The 9/11 conspiracy exposed

August 6th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

War is a Crime blogs a transcript of how Bush and Cheney pulled off , as alleged by the “911 truthers”:

Cheney: No, we bomb the World Trade Center and blame it on Osama bin Laden.

Feith: Oh. How?

Cheney: Easy. First, we cultivate 19 suicidal Muslim patsies from a variety of Middle Eastern countries, I’d say mostly from Saudi Arabia. We bring them to the U.S., train them at U.S. flight schools. They should be high-profile terrorist suspects who are magically given free reign by the security agencies to travel back and forth to various terrorist training camps to study passenger jet piloting. Actually that process is already underway now. Our friends in the Clinton administration are seeing to it that four groups of Arab men are being brought along by the FBI and the CIA.

Wolfowitz: How is it that the Clinton administration is already helping us with this, when we haven’t even planned this yet?

Cheney: They just are. Okay?

Wolfowitz: Okay, fine. And what do we do with these hijackers?

Cheney: We sit idly by while they plot to hijack a series of passenger jet planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House.

Wolfowitz: And how do we get them to do that?

Cheney: We just do. You see, we worked with these people back in the old mujahadeen days in Afghanistan. So naturally we’re still thick as thieves with them.

Feith: Oh, of course. So we get them to fly into these buildings. And the impact from the planes will bring down the World Trade Center.

Cheney: No, Doug, dammit, you’re not following me. The impact from the planes most certainly won’t be sufficient to knock down the Towers. We know this because we’ve privately conducted studies which show that the Towers will easily be able to withstand impact by two jets loaded to the gills with jet fuel. That said, the jets will likely cause skyscraper fires hot enough to kill everyone above the point of impact; we’re going to have to assume, of course, that the exits from the higher floors to the lower floors will be mostly blocked after the collisions. So assuming we crash the planes about two-thirds of the way up each of the towers early on a business day, we’re looking at trapping and killing a good three, four, maybe even five thousand people on the upper floors.

Feith: Fantastic. I love killing people in the finance industry. It’s too bad the people on the lower floors will get to escape.

Cheney: It is too bad — especially since we’re going to blow up the rest of the building complex anyway.

Feith: We are?

Cheney: Yes. You see, the way I see it, our best course of action is to first crash planes into each the towers, trapping and killing those thousands on the upper floors of each building. After the impact, of course, the people on the lower floors will find their way out of the building and on to the street, where they will achieve relative safety — at which point we’ll finally detonate the massive network of explosive charges we’ve secretly hidden in the buildings in the weeks and months prior to the attacks.

As hilarious as these are – the sad thing is tens of thousands of people actually believe this is what happened.

Feith: So why don’t we detonate the charges earlier, so that we can kill the people on the lower floors, too?

Cheney: That’s a good question. At some point we have to sacrifice effect for believability. You see, if the planes crash into the buildings and the buildings immediately collapse, everyone will be suspicious and they’ll immediately be onto the presence of the explosives. So what we have to do is let the planes crash into the building, give the jet fuel time to start fires that will “soften” the building core, and then we detonate the charges. Afterwards, we’ll be able to argue that the fires coupled with the impact actually caused the buildings to collapse.

Feith: Why will we be able to argue that? Didn’t our studies show that impact and fire alone wouldn’t have caused the buildings to collapse?

Cheney: Those were our secret, far-more-advanced studies, done with secret, far-more-advanced military technology. The vast majority of the world’s civilian structural engineers, however, can be counted on after the incident to conclude that the buildings collapsed due to a combination of fire, impact, and the knocking off of fireproofing from the building beams.

Feith: Why can they be counted on to conclude that?

Cheney: Because that’s what our secret research shows their not-secret research will show! Jesus Christ, work with me on this, will you?

I love Cheney’s lines.

Wolfowitz: I think I get it. We crash the planes, kill everyone above the impact of the planes, let the people underneath the impact out to safety, then collapse the buildings about an hour or so later using the explosives that we pointlessly incurred months and weeks worth of career- and life-threatening risk to covertly plant in a building complex visited by hundreds of thousands of people every week.

Cheney: Exactly! The actual deaths will mostly be caused by the planes. But we’ll incur the massive additional risk simply to destroy the building, for effect, because it will look cool and scary on television.

Again, this is what some people believe.

Tags: , , ,

73 Responses to “The 9/11 conspiracy exposed”

  1. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    No doubt we’ll be hearing from our own home grown branis trust very shortly.

    People so willfully stupid that they make Keith Locke look like a mensa candidate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Positan (390 comments) says:

    Irrespective of the dialogue, the questions still remain – the most prominent being as to how the buildings actually collapsed, as in a controlled demolition. Again, building 7 wasn’t hit – but the WTC chairman told on TV how, “the decision was made to pull it” and WTC 7 crumbled as well.

    Make fun of the issue if that is your will – but those questions and other questions are going to demand answers until the end of time.

    Here’s a few more: http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/07/26/911-the-basic-questions-all-in-one-chunk/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    And Jesus Christ was a plant by the Hittites, sent to bring down the Roman Empire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Building 7 was braced across, as it was built across a subway and didn’t have foundations in the middle. Hence it fell as one block. The side facing the towers was actually extensively damaged.

    Cheney: Those were our secret, far-more-advanced studies, done with secret, far-more-advanced military technology. The vast majority of the world’s civilian structural engineers, however, can be counted on after the incident to conclude that the buildings collapsed due to a combination of fire, impact, and the knocking off of fireproofing from the building beams.

    While the above is a conspiracy theory pedaled by nutcases, there is a very similar theory (Bush had access to a whole deeper “super secret” level) about Iraq intelligence that is policy for the entire left, and was used to push their anti-Bush agenda for years.

    That should scare people far more than the 9/11 nonsense, but instead it’s calmly regarded as fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    Perfect Positan
    The sign was put out “village idiots welcome” and you willingly complied.

    You’ll go blind reading “uncensored”. Mental masturbation does that.

    Moonbats fly – fly my lovelies!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    …there is a very similar theory (Bush had access to a whole deeper “super secret” level) about Iraq intelligence that is policy for the entire left, and was used to push their anti-Bush agenda for years.

    Strange that I’ve never come across this theory, being part of “the entire left” an’ all. That Bush had access to a level of classified intelligence not available to the general public is less a theory than a self-evident fact. I’ve certainly seen suggestions that Bush deliberately misrepresented intelligence reports to suit his agenda, but there’s nothing particularly implausible about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    hat Bush had access to a level of classified intelligence not available to the general public is less a theory than a self-evident fact.

    The claim by democrats in congress is that Bush had intelligence not available to congressional oversight, or foreign intelligence agencies. They have repeated the former claim multiple times and gained much political traction from it, yet no charges have ever been laid in spite of the very serious crime alleged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Positan>Irrespective of the dialogue, the questions still remain

    No! No questions remain. They have all been answered dozens of times, slowly and in simple language so even the dullest person can understand them. The answers are on the web, or you can purchase books written by credible authors. If you didn’t understand the answers then you’re either an idiot, or you’re being willfully stupid for reasons of politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Positan (390 comments) says:

    re Lance and Davidp

    I’ve always felt that an opposing position was more convincingly rendered when contrary material was offered in rebuttal

    You each provide no argument – only abuse. Whether or not “uncensored” is to your taste, at least it has itemised the questions – which you make no attempt to answer.

    The Labour Party should welcome your membership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Fuck me its like dropping a grenade in a barrel of fish. Really really really stupid fish don’t you think Lance.

    Or the Clinton administration that was on watch during 90% of the operations preperation scrub. Bush, so evil he’d blow up several thousand of his own people and so stupid he’d forget to plant a couple of barrels of anthrax in the desert.

    Does it hurt to think with a brain that small Positan?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    There is one ‘incident’ that still does trouble me personally.

    I am no structural engineer, but the conflicting stories about the plane crash into the Pentagon, the manifest details of that craft, the CCTV images being confiscated, and the DAMAGE reports, ad infinitum still do not quite add up.

    We know about the poor souls that lost their lives as one plane was reportedly heading towards the White House. It has been much reported. The Pentagon designated plane seems to have no correlation as to manifest, external communications, or anything.

    For the record, I do believe that Pearl Harbour was an attack that was preventable, but was a very convenient attack that would easily drag a hyper reluctant isolationist America into a war that the Administration was itching to ‘help out’ with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    I am no structural engineer, but the conflicting stories about the plane crash into the Pentagon, the manifest details of that craft, the CCTV images being confiscated, and the DAMAGE reports, ad infinitum still do not quite add up.

    The reason they don’t “add up” is that the conspiracy theorists LIE. In the case of the Pentagon, one of the witnesses described the plane as being “coming in like a missile”. The truffers have changed that quote to him *seeing* a missile, and attacked him when he objected.

    (Sorry, misread your comment somewhat, but the point stands)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Building 7 was braced across, as it was built across a subway and didn’t have foundations in the middle. Hence it fell as one block. The side facing the towers was actually extensively damaged.

    I love it when you hear a moonbat complain that there were very few pictures of damage building 7.

    They forget that the area between the towers and building 7 was extremely fucken hazardous!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Nefarious (533 comments) says:

    I have an issue with the Pentagon crash site also.

    The lack of visible wreckage and the damage to the building do not stack up. Pan Am Flight 103 blew up at 30,000 feet and came crashing to earth in pieces. Fucking big pieces. Engines, nose section, wheels, tail.

    Maybe the Scottish countryside is just a nice soft place to land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Le Grande Fromage (145 comments) says:

    It was the Jews wot done it.

    This was all predicted in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    and if it wasn’t them it were aliens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Pan Am Flight 103 blew up at 30,000 feet and came crashing to earth in pieces. Fucking big pieces. Engines, nose section, wheels, tail.

    I assume this is a joke, pretending that vastly different crashes should have similar outcomes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    It was David Bain

    Hm, what does the octopus say?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    You mean to say the above account ISN’T what transpired and resulted in events on September the 12th, 2001 (NZT)? :shock:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    I’m not a structual engineer… so I’ll stfu.

    How come the area 51 moon units never say anything like that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    How come the area 51 moon units never say anything like that?

    The US government puts a compound in the water that makes people believe anything they’re told so long as it’s a fantastic story about the US government.

    Why do you ask? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    And I’m sure the fact that I’ll deny that I was paid by the US gov. to say that will be taken as proof that there’s a conspiracy about the conspiracy conspiracy…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Chris Carter did it:

    World trade senta U is sux lol!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    I have had numerous battles with N.Z.’s very home grown “Troofer” Travellerev on The Standard about this before.

    Now I can’t be bothered even discussing it with her as she is so out their it ain’t funny anymore. I just ridicule her by throwing in other conspiracy theories into the mix like the Reptillian overlords and faked moon landings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Subway (12 comments) says:

    Positan you are a fucking retard.
    The quote to “pull it” was made to the fire fighters
    “”I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.””

    I.e pull the people OUT of the building, not to pull it down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    No you are wrong Subway. Fire chiefs always pull buildings down! Don’t they??? And then the conspiracy is blown wide open by one of the conspirators….when he tells the media what they did. These people are brilliant!

    There’s a song by Pearl Jam called Inside Job. I made a thread on a truther forum a few years ago saying the song was a “hidden” message and Pearl Jam were either in on it or trying to blow the conspiracy open. The thread went for pages and every “truther” went and bought the album. Retards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    The claim by democrats in congress is that Bush had intelligence not available to congressional oversight…

    Not “the entire left,” then. Presumably the claims reflect to some extent the fact that Congress didn’t actually bother maintaining that oversight and would prefer not to confront that unpleasant truth. That said, the idea that Bush and his advisors might have quietly opened up intelligence channels not subject to congressional oversight also doesn’t strike me as wildly implausible, not the way the 9/11 conspiracies do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    World trade centre collapse explanation for dim bulbs and other assorted low wattage characters:

    1. Buy can of Coke.
    2. Drink can of Coke
    3. Place empty can on level surface.
    4. carefully stand on can.
    5. Ensure George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the United States military are at least 10 metres away.
    5. Fly plane into side of can, if no plane is available, reach down and push finger into side of can while screaming “Allah Akbar”.
    6. Carefully note what happens

    It is possible to simulate the entire wtc complex by placing empty matchboxes or Burger rings approx 5mm away from the bottom of the can.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    Popular Mechanics gathered together a group of experts and has pretty much debunked all the conspiracy theories.

    To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

    In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate

    LINK

    WTC7 debunked

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    hat said, the idea that Bush and his advisors might have quietly opened up intelligence channels not subject to congressional oversight also doesn’t strike me as wildly implausible

    Really?

    So as soon as Bush gets into power, he immediately somehow sets up this parallel channel, discovers all this stuff that no one else knows, ergo that all other intelligence on Iraq (one of the most closely watched countries for years) is wrong. In doing all this, no evidence ever leaks out, even after Obama comes into office. In spite of the serious crime that this would constitute, no one is ever held to account.

    Frankly, the idea that WTC7 came down by controlled demolition is more plausible. At least they have a good looking video for that.

    Oh, and this is the “entire left”. Where do you think the “Bush lied, people died” chant came from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Positan (390 comments) says:

    I know that educational standards in this country have been declining for years, but I’d no idea they were as stunted as has been revealed in so many of the submissions. Nevertheless, it’s been intriguing to read such emphatic defense of the indefensible, coupled with such unimaginative personal slights on myself. To be described in such glowingly derogative and retributive terms is something signally new for me – especially, when the discourse of my accusers is far more qualified to be described as “retard” than anything I’ve submitted.

    The buildings fell into their own footprint – an absolute, engineering impossibility for modern steel-framed buildings unless their internal supports had been first cut by explosives, floor by floor. If the temperatures caused by the fires inside the buildings had been high enough which, in the absence of blast-furnace conditions, they couldn’t possibly have been – then the sections of the buildings above the fires would have leaned out and fallen over, not crumpled into the sections below that hadn’t been affected by heat at all. No independent examination of the rubble was permitted – why? Armed servicemen were even positioned with orders to shoot anyone who tried to remove anything, and they remained on duty until the site was completely cleared.

    As for the Pentagon, none of the usual pieces of an aircraft, like the wings or tail which would have been expectedly found outside the hole made in the wall, were found. No credible explanation for that complete mystery has ever been forthcoming.

    Subway’s explanation of “pull it” in respect of “pull them” is quite fatuous – it was also the second explanation of the chairman on TV. In the first TV item, the meaning of what he said – although he obviously hadn’t mean to say it – was unequivocal and incontestable.

    When someone produces evidence that fits with the known facts – and which doesn’t insult my intelligence – I’ll accept it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Fletch: the response to that was to claim that Popular Mechanics was part of the conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    As for the Pentagon, none of the usual pieces of an aircraft, like the wings or tail which would have been expectedly found outside the hole made in the wall, were found. No credible explanation for that complete mystery has ever been forthcoming.

    Personally I find the idea that an aircraft traveling at hundreds of km/hr slamming into a wide concrete building and setting off a huge, extremely hot fire to be more than credible.

    Oh, and the fact that there’s actually photos of aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon, and witnesses who saw the aircraft crash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Positan (390 comments) says:

    Scrubone, you appear well named – you’re happy to presume fact where evidence simply does not exist. In every other such instance of an aircraft flying into a cavity, whether or not self-made, the wings and tail would have been sheared off and found outside the hole. They weren’t. Such items don’t fold up and enter the cavity with the rest of the fuselage.

    I’ve no idea of the photos to which you refer – but it’s a fact, no wings or tail were found. Why don’t you spend some time going back into it and see what you can come up with – rather than continue to knee-jerk with suppositions that are a long way from showing the least trace of erudition?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Subway (12 comments) says:

    Positan, blast furnace temperatures did not need to be present for the heat from the ensuing fires to weaken the steel framework, so your insinuation that there needed an impossibly heat is disingenuous, once the internal supports were WEAKENED, the floors collapsed in a pancake fashion.
    Your insinuation that it was a controlled demolition would have required significant wiring and effort, which ironically in a building that housed thousands of workers day and night is a blatantly obvious indication that no explosives were ever present. Read up on Occams Razor.

    In the case of the Pentagon crash, what happened to the survivors if it wasn’t the plane?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Fletch (6,395 comments) says:

    I saw a TV programme about that demolition theory. They asked an expert in demolition and he said that you’d have needed to have so many explosives inside the building to do it, it would have been impossible for someone to smuggle them into the building without being noticed.

    Let’s face it – for anything that happens there are going to be people who think it a conspiracy theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Whoops (136 comments) says:

    I’m so glad the owner of this blog doesn’t use the opinion of commenters to steer the National party or attempt to prompt media stories/memes… because half of the commenters are nut-jobs.

    I’ll leave it to you to decide which half is nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    There are photos all over the internet of the aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon. Faked no doubt.

    As for buildings falling into their own footprints…why were so many buildings in the surrounding area damaged if it all fell into a neat footprint? You do know several other buildings in the WTC complex were brought down by the falling debris from WTC1 and WTC2 right? No wait, more bombs!

    Positan, just to keep the fun going, how were the phone calls from the planes faked? Tell us about real time voice morphing technology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “Hm, what does the octopus say?” yes, let’s ask the magic 8(legged)-Paul.

    “because half of the commenters are nut-jobs.” interesting observation, half of my nuts have commenting jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Positan (390 comments) says:

    re Subway “once the internal supports were WEAKENED, the floors collapsed in a pancake fashion.”

    Suppose for a moment that your thesis holds water – wouldn’t the weakened steel apply only to the area above the fire, not to the floors well below it – and, having been weakened in that one area, wouldn’t that provide all the more probability of the upper section bending outwards from the main structure, not crushing downwards on top of it?

    Consider too, the structural strength that would have been inherent in the lower floors to support the weight of the vast structure above – and ask yourself how that additional lower-structure strength could have been made to collapse like a stack of pancakes.

    I’ve no idea how or when the necessary explosives were planted, or who would have seen them being placed. However, I’m sure I could dream up various different means of effecting such a job and be thought to be doing something entirely different. Maybe it was done at night in the guise of cooling systems re-wiring, repairs or replacement. The problem with 9/11 is that virtually all of those who might have seen something untoward were not able to be interviewed afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    “The problem with 9/11 is that virtually all of those who might have seen something untoward were not able to be interviewed afterwards.”

    What percentage of people who worked in the towers died? I’ll answer for you. About 10%. So you have 10s of thousands of your “witnesses”. Why aren’t they talking, WHY? I’ll answer that too. They either work for the govt, have been paid off or are Jewish and in on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    So as soon as Bush gets into power, he immediately somehow sets up this parallel channel, discovers all this stuff that no one else knows, ergo that all other intelligence on Iraq (one of the most closely watched countries for years) is wrong. In doing all this, no evidence ever leaks out, even after Obama comes into office. In spite of the serious crime that this would constitute, no one is ever held to account.

    That certainly would be wildly implausible. If I find anyone peddling it, I’ll let them know. The idea actually presented, that people in power cultivate sources of information in various devious ways for their own purposes, is disappointingly less implausible.

    …this is the “entire left”. Where do you think the “Bush lied, people died” chant came from?

    From Bush (and Blair, for that matter) misrepresenting the intelligence to suit their agenda, a reasonably common event in politics. The supposed enthusiasm of the left for a conspiracy theory explanation of events is an invention of right-wing bloggers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. trout (939 comments) says:

    Positan, from memory the support structure was the building perimeter columnar grid (allowing column free space internally). Once the floor to column connections were weakened by by heat, the floors fell and the force of the falling floors were sufficient to shear the lower floor/column connections.. Like a liftslab in reverse. The engineering studies post 9/11 thoroughly analysed of the structural failure and sequence of events.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    In every other such instance of an aircraft flying into a cavity…

    There was no “cavity”. The aircraft made it’s own hole by smashing into it at high speed.

    You can see photos of an aircraft wheel found in the pentagon here. Didn’t take much to find.
    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml

    Note the massive damage sustained to what is a pretty solid piece of equipment – relatively light (i.e. hollow) wings and tails would sustain far greater damage.

    And again, the witness statements that conspiracy theorist have lied about – what hit the building only acted like a missile, it was an aircraft. Missiles don’t have wheels from Boeing 757-200s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    These people aren’t interested in engineering studies, Trout.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    The idea actually presented, that people in power cultivate sources of information in various devious ways for their own purposes, is disappointingly less implausible.

    It would be illegal, and a serious crime. If the Democrats actually believed what they were saying, there would be congressional investigations all over the place. People would be going to jail. What actually happened? They made some snide remarks, campaign speeches, and they then brush it all under the carpet when they gained power.

    Reality is that it is a story invented to try and pretend that “Bush Lied”. Bush “must” have know the truth, even though no one else did.

    As for the case Bush made, I’ve read (and posted) speeches made by leading Democrats pre-invasion that say exactly the same thing as Bush did – you’d never believe they were made by Hillary and Kerry. This ridiculous lie was made in order to cover butt politically, and has no evidence whatsoever outside the wishful thinking of various persons on the left.

    But you’ve simply proved my point – that belief in such nonsense is widespread due to it being politically convenient.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Roflcopter (463 comments) says:

    Positan. If it wasn’t a plane that slammed into the Pentagon, where is the missing Boeing 757-223, Flight 77? And where are the passengers that were on that plane?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    And you know the really sad thing.

    A whole lot of people in the NZ Labour Party and the Green Party actually believe this is the way it happened.

    Now they wont come out and admit it but when they are together they smile and nod knowingly to each other.

    Come on now. Admit it .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    It would be illegal, and a serious crime.

    Sure. And for that very reason, we can be certain Obama is careful never to talk in confidence to people, or have his staff talk to people, who may know things of use to furthering his agenda – because that kind of thing is just foreign to the nature of an honourable politician…

    …speeches made by leading Democrats pre-invasion that say exactly the same thing as Bush did…

    Given that various people have reported that almost no members of Congress troubled themselves to actually review the intelligence evidence, or even have their staff do it for them, this comes as no surprise whatsoever.

    Reality is that it is a story invented to try and pretend that “Bush Lied”. Bush “must” have know the truth, even though no one else did.

    Actually, a very large number of people knew Bush’s case for war was a complete load of old cobblers and said so – people on the left, for the most part. It’s a group that doesn’t really include members of Congress.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Positan (390 comments) says:

    re Roflcopter (53) “If it wasn’t a plane that slammed into the Pentagon, where is the missing Boeing 757-223, Flight 77? And where are the passengers that were on that plane?”

    A real Labour Party sort of question – implying that if I can’t answer, I must be wrong. I’ve no time for such innate stupidity – how in heaven’s name would I, or anyone else not connected with the event, know? The States is a mighty big area, that aircraft could have landed almost anywhere else – why don’t you tell me? All I’ve attempted, so fruitlessly, has been to point to discrepancies and inconsistencies.

    Interestingly, Scrubone speaks of photos showing damage to the Pentagon which he believes are proof of aircraft damage. The only photos I’ve seen showed a fuselage-sized hole, but no wings or tail-piece. Others have also asked the same question as wings on commercial aircraft tend to sheer off at at points of impact. It has not been answered.

    Of course, finding a wheel from a 757-200 but no wings or tail section proves only that there was a wheel – it doesn’t answer why no wings or tail, or even bits of them, were found.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Roflcopter (463 comments) says:

    Positan. Well who knows, there might be a discrepancy in the flight 77 story, but until you find the aircraft and the passengers who didn’t make it home for dinner that night, you are basically full of shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Of course, finding a wheel from a 757-200 but no wings or tail section proves only that there was a wheel – it doesn’t answer why no wings or tail, or even bits of them, were found.

    Oh for goodness sake Positan. Are you really suggesting a one tonne wheel, two jet engines and tonnes of debris was planted in the Pentagon? Are you really surprised that no recognisable piece of the aircraft’s extremities survived intact?

    Do you really think the US government, a government so incompetent on every level, could pull off anything like a conspiracy of this magnitude?

    Of course you do. You’re hardwired for this kind of nonsense. The complete absence of evidence is the surest sign the conspiracy is working? Right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Why aren’t they talking, WHY? I’ll answer that too. They either work for the govt, have been paid off or are Jewish and in on it.

    Is this some kind of sick joke? Still blaming the Jews? Christ how much persecution is enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    The earth is flat, David Bain was found guilty, Bush set up 9/11, green house gases cause alll global warming as the Sun is inconsequential, Grahan Henry has the right to coach the All Blacks as long as he wants, Hone Harawira is truly a very nice guy and Phil Goff is very charismatic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    ben

    Perhaps I should have put “/end truther nutbar mode” after that

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Zapper – ha. Ok, I was sucked in. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Positan (390 comments) says:

    Roflcopter, the way your rotor turns you should have a wonderful future in the Labour Party. Your sort of applied ignorance will be highly acclaimed on the grounds of its pictorial substance which is ever so informative and uplifting.

    All the points I’ve mooted have been to question the way things have been explained – I don’t know, I’ve said so. I have no opinion – I’ve said so. You, on the other hand, have asked nonsense questions, impossible for myself or anyone here to answer. Was there even a Flight 77 at all – wasn’t there some doubt as to the number of its passengers – around 5, I seem to recall. Who’d know what became of it, or whether it even existed – everything can be faked nowadays. While it’d appear that your ability to debate is somewhat limited, and given that my interest has been purely questioning – how could it be me who’s full of shit?”

    ben – I merely asked the question – I didn’t imply anything and I’m not hardwired into anything. I’m not the one who’s making the conclusions here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Sure, Positan. And maybe Bush secretly ate babies for breakfast served up by Cheney. Hey, I’m just asking the question, not drawing conclusions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    “Just asking questions”. Love it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    There is way too much about the Pentagon ‘Incident’ that begs far more questions than soothes the inquiring mind.

    The ‘re-modelling’ on that side of the building and the staff movement are all far too fortuitous.

    Why exactly did nobodies mobiles work on that flight, as they did on others? Just asking.

    Also given the crappy flying skills of the assorted rag heads, then they were far too accurate in comparison on a low structure in comparison to the other targets. Also how fortuitous that the White House bound plane was the very one that passengers struck back.

    How lucky were the peeps at the House of White.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    My god, you people are hilarious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Nefarious (533 comments) says:

    Also how fortuitous that the White House bound plane was the very one that passengers struck back.

    It would never have made it to Queen St with so little fuel on board anyway, that aside Brian Le Gros is one lucky motherfucker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    I am a structural engineer.

    Simple answers are usually better than complex answers, and the simple answer re WTC7 collapse is basically what you can find on Wikipedia:

    As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building.
    fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[32] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors,

    http://debunking911.com/pulledin.jpg

    ^^^Here is a photo showing at least 5 falling pieces of “heavy debris”. You may notice that each piece is similar in size to an entire typical Auckland or Wellington medium-rise office building. These would not have touched down gently. I hope this clears up any confusion as to whether the WTC 7 collapse was part of some complex hidden conspiracy, or pretty bloody natural really considering the grand-scale demolition that was going on overhead and next door.

    (Ironically that photo appears to be hosted on a “truther” website… )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    You damn fools, the bloody Kenyan did it. He knew that one day he would be president and would need some good real estate to build a mosque for his muslim mates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. PaulL (5,984 comments) says:

    On the plane and the Pentagon. Plane hit the ground ahead of the building didn’t it, then slid in. Nose makes a hole, wings fold up and follow it in. Everything burns and turns into wreckage. The hole in the building was pretty big – thing is the Pentagon is such a huge building it makes the hole look small. I’m not at all convinced that there are any unanswered questions here – it is entirely possible that the wings followed the fuselage in. I’m interested in the other examples of 757s flying into buildings that show otherwise (refer Positan @ 2:49)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. reid (16,473 comments) says:

    Thought I’d wait till the debate died down before making comment since as I expected, the same points and positions were raised as they always are.

    What I have always personally seen surrounding this issue are widespread displays of cognitive dissonance, summarised as:

    A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.

    See if someone really was to conclude that 911 wasn’t kosher then they have to revise their entire world view. Many many paradigms have to be fundamentally reassessed and most people aren’t prepared to go there, neither consciously and definitely not subconsciously.

    The trick toward avoiding cognitive dissonance is to forget about trying to understand how it was done, who did it and why and focus solely upon whether the 4 events – Twin Towers, Pentagon, Pennsylvania crash and WTC7 – happened according to how the official story says they did. Only when you do that properly and thoroughly do you obtain the necessary objectivity and if you do that with any rigour at all (because the holes aren’t hard to find and are so large you could drive one of these through them), you will find that Conan-Doyle’s observation applies:

    “We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    One of the tells for cognitive dissonance on this issue is when people conflate the belief that people who claim the official story is bollocks are also usually leftists, and we saw this on the very first comment when someone said:

    People so willfully stupid that they make Keith Locke look like a mensa candidate.

    and there were various repetitions of the same theme running throughout the entire thread. You always find it when this topic is discussed as well as many repeats of “well I don’t know how they could possibly have done it therefore it could not have done because it would have involved thousands of people and one of them would have talked by now” and “well the world as I know it doesn’t work like that and therefore it could not have been done” and I could go on and on and on with other examples of ego-defense mechanisms kicking into action.

    It’s a shame really, because an objective, dissonance-free perspective on 911 really does expand your world view in the end. But having achieved that myself many years ago, I no longer try to bring others round, because their need to protect their ego by avoiding dissonance is so strong they become quite scathing and aggressive and while I’d like to help them, I tire of the juvenile insults that otherwise decent people so readily throw out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. ggallin (1 comment) says:

    people tend to have a view on how the world works,the good guys the americans perpertuating a self inflicted would doesnt fit into this world view,so some people just cant get there head around it……..also most of the media,radio and newspapers are reinforcing this worldview its no wonder you have the beliefs you have……..also i believe lots of people are suffering from mass hypnosys or deniel,its like your kid coming to you and telling you her dad has been abusing her for years…….the mother just cant believe it……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    Yes, DPF, this is hilarious. But not quite as funny as the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And the nutters who believed that were the likes of Bush, Blair, et al. I shouldn’t really say it was funny because hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed as a result of this crazy theory. And people are continuing to die in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of this bizarre theory…but that seems to be ok because they’re only ragheads, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    The fact that the flying lessons taken by the Saudis in the States, and that the landings were at best perfunctory, and that the students paid little interest in getting the landings exactly right would never have occurred to anybody as being a tad strange.

    Because no one had used a fully fuel laden commercial aircraft on a a big building before. The whisper is that the Intel Community did know that WTC had become a target that became the centre of the obsessive by some active cells.

    The British once more had issued concerns about a likely attempt on WTC, the details of which were explained a grandiose.

    Allegedly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Dan (44 comments) says:

    @PaulL: Maybe with a single-engine plane, but passenger jets have engines on their wings. Given the fact that the wing structures are fairly light compared to the weight of the engines, I’d expect that the wings – engines attached – wouldn’t just fold up and follow the fuselage, but rather the engines would punch their own holes through the building wall. As I say, “I’d expect …”, but I’m neither a structural engineer, nor an aircraft engineer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Positan (390 comments) says:

    @Reid – well scripted and beautifully presented. I do hope the points will be absorbed and remembered – especially the one on “cognitive dissonance” – on every future occasion that some of the above contributors feel they have to insist on nothing less than genuflection to their viewpoint.

    For so serious a subject holding so many glaring inconsistencies, in respect of which, comparatively, so little effort has been made to provide satisfactory, or even halfway decent, answers – plus, all the implications held – it’s amazing that so many possess so much latent energy and are ready to expend it in so many cases, on upholding,completely ill-informed views. Worse, that there are so many who, having satisfied themselves, are prepared, so viciously, to slag-off others who don’t subscribe to their viewpoint.

    For years after WW2 it was queried whether F D Roosevelt had known of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, but let it happen anyway, because of the political strategy it enabled. (Inconsistencies again.) Such beliefs were heavily condemned at the time and for many years afterwards – but, in comparatively recent times, it’s been admitted that he’d been “fairly sure” it was going to happen. Give it a few more years.

    The Pearl Harbor question that’s always clunked with me was the convenient and glorious absence from the base of ALL the Pacific Fleet’s aircraft carriers at the critical moment – of all the capital ships, none would be more needed in the days that would come.

    Some day I’m sure, similar revelations will surface as to the events that surround 9/11.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote