / 2) (#95)
by jmv on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 03:04:48 PM EST

At least it's reasuring that there are some Americans (well, at least one, assuming you're American) out there that got this right. Bin Laden has really succeded in his goal of putting the US and Islam (or at least part of it) at war with each other. I'm not sure he thought Bush was really going to invade Iraq, but I'm sure he was delighted to see that. I don't think Al Qaeda was ever able to do anything in Iraq (unlike what Bush wanted people to believe) because the regime was too tough. Now, not only is Al Qaeda able to do what it likes in Iraq, but it's also rather easy to recruit new members because 1) Americans are hated and 2) They're bringing back the good 'ol Shia vs. Sunni conflicts.

Actually, sometimes I'm even wondering if Bin Laden and Bush didn't meet before Sept 11 to plan the whole thing: Bush: "OK, so you attack WTC so we can start passing all kind of laws to restrict cilvil liberties." Bin Laden: "Sure, but only if you attack Iraq after so we can increase our popularity and have a new playground." Bush: "Deal!"

As for the Taliban, I think most of them (except a few at the top) didn't actually like this Arab guy in their place, but couldn't do anything about it because he was too powerful and he was providing money. Now, you're saying "he felt the Taliban was a fair sacrifice". I don't think he sacrificed much in that the Taliban isn't dead, just hiding and still fighting. Plus, I don't think Afghanistan is more than a pawn in his game.

[ Parent ]

Bush being behind it. (none / 0) (#97)
by naitha on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 05:41:43 PM EST

Your arguement is really compelling, but bush would also have his reasons for being behind it.

If you visit newamericancentury.org, there is a letter that calls for an event "comparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor to mobilize people to reach their goals. The same memo is signed by none other then our favorite VP, Dick Cheney, as well as other notable Neo-Conservatives.

I'm not saying your arguement is wrong or mine is right or anything, because the one thing we all know is that no one knows for sure what happened, just that it was fucked up and not the official story.


"To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also."
-Igor Stravinsky,
[ Parent ]
The truth eventually comes out. (2.91 / 12) (#56)
by John Titor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:24:33 PM EST

I hate to spoil anyone's surprise, but in 2011, the Coulter Commission hearings in the Senate proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was the culmination of a Freemason conspiracy that began in Bavaria in the late 1700s.

Sen. Ann Coulter (D-Mass.) and her life partner, comedienne Ellen Degeneres, were found bound and stabbed to death in their Northampton, Mass. home, two weeks after the conclusion of the hearings.

John Titor

Don't you mean two weeks before? (3.00 / 2) (#57)
by cburke on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:26:43 PM EST

I mean, you just let it slip that they're going to spill the beans!  Now they're sure to be assassinated before they can!

You fool, Titor, you've changed history!

[ Parent ]

cts, where are you? (2.80 / 5) (#59)
by emwi on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 03:02:33 AM EST

No liturgical oneliners? No insults on any answer? Have you died? What's this place coming  to?


He's consolidating his power. (none / 1) (#63)
by Mylakovich on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 07:59:52 AM EST

Like a gigantic shit welling up in his ass, he is gathering energy. Just you wait...

[ Parent ]
lol (really) (none / 1) (#69)
by emwi on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 10:15:09 AM EST

Funny comparison. Yea, I can't believe he will let this pass...I tremble when I think of his mighty wrath once he discovers this piece...

[ Parent ]
tremble! (none / 0) (#72)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 10:35:27 AM EST

before my mighty bowel movement!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
yes, you are correct (none / 0) (#71)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 10:34:41 AM EST

i did have taco bell last night


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
i'm frightened (2.20 / 5) (#70)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 10:34:00 AM EST

this story is so dead on, i am worried for the illuminati that employ me to defend their conspiracies here

this story unmasks me as the conspiracy defender that i am, whose only purpose here on kuro5hin is cast aspersions on the defenders of truth and light that the author of this story represents

woe is me! the overwhelming truth in this story is rendering me speechless and impotent!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

why does my comment have a rating of 1.50/1 ? nt (none / 0) (#94)
by circletimessquare on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 02:09:00 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Now... (none / 1) (#100)
by TheNewWazoo on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 07:08:50 PM EST


I took it upon myself to remedy this unfortunate situation and rate your comment Neutral (2). Now it's 2.50/2.

OMG IT R TEH CONSPIRASY!

B

[ Parent ]

know the truth (1.33 / 3) (#73)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 11:00:30 AM EST

Црна Рука

Ујединјеје или Смрт

Димитријеви
ћа-Аписа. члана Врховне Централне Управе, нађен је оригиналан Устав организациј
еод 9/5 1911

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Veritas vos encarcerabit (none / 1) (#75)
by nollidj on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:31:28 PM EST

Уједињење или смрт!!

What, are they still plotting in the background? Is good 'ol Apis behind it all?

muahaha. MuaHaHA! MUAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAA!!!!
[ Parent ]

you, sir, know the truth (none / 0) (#77)
by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 12:43:57 PM EST

Орг анизација носи назив!

;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Uh huh. (none / 0) (#103)
by Coryoth on Sun May 01, 2005 at 12:10:22 AM EST

Интересное babelfish говорит дали это все справедливы
  1. ; несмысловым
  2. ;, котор что не слишком плох на русском, котор мы можем заключить вас не имеем никакую идею. Спасибо.


[ Parent ]
It isn't Russian (none / 0) (#137)
by nollidj on Fri May 20, 2005 at 03:39:04 PM EST

Natch. At the risk of giving it all away, try to figure out what "Црна Рука" means. It would help if you ask a native speaker of Russian, as they are more easily found than speakers of Language X.

Hint: it's a Slavic language that, when compared to Russian, has removed a number of vowels and glides, and it has voicless vowels from Proto-Slavic that Russian lost. The vowels are, as far as I know, allophonic with their voiced counterparts, but they are there, afaict an artifact of word-final devoicing and a predilection for placing stress early in the word.

F'rinstance:

  • "Good woman"
    • Russian: добрая женщина
    • Language X: добра жена
  • "Gold apple"
    • Russian: золотое яблоко
    • Language X: something like злото яблоко ; I've forgotten how exactly it's written, but it sounds something like that.

The adjectives are all like Russian short-form, and comparatives are really neat because they show a different system from Russian that someone in the right frame of mind can just look at and see how the two diverged.

Hints: Црна рука ... well, рука happens to be a somewhat fundamental concept, and it hasn't changed between Language X and Russian. I think a speaker of any Slavic language would be able to figure out what црна means, but from its morphology it is probably a noun or an adjective, and I'll tell you that it's an adjective. Now, what simple Russian adjectives sound like "tsrna"? Don't forget that "ts" and "tsh" (i.e., "ch" in English orthography) are very similar to one another.

P.S. Please shoot me the linguistics they won't stop.

muahaha. MuaHaHA! MUAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAA!!!!
[ Parent ]

Question (none / 0) (#121)
by strlen on Fri May 06, 2005 at 09:38:14 PM EST

What are you trying to say? Are you using the Russ Key plug in? I can only make out some parts of it, but majority of it doesn't parse.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
+FP (none / 1) (#80)
by xslashdot on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 02:33:14 PM EST

Bush is capable of putting conspiracy buffs to shame.

+FP (1.00 / 6) (#81)
by xslashdot on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 02:34:46 PM EST

Bush is capable of putting conspiracy buffs to shame.

I can't have had enough food sleep and water (none / 1) (#89)
by OzJuggler on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 05:51:25 AM EST

This article actually sounds believable to me.

Was it intended to show how unsubstantiated rubbish can sound believable when you adopt a pompous tone and pound ad hominem just like the skeptics and patiots alway do?

Because if so, it worked. :-(

Actually I do recall a good explanation as to why there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. I don't know enough about aviation fuel to know if it is identical to kerosene, but searching the Web for the melting point of aluminium and steel, and also the combustion temperature of jet fuel, yields the opposite of what is claimed in the above article. The melting point is well within the reach of burning jet fuel. And aluminium creates a self-sustaining burn which is very very hot. Just because an entire plane vaporising on impact and melting into nothing is outside of our every day experience doesn't mean it can't happen.
And the video linked below at compfused.com is amazing. If you ever doubted, well that video pretty much settles the matter.

But just because it CAN happen, does not mean that it what DID happen that day.

I remember the day after it all hit the fan there was talk in the news that a security camera accross the street from the pentagon saw the plane go in. Well we've never ACTUALLY seen THAT video, despite every other network repeating the WTC images over and over again. Room enough for alternative explanations.

I still find this all very intriguing, even after four years.

OzJuggler.
"And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.

Video of plane slamming into pentagon. (none / 0) (#99)
by ckaminski on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 06:46:31 PM EST

I, for one, do remember seeing footage of the plane strike the Pentagon, but it was about a frame or two and very blurry.  As Emeril would say, Bam! over and done with.

The fact was, it wasn't interesting/stirring enough to warrant repeat broadcast day after day after day on CNN's "America Under Attack".

[ Parent ]

I saw that too, and... (none / 0) (#107)
by parrillada on Sun May 01, 2005 at 11:03:17 PM EST

...I think it is probably one of the strongest pieces of evidence on the side of the conspiracy theorists.

The few frames of video footage show something that looks *far* more like a missile that a plane. The object looks smaller than an airliner, and has a rather unmistakeable exhaust/smoke trail that an airliner would never have at sea level.

[ Parent ]

and.. (none / 0) (#110)
by Dr Caleb on Mon May 02, 2005 at 04:01:05 PM EST

Those few frames have the wrong date timestamped on them.

"September 12" Linky


Vive Le Canada - For Canadians who give a shit about their country.

There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

Spelling (none / 0) (#93)
by splitpeasoup on Sat Apr 30, 2005 at 12:11:10 PM EST

Kerosene.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

A Great Debunking of this "Debunking" (2.00 / 2) (#104)
by RaveX on Sun May 01, 2005 at 06:42:30 PM EST

...and others.

This is the only worthwhile thing I've ever seen come out of Popular Mechanics:
Debunking the 9/11 Myths
---
The Reconstruction

Not so great though (none / 0) (#115)
by D Jade on Tue May 03, 2005 at 08:41:53 PM EST

Where's The Pod?

PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects.

So how does a statement from a guy, who is an expert at looking at pictures of rocks, dirt and maybe some buildings qualify as evidence? I mean, he's an expert at looking at geography, not technology.

No Stand-Down Order

So there's no need to quote any part of this section. The basic gist of it is that there never was a STAND-UP order in the first place. One air traffic control guy had to call NORAD three times!

Oh right, so let's just blame it on the USA' inefficient defense system, which begs the question; why is the US' defense systems so shit? They lead the rest of us to believe that they spend more on their own de(of)fense than anything else in their budget.

See really, this just adds fuel to the debunker's fire. See, now the government tells you how ineffiecient their defense systems are and you unquestioningly approve their increased expenditure and legislation. Never mind the fact that most of the "defensive" budget went into blowing other people up and that the "defensive" legislation basically took away your god-loving freedoms that we all hear so much about.

Now you, Joe American, can't even pick your nose without fear of being arrested. Seriously, it sounds far-fetched, I know. But let's just say that the next time someone gets kidnapped by terrorists and they send one of those videos and one of the guards in the picture is shown picking his nose.

So now that's said, let's talk about you, Joe American, pick your nose. Now everyone's seen this video of the terrorist picking their nose and one of your colleagues at work heard you bad-mouthing Bush the other day too, not to mention the fact that you're friends with black people too! So she, being a good little Jane American, calls her local law enforcement agency and tells them how you've been acting like a terrorist (picking your nose), trying to incite sedition in your colleagues (bad-mouthing Bush with the boss) and liasing with terrorists (talking to black people who, let's face it, could be muslim and all muslims are terrorists).

Naturally, they come down and arrest you and put you in prison... INDEFINITELY. This scenario is so far-fetched that I laugh to think that I've actually bothered writing it. But it's true. You FREE Americans can be detained for anything now. If you criticise Bush and the Coalition of the Willing, you can be arrested. Even if you don't, you can be arrested.

LOOK, my point is that you now have been symbolically stripped of your much loved freedoms all because some guy in an ATC tower had to ring NORAD three times before they could answer his call.

Well, I'd better go and do some work. I might continue laughing at this article later...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

omgomgomg. (none / 0) (#119)
by Harvey Anderson on Thu May 05, 2005 at 04:45:05 PM EST

which begs the question

It does not beg.  It raises, or it leads to.

[ Parent ]

Some people don't get it... (none / 1) (#124)
by RaveX on Sun May 08, 2005 at 04:07:58 PM EST

PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects.

So how does a statement from a guy, who is an expert at looking at pictures of rocks, dirt and maybe some buildings qualify as evidence? I mean, he's an expert at looking at geography, not technology.

Because he's an expert at analyzing digital images to determine shapes and features.  If you don't understand how the skills translate, you're beyond help.  He's certainly far more qualified to analyze the video than are the conspiracy theorists.  Equally important, he's a neutral third party who can't be painted as a CIA stooge or something equally absurd.

Oh right, so let's just blame it on the USA' inefficient defense system, which begs the question; why is the US' defense systems so shit? They lead the rest of us to believe that they spend more on their own de(of)fense than anything else in their budget.

See really, this just adds fuel to the debunker's fire. See, now the government tells you how ineffiecient their defense systems are and you unquestioningly approve their increased expenditure and legislation.

Again, you miss the point.  Prior to 9/11, we had built the most sophisticated, secure aerospace defense network in the world.  We've rarely had to use it (about all it's ever used for is to interdict planes trafficking drugs), but there's little doubt that we would destroy any attackers attempting to enter our airspace.  However, that's the limit-- we assumed that attackers would be coming from outside, since obviously enough, there aren't enemy aircraft within our borders.  If you've ever piloted or sat as co-pilot in a plane, you understand the problem, though-- even today, we have big blank spots in our ATC network, and even that is dependent upon transponders.  Turn off the transponder as the terrorists did, and suddenly you have a huge mess of airplanes in the sky, and one somewhere that is a rogue, but might not even be showing on anyone's radar at the moment.  To accurately track all the aircraft over 9 million plus square km, you'd need an enormous and extremely sophisticated radar network.  That's pretty much unfeasible.

That said, you're obviously unfamiliar with American politics.  No-- I don't fear for my freedoms.  The Patriot Act had some good, common-sense provisions, and some terrible ones that have been abused.  There's a battle going on over whether or not it will be renewed, as parts were designed to automatically expire as a safeguard against abuse.  I, and the rest of the country, aren't exactly cowering in fear of terrorists.  If you check the polls, three times as many people are worried about health care as about terrorism-- a reasonable distribution.

Naturally, they come down and arrest you and put you in prison... INDEFINITELY. This scenario is so far-fetched that I laugh to think that I've actually bothered writing it. But it's true. You FREE Americans can be detained for anything now.

No, you see, that's why we have our court system, which helps us out with things like this-- it has consistently ruled in favor of defendants like Yasser Hamdi.  While the process does take time, it does eventually reach justice.  The U.S. Government cannot detain citizens indefinitely-- it's pretty well-established...

LOOK, my point is that you now have been symbolically stripped of your much loved freedoms all because some guy in an ATC tower had to ring NORAD three times before they could answer his call.

I'm looking, and I see your point (well, I'm going to drop the word "symbolically", because with it your point makes no sense), and it's wrong.  My freedoms are still intact-- and the measures taken to better secure our airspace and the actions in Afghanistan haven't reduced those freedoms.  Some of what came out of 9/11 was stupid, but that's true of literally everything that comes out of our government, or any government.

Try supporting your statements in the future.  The conspiracy theorists' stories are so full of holes it's absurd.  They honestly don't think that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon?  They can tell that do my ex-girlfriend... who was across the street at the time.
---
The Reconstruction
[ Parent ]

One name (none / 0) (#125)
by Pudgy223 on Sun May 08, 2005 at 11:58:08 PM EST

Jose Padilla
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin
[ Parent ]
Case under appeal-- read the first SC ruling. (none / 0) (#127)
by RaveX on Mon May 09, 2005 at 01:42:45 AM EST


---
The Reconstruction
[ Parent ]
Yea..........................nt (none / 0) (#128)
by Pudgy223 on Mon May 09, 2005 at 11:15:33 PM EST


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin
[ Parent ]
Yea... that means you're wrong. (none / 0) (#129)
by RaveX on Mon May 09, 2005 at 11:43:24 PM EST

If you take the time to read the ruling, you'll note that while the court stated that they could not rule on Padilla's case, as it had arrived through the wrong jurisdiction, they made no other distinction between the cases of him and Yasser Hamdi, whom they ruled must be either charged or released.  Thus, we know rather well what will happen when the case arrives at the court through the proper channels.

Our freedoms, then, are still intact.
---
The Reconstruction
[ Parent ]

not an complete debunking (none / 0) (#132)
by dudsen on Wed May 11, 2005 at 02:21:21 PM EST

They does an pretty good job of explaining that it actualle were planes that caused the World trade center colapse, but all the stuff about the flight 93 is thin and could easy be government falsifications.

There are other isues like the alerged suicide terrorist that suddentlig turn up alive and width perfect alibi's, and The Osama The almighthy Terroist leader in afganistan teory.

One of the first thing the FBI actually do is to go to hamburg germany and severel US sites tracking down Terrorist cells, most of witch we dont really hear that much about, an few arrest are also made in Spain, none in afganistan  or Saudi Arabia.
To me it seams like an all western operation, phaps with some finacial backing but again not much is revealed to the public.

Some other thing is this has the "Rote Armee Fraction"'s fingerprint.
Provoke the enemy into facism, using hijaced plaines, an organisation of mixed arab/western heritage.

My teory is that it's the same story as with the JFK murder, some stones were deliberetly left unturned bacause the government wanted an certain kind of response.
I dont think bush was willing to accept that this is not an good/evil fight witht the mullahs, like they warren commision wasn't interested in finding an cuban conection.

[ Parent ]

i see your dedebunking (none / 1) (#139)
by noproblema on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 11:11:47 PM EST

and post the de3bunking.

interneth giveth and interneth taketh

[ Parent ]

I'm no conspiracy theorist but... (none / 1) (#108)
by parrillada on Sun May 01, 2005 at 11:11:13 PM EST

...it certainly is interesting that the Bush administration and Al Qaeda were the two organizations with the most to gain from the 911 attacks. The gains for the Bush administration are obvious, and as for Al Qaeda, they are not stupid, and they knew how the Bush administration would react. I do believe that correspondence found on Zarqawi's computers corroberates this fact.

What might be familiar to some ... (none / 1) (#109)
by cdguru on Mon May 02, 2005 at 01:00:47 PM EST

If you subscribe to the belief that the entire planet has been the victims of the evil cabal of the current US President, I'm not the one with information to dispute your belief. However, I would say that sitting around chatting about it on the Internet isn't the way to go.

Deception at this level is pretty serious - serious enough to justify armed revolt. How many people were killed in the furtherance of this plot? They can't put down a armed revolt if enough people join in. So, get your gun - you do have a gun, don't you? - and get out there. You need to get this revolution moving.

The folks that don't believe you will stay huddled in their homes, but you need to go out there right now and wrest the government back from these people. How can you justify leaving these people in power? Remember, their power structure extends down to the local police and even the school boards - it is up to you to eliminate this scourge from the face of the earth.

Get moving!

Debunking conspiracy theorists' paranoid fantasies (1.00 / 6) (#111)
by Jeremiah Cornelius on Mon May 02, 2005 at 05:38:16 PM EST

"This work may be freely copied and distributed without permission as long as it not for commercial use. Please include the author's name, the web address where you found it and the copyright notice." Copyright Gerard Holmgren. Jan 2003. debunker@hotmail.com

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one ,often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. "The CIA killed Hendrix" " The Pope had John Lennon murdered ", "Hitler was half Werewolf", "Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone" etc,etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.

So its hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is - sadly - a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours ,crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more preposturous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog , they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (ill)logical conclusions.

According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns,knives,box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes. If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist. With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID ( but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious. However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched ? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.

"Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"

"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."

"Very strange", thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or boxcutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."

Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane? But by this time ,the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis.They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.

Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated,and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, "Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?"

"You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And so on...

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion , the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story.

"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? " The answer of course is that its just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen...

This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The "improbability drive" , in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world). There is a principle called "Occam's razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.

Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.

Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot being able to alert ground control is near impossible. The pilot has only to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the rather crude method of threatening people with boxcutters and knives, and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously), but somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.

So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of "our freedoms" , it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this. Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -really impeccable Islamic behavior - and then got up at 5am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.

It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist , too trapped in the constant rotation of the mental fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi-believable.

Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.

Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vapourizing the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.

There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosine,and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800 C has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourizing 65 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of kerosine - let alone the boiling point - which is what would be required to vapourize a plane. And then there's about 50 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosine.

For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as "mumbo jumbo". This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosine, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute. Blissfully ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vapourized into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.

"Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact." they state with pompous certainty. "Watch any Bruce Willis movie."

"Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation - other than Bruce Willis movies ?"

At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and plan their escape by means of another stunning backflip.

"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin.

Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vapourized into nothing.

"But not big planes, with that much fuel ", they shriek in hysterical denial.

Or that much metal to vapourize.

"Yes but not hijacked planes!"

"Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?"

"Now you're just being silly".

Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground,or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vapourize into nothing. What's so special about a tower that's mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "Its a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."

Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves ( if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vapourization of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit. loop...

But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosine. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant veritcal collapse of both the WTC towers, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosine.

For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosine which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vapourizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosine is enough to

:completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft

:have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel ( melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel )

:still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.

This kerosine really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosine heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vapourized. And never again will I take kerosine lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp - the next - kapow! Vapourized into nothing along with with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.

Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why.

"Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir"

"No miss, the kerosine heater blew up and vapourized everything in the street, except for my passport."

"You see sir, the schoolbus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."

Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.

The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly kerosine was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by heat. (Although 2000 C isn't really required, 100C will generally do the job.) This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.

That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft.

You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vapourized by the fuel tank explosion maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.

So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.

This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space inbetween. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar amount of open space between it and the next ring. The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat circular hole of about a 12 ft diameter through three rings ( six walls).A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.

But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell - why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well ? I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is "mumbo jumbo". It conflicts with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it "must be wrong" although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.

Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned.They nervously maintain that the plane was vapourized by it's exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior. (That's a wonderful fruit loop.) Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly backflip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage). As for what happened to the wings - here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.

When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly, (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an "irrecoverable angle." How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.

Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in "retaliation" are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11.

re: Debunking conspiracy theorists' paranoid (none / 0) (#112)
by interstel on Mon May 02, 2005 at 08:49:05 PM EST

Thank you very much. I haven't had that much fun reading a article here in a long time.

And personally I always did find the "passport" survived magically when nothing it did to be a remarkably improbable event.

Interstel

The X-Files: Dada at its finest nt (none / 1) (#113)
by nlscb on Mon May 02, 2005 at 11:12:49 PM EST


Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

Pentagon incident initially reported as a car bomb (none / 0) (#114)
by redeye on Tue May 03, 2005 at 08:54:21 AM EST

Here in the UK, I remember watching the events live on TV on the day they unfolded. In the initial confusion, the pentagon incident was reported as a car bomb and they cited eyewitness evidence of an explosion.

Around 30 minutes later however, this was retracted and it was stated a plane had crashed into the pentagon.

I dont believe a plane did, and the eyewitness testimony of an explosion certainly lends credence to the missile theory.

Also, I see no mention in your article of the 4th plane which "crashed" in pennsylvania. Do you think it crashed? Was it shot down?

You are a lunatic. What's this? (none / 0) (#118)
by sja101 on Wed May 04, 2005 at 07:10:18 PM EST

No pieces of planes ever found. Hmm thats funny. What the hell is this. Oh I am sure that just fake, one of us crazy conspiracy theorists put it there. http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-windows-lg.jpg

And another thing... (none / 1) (#122)
by clawDATA on Sun May 08, 2005 at 02:05:49 AM EST

Did the so-called "Twin Towers" really exist in the first place?

Have you ever met someone who worked there? Oh, they're all dead. How convenient.

All the pictures and photos look laughably fake. Those shots of the planes hitting the "Twin Towers" was an okay piece of effects work, but Hollywood has done better. They couldn't even make two different-looking buildings -- just cut-n-paste in 3D-Studio or Maya or whatever software they used!

I doubt anyone could prove that it existed. Those who say they were there are either mass-hypnotised idiots, or part of the conspiracy.

Trust no one -- not even yourself.

If you're curious about the Pentagon........... (none / 0) (#126)
by Pudgy223 on Mon May 09, 2005 at 12:16:41 AM EST

Just check this out: http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Preloader
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin
David McGowan (none / 0) (#131)
by 15pso3n on Wed May 11, 2005 at 12:42:20 PM EST

You probably heard in the news today, about the six people found dead in a house in California. Police 'thinks' it's a homicide-suicide case, where David McGowan killed his familly and himself.

What news artilces don't mention, is that David McGowan was a prominent truth researcher and writer. One of his main fields of research was the 9/11 attack. For the last 4 years I am a regular reader of his website Center for an Informed America and his newsletters. On his site is IMO one of the best and most detailed accounts about what actualy happened on that day.

I was reading his researches and opinions so long that I kind of know him personaly. He was very clever and very funny guy, and it is real pleasure reading what he wrote. Not only on 9/11, but on everything that he found or thought to be a lie, including Peak Oil, and even 'random' murders. In addition to the works published on his web-site, he also published 3 books. He was determined to tell the truth to the world.

And yes, I think he and his family were murdered because of his reserach.

--
Addict of drugs not yet synthesized

Not the same person (none / 0) (#134)
by bsimon on Sun May 15, 2005 at 02:17:24 PM EST

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/info.htm

you have read my sig
[ Parent ]

This is exactly the kind of misinformed idiots... (none / 0) (#135)
by sja101 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 09:19:16 AM EST

This is exactly the kind of misinformed idiots we are dealing with. Don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. The man's own website states that it was not he that was murdered. Please people pull this article and stop listening to crazy ass people. There are serious matters that need attention, we need to quit wasting time on fantasies and try fixing some real problems. Quit doing drugs!!

[ Parent ]
No plane wreckage in the pentagon? (none / 0) (#133)
by nanobug on Thu May 12, 2005 at 06:04:04 PM EST

The VERY FIRST LINK FROM GOOGLE when searching for "Pentagon Plane Wreckage"

Funny, I see plenty of plane wreckage there.  Of course, I didn't need to see those pics to come to the logical conclusion that a plane crashed into the pentagon.  Why use a missle when getting some religious fanatics to actually hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon would be way more believable, cheaper, and would do away with the pesky problem of disposing of everyone on the hijacked flight?


Occam's razor (none / 0) (#138)
by pavlos on Mon May 30, 2005 at 11:33:25 PM EST

Amusing, and good for sanity.

The relatively simple explanation that some small group of dedicated people boarded the planes, subdued the crew, and crashed them into buildings is still more convincing than the alternative. What alternative? That the government orchestrated the whole thing and used suicidal agents, or computer-controlled planes, together with pre-planted explosives, etc. etc.

Although there is much room for speculation surrounding 9/11, useful speculation is of the "how" and "why" kind. "How could this come about?". "Why would people give their lives to do this?". And so on. I don't see much room in "what really happened" speculation, given the relatively straightforward events.

Sure there are gaps in the official story, but they are not of earth-shattering proportions. It does sound far-fetched that the hijacker's passports would survive the WTC crashes, so maybe they were planted. Oh well, I would not be surprised. Or maybe the fourth plane was shot down and this is kept secret for PR reasons. But if that were true I would hardly blame anyone.

Debunking conspiracy theorists' paranoid fantasies about Sept. 11 | 138 comments (112 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!