Third Party & Independents Archives

9/11 Mind Swell

As we approach the eighth anniversary of 9/11 consider this paradox. In the post 9-11 years the scientific evidence for disbelieving the official government story has mounted incredibly. And the number of highly respected and credentialed professionals challenging the official story has similarly expanded. Yet, to the considerable disappointment of the international 9/11 truth movement, the objective fact is that there are no widespread, loud demands for a new government-backed 9/11 investigation.

The 9/11 truth movement is the epitome of a marginalized movement, one that never goes away despite not achieving truly meaningful results, which in this case means replacing official lies with official truth. What has gone wrong?

Akin to the definition of insanity, the hallmark of entrenched but marginalized movements is that they continue to pursue exactly the same strategy and tactics that have failed to produce solid results. They indulge themselves with self-delusion, defensive thinking and acting as if the world at large must surely and finally wake up, see the light and embrace the Truth. Years and, potentially, decades go by, but this quixotic status quo remains embedded, as if set in intellectual concrete. There is no brain tumor to blame. Nor any mass hypnosis of true believers to prove. There is just monumental disinterest among the dominant culture, political establishment and the broad public that is far more engaged with other issues, problems and movements.

The 9/11 truth movement, at best, gets meager public attention when it is derided and insulted, used as an example of persistent conspiratorial insanity.

Make no mistake; I concluded a few years back, after using my professional engineering and materials science background to study the evidence, that the official government story is a lie. As a former full professor of engineering, I firmly believe that elements of the US government were involved with contributing to (not just allowing) the 9/11 tragedy, but that does not necessarily eliminate the role of those terrorists publicly blamed for the events. Science, logic, evidence and critical thinking told me this.

Who should we blame for the failure of the 9/11 truth movement to fix the historical record and, better yet, identify those in the government who turned 9/11 into an excuse for going to war, getting them indicted, prosecuted, and punished for their murderous acts?

It is too easy to blame the mainstream media and political establishment for refusing to demand and pursue a truly comprehensive and credible independent scientific and engineering investigation. President Obama with his tenacious belief in looking forward, not backward, exemplifies a national mindset to avoid the painful search for truth and justice that could produce still more public disillusionment with government and feed the belief that American democracy is weak at best, and delusional at worst.

Marginalized movements always face competition for public attention. There are always countless national issues and problems that feed new movements and distract the public. There have been many since 9/11, not the least of which was the last presidential campaign and then the painful economic recession, and now the right wing attacks on health care reform. The 9/11 truth movement illustrates a total failure to compete successfully with other events and movements.

This can be explained in several ways. The 9/11 movement has not been able to articulate enough benefits to the public from disbelieving the official government story and pursuing a new investigation. What might ordinary Americans gain? Would proof-positive of government involvement make them feel better, more secure, and more patriotic? Apparently not. In fact, just the opposite. By its very nature, the 9/11 issue threatens many things by discovering the truth: still less confidence in the US political system, government and public officials. Still more reason to ponder the incredible loss of life and national wealth in pursuing the Iraq war. In other words, revealing 9/11 truth offers the specter of a huge national bummer. Conversely, it would show the world that American democracy has integrity.

The second explanation for failure is that the truth movement itself is greatly to blame. It has been filled with nerdish, ego-centric and self-serving activists (often most interested in pushing their pet theory) unable to pursue strategies designed to face and overcome ugly, challenging realities. The truth movement became a cottage industry providing income and meaning for many individuals and groups feeding the committed with endless websites, public talks, videos, books and paraphernalia. They habitually preach to the choir. Applause substitutes for solid results. In particular, it embraces the simplistic (and obviously ineffective) belief that by revealing technical, scientific and engineering facts and evidence the public and political establishment would be compelled to see the light. Darkness has prevailed.

Proof of this are the views expressed days ago on the truth movement by Ben Cohen on the Huffington Post: “I have done some research on the topic, but stopped fairly quickly into when it dawned on me that: 1. Any alternative to the official account of what happened is so absurd it simply cannot be true. 2. No reputable scientific journal has ever taken any of the 'science' of the conspiracy seriously. 3. The evidence supporting the official story is overwhelming, whereas the 9/11 Truthers have yet to produce a shred of concrete evidence that members of the U.S. government planned the attacks in New York and Washington.” Similarly, in the London Times James Bone recently said a “gruesome assortment of conspiracy theorists insists that the attacks on the US of September 11, 2001 were an inside job. It is easy to mock this deluded gang of ageing hippies, anarchists and anti-Semites.” Truthers continue to face a very steep uphill battle.

A common lie about the truth movement is that there have been no credible scientific articles in peer reviewed journals supporting it. But those opposing the truth movement will and do find ways to attack whatever scientific evidence is produced and published. It takes more than good science and facts for the movement to succeed.

Besides the movement having too many genuine crackpots (possibly trying to subvert it), a larger problem is what has been missing from it: effective political strategies. Besides pushing scientific results and more credible supporters, it did nothing successful to make a new 9/11 investigation a visible issue in the last presidential campaign. It did nothing effective to put pressure on a new, Democrat controlled congress to consider legislation providing the authorization and funding for a new, credible investigation. It seems that people who want to blame the government are often unable to also see the political path forward that requires the government to fund a new investigation.

To its credit, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth does have a petition aimed at Congress, demanding a new investigation, but has fewer than 5,000 signers. The petition effort in New York City to get a new investigation is commendable, with just under 75,000 signers, but national action is needed. Pragmatically, both efforts are unimpressive compared to other campaigns seeking political action. To get both media attention and political support the movement needs a hundred times more documented supporters, willing to do a lot more than sign a petition.

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 will come fast. The opportunity is making 9/11 an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign. The least delusional and defensive in the truth movement should think deeply and seriously on what needs to change to accomplish the prime goal: having an official investigation that compels most people and history to accept the truth, no matter how painful it is, including the possibility that it finds no compelling evidence for government involvement.

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at August 10, 2009 8:01 PM
Comment #286000
The 9/11 truth movement, at best, gets meager public attention when it is derided and insulted, used as an example of persistent conspiratorial insanity.

There is a VERY good reason for that.

I concluded a few years back, after using my professional engineering and materials science background to study the evidence, that the official government story is a lie.

And your opinion is wrong. Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 10, 2009 10:23 PM
Comment #286006

Not this crap again.

In the post 9-11 years the scientific evidence for disbelieving the official government story has mounted incredibly.

Not at all. I hope the readers of this column notice that Joel didn’t present a single bit of what he claims is incredible mounting evidence. There’s a very good reason for this: there is none.

Joel, Ben Cohen has it right - the position you present has no evidence behind it, has no science behind, and it requires absurd self-contradictory ideas. Instead of taking his criticism to heart, you added it to your myth of victimization.

No one is making you a victim but you. Your arguments are the same baseless ones to invoke sympathy for the Holocaust denier and the moon hoaxer.

Any readers should check out these sites to see what Joel dismisses without evidence, using just a false appeal to authority and self-victimization:

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 10, 2009 10:57 PM
Comment #286007 and Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics are good, too.

For some reason, WB wouldn’t let me post them all together.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 10, 2009 11:06 PM
Comment #286008

Every other explanation is so ridiculously complicated, conjecturing about so many hard to conceal deliberate acts based on bits and pieces of information, that logic alone dictates that the official version of events is the likely truth.

For example: controlled demolition. If you’ve ever seen videoes of them, there’s one thing you can’t escape: sequences of loud bangs and flashes BEFORE the collapse. Moreover, if you look at documentaries, you’ll find they often strip the buildings down to their skeletons in order to get as little between the explosives and the supporting columns as possible. Also, and this is fairly important, nobody blows the building from the top, but from below.

I know, WTC 7, right? Collapse from below, right? But nobody hears, nor sees explosives go off prior to collapse. Hell, I would bet those explosives would send glass flying, this before any collapse occured.

What people glom onto are things like the Dust cloud and the near vertical fall into the footprint What they don’t realize is that this is what happens to a building as the air is forced out by the collapse. Explosives don’t create the dust clouds, air being forced out with pulverized concrete being carried with it does.

Folks reason that because it looks like a demolition, it must be a demolition. But what makes a controlled Demolition a controlled demolition is not what results, but what causes the results.

They also glom onto stray bits of conversation, believing these are people revealing deep dark secrets from the conspiracies, the idea seeming to be that if folks didn’t mean such things, they’d be careful not to say them.

Yes, people in emergencies are known to be precise in their language, and are also known to have complete and accurate knowledge of what’s going on. Yes, I know, that doesn’t happen. The problem here is one of reasoning from ideal circumstances for a situation that’s anything but.

I’ll tell you what this is really about: Bush betrayed our expectations for a leader so badly, we’d feel better thinking it was intentional, that he played us falsely to lead us into all our errors.

Truth is less sinister for him, and less flattering to ourselves: we were caught up in our hopes and fears, which Bush sadly did not fulfill the former, or fail to manipulate the latter. You don’t have to cause something to exploit it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 10, 2009 11:37 PM
Comment #286013

oops forgot the link:

Posted by: gergle at August 11, 2009 3:29 AM
Comment #286014


You provide not a single link nor evidence source to support your hypothesis or belief. Which makes the premise of your article, not credible. Sorry, that’s how it appears to me.

If you have links to evidence to support your hypothesis, I would read them with an open mind. Otherwise, I have to regard the position taken on 9/11 being an inside job as what it appears to be, a fringe, unfounded, conspiracy theory and an apologetic article for like minded folk.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2009 4:08 AM
Comment #286017

Birthers, Moon Landing nuts, Loch Ness Monster fanatics, 9-11 conspiracy theorists… What do they all have in common?

Posted by: Mike Falino at August 11, 2009 7:23 AM
Comment #286021

Mike Falino-
I’m going to take you literally for the sake of argument, and offer a common feature: they all got something to prove, something they’re not going to drop for lack of evidence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 11, 2009 8:15 AM
Comment #286030


You forgot the flat earthers and the folks that still believe that the earth is the center of the solar system.
These folks are the moral equivalent of witch burners.
Like Sarah Palin, they want to destroy what they are incapable of understanding.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 11, 2009 11:02 AM
Comment #286031

It takes a lot time to seriously and carefully examine the huge amount of evidence that throws considerable doubt about the official story. I spent many, many hours studying the technical materials. Few of you doubters, however, will take time or have the technical background to really appreciate the evidence. I recommend examining the materials at the site of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth at

And what I wonder do people see as the downside of a new, credible and comprehensive investigation???

Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at August 11, 2009 11:23 AM
Comment #286032

gosh Joel,
I read that whole article looking forward to how your engineering and materials science skills found evidence of an inside job as you claimed - and you provide not even a hint.

Posted by: Schwamp at August 11, 2009 11:29 AM
Comment #286033

Joel, I read about everything you write and you write well. I’ve read your book ‘Delusional Democracy” a coupla times. Many of your recommended solutions to government reform are spelled out in our Party agenda. Love your article on things being packaged and sold in smaller quantities as a way of increasing profits. But you are pissing up a rainspout on this 9/11 thing, I do believe. IMO nothing to the 9/11 thing other than SHEER stupidity. 9/11 is analogous to the security agencies having to stretch their butts over the heads of the State Dept. and grunt in order to get State to stop handing out daisies and sweet smelly water to all who entered Embassy compounds. The larger US government learned nothing from the State Dept experience. Illegals running around everywhere, no questions asked as long as the customer paid their bills. No checks on who was coming in or going out. Just a good ole time being had by all. People from around the world had been coming to the US to learn to fly planes for decades as they found limited facilities in their home country. Good ole USA, everything for everybody. You want citizenship, you get one free and quick if your assets total $1M or more. Dual citizenship, we can fix you up with that too. Clear and simple. When the Dept tightened security at the embassies the militants picked up on the next soft target, the USA. One of the 9/11 guys was carrying 8 drivers’ licenses I do believe. Joel, we did everything to facilitate 9/11 we possibly could do except fly the planes for them. But, it was done for cash flow out of SHEER stupidity, not conspiratorial in nature. Granted Bush got the royals out of the country pdq as they were concerned for their health. The attackers chose the towers as they were seen as Jewish enclaves of wealth. They had no idea they would fall to the ground.
IMO, we are little better off today with the southern border open. Based on the Guadalajara meeting yesterday we should expect the southern border to be moved to southern Mexico over the next few years. Maybe the Mexicans can do a better job. In fact, since we have been stealing their oil and bringing it across the border to sell the Mexicans may get a fence up before we do.
11k killed on the border since 2006. 2000 Border Patrols disciplinary cases with 100 being clear corruption cases. One fellow couldn’t resist the $5k temptations to turn his head, did so 66 times until arrested. Four cartel members caught in the hiring process for BP.
Joel, don’t waste your ink on 9/11. How about an article on the southern border?

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 11, 2009 11:33 AM
Comment #286034

Ooh, I also forgot creationists and young earthers.

Posted by: Mike Falino at August 11, 2009 11:57 AM
Comment #286035
It takes a lot time to seriously and carefully examine the huge amount of evidence that throws considerable doubt about the official story.

Once again, you don’t specify what evidence you mean. The most likely reason I can think of for that is you know then you’d have to defend your argument, and defending a weak argument is a lot more difficult than casting vague dispersions on what you don’t like.

I spent many, many hours studying the technical materials. Few of you doubters, however, will take time or have the technical background to really appreciate the evidence.

I have, I do, and I know you’re wrong.

I recommend examining the materials at the site of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth at

Sure. Let’s do that. Here’s their top-ten list of why they think the towers were a controlled demolition, with my rebuttals in between (though is this what you believe? Since you don’t back up your appeal to authority with a specific theory, we have to just guess at what you believe):

  • Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
    It wasn’t nearly free-fall. Free fall would have been 9 seconds, but it was really 15 seconds or more. Further, collapsing on itself wasn’t the path of greatest resistence. To do anything else would have required the tops of the buildings to tip over, but resistence to rotation scales with the 4th power of length. So, the resistence to multi-story segments of these buildings tipping over is extremely large.
  • Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
    This doesn’t make sense or matter, and it isn’t supported by any evidence, link, or definition of what a “probable” debris distribution would be.
  • Extremely rapid onset of destruction
    This isn’t a problem for the official theory. The buildings were able to continue standing while the weight of the upper floors was distributed away from the destroyed and damaged columns to the remaining columns. However, the remaining columns were being weakened by fire. When one of the remaining load-bearing columns got too week for the additional load, it collapsed, and suddenly there wasn’t enough support left for the upper stories. At that point, the system went from a static system to a dynamic system, and failure proceeded quickly.
  • Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
    So? Explosions and flashes can be the result of causes other than explosives. When I drop a bag of flour on the floor, I get an explosion of flour without a bit of TNT. In the towers, there was a lot more dynamic energy in play that I get in my kitchen. Also, as a building collapses, there will be lots of electrical devices being destroyed - that can cause flashes without explosions.
  • Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
    Yep, there’s a lot of force involved when a 100-story building is collapsing suddenly. There’s no reason this should be unexpected for the official story.
  • Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
    Yep, there’s a lot of force involved when a 100-story building is collapsing suddenly. There’s no reason this should be unexpected for the official story.
  • Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
    Yep, there’s a lot of force involved when a 100-story building is collapsing suddenly. There’s no reason this should be unexpected for the official story.
  • 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no “pancaked” floors found
    For the huge debris field, yep, there’s a lot of force involved when a 100-story building is collapsing suddenly. There’s no reason this should be unexpected for the official story. And we do have evidence of pancaking.
  • Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
    The buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked probably pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents.
  • Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
    Yep, there’s a lot of force involved when a 100-story building is collapsing suddenly. There’s no reason this should be unexpected for the official story.
  • Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
    • No one has scientifically proven the molten substance was steel. Can even be molten glass coating steel or an aluminum mixed with something else
    • Steel can burn/oxidize and would explain red hot steel
    • The photo of firemen over a glowing hole in the ground cannot be molten steel. The heat would have been too great for the firemen
    • Thermite cannot cut columns without large canisters all around the column
    • No demolition in history ever had steel glow for weeks
    • Thermite needs another primary charge to set it off. It would have exploded during impact explosion
    • The amount of thermite needed to collapse the tower would have been massive. (Tons) Impossible to hide.
  • Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
    See the previous entry.
  • Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
    No, what was found was sulpher and iron spheres. While they are components of explosives, sulpher is also a component of drywall, and iron spheres could have come from printer toner, torch-cutting in the cleanup, or the aircraft impact.
  • No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
    This is just wrong. Non-high-rise steel buildings have been destroyed by fire. Steel-framed parts of high-rises have been destroyed, even if the concrete core survive. High-rise, steel-frame structures have partially collapsed. There was more than just fire at play here (there was also significant structural damage for all three buildings), and the buildings had a nearly unprecedented design that made it more susceptible to fire.

So, Joel, what else do you have? Every point from the supposed experts you cite doesn’t hold up to the barest level of scrutiny.

And what I wonder do people see as the downside of a new, credible and comprehensive investigation???
It’s a waste of time, money, and energy. Also, phrasing it that implies that there is something non-credible and non-comprehensive about the existing studies. You’d have to back up that denigration of the existing science if you want to have support for anything new.

And you don’t have it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 11, 2009 12:35 PM
Comment #286037

Yup, lawnboy has it right. Agree with all he said. Molten metal will be found in/around most any steel building from a shed on up. Columns are generally steel cast in concrete and their is no inspection ports as I am aware. The walls are built right against the columns in many cases. To suggest that the bad guys can haul in hundreds of thermite bombs/containers over a long period and wire them together or even link them via a radio frequency for a controlled detonation across several floors is star wars stuff IMO. NIST spent $10m on a report but I wouldn’t object to using some recovery dollars to spend a billion or so to simulate the incident using a 20 story building out in the desert somewhere. It would create jobs and be better spent funds. Although, I would expect the report to be ‘inclusive’.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 11, 2009 1:11 PM
Comment #286040

I urge all those who still believe the official story to read this interview:

Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at August 11, 2009 1:29 PM
Comment #286041


How about this - why don’t you tell us what you believe, and why you think that the initial story is wrong?

I’ve already address the ae911 group and showed why I think they’re bunk. Instead of linking to an interview with someone who builds a lot on circumstantial evidence, paranoia, and downright inaccuracy, why don’t you respond to my critique?

Give us something more than innuendo and appeal to authority - you’ve stretched that thin gruel into four articles so far. How about taking an actual stand or making an actual falsifiable claim?

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 11, 2009 1:40 PM
Comment #286054
America is the world’s only remaining “superpower”, and dissent has been effectively repressed.

LOL, this guy is good, I give him that. Has he turned on the news recently or, I don’t know, anytime in the past 6 years?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2009 3:40 PM
Comment #286055


Who are you quoting on dissent? I don’t see that quote here.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 11, 2009 3:44 PM
Comment #286057

Sorry, it was in the ‘interview’ that Joel pointed to.

He fails to mention that the person being interviewed is accused of murdering his wife and is currently fighting extradition charges…

Can’t figure out why he is ‘blowing the whistle’ on the US government…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2009 4:01 PM
Comment #286061

Ahhh… I though maybe you were responding to the wrong article.

Yeah, I’m not sure what Joel thinks is so convincing about that interview. So there’s a guy who thinks the same thing Joel does and who may or may not have an unrelated reason to be paranoid. That doesn’t do much for me.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 11, 2009 4:05 PM
Comment #286070

Joel, you might want see the PBS series on the history of NYC. There was an additional episode added on the WTC later.
The opinions of the fire departments in cities that have these tall buildings might also be relevant.

James Fetzer of 911 truth raised some interesting points in his top ten reasons why the hijackers were fake:

10. Their names do not appear on any passenger manifest.

9. None were ever subject of an autopsy.

8. 5 to 7 of them have turned up alive in the middle east.

7. The FBI did not revise their list of the hijackers.

6. Special agent Flagg says the FBI knew their names because M Atta left a list in a piece of luggage he left behind.

5. They could not have flown the planes.

4. The cellphone calls from passengers could not have been made at the altitudes and speeds of the planes.

3. During Z Massouwi’s trial, a cockpit voice recording was played which supposedly recorded sounds in the passenger cabin.

2. Hijackers last words?

1. Agent following Massouwi told the FBI repeatedly about the plans.


Posted by: ohrealy at August 11, 2009 6:21 PM
Comment #286072

To LawnBoy: I am a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and support all their findings and arguments; I see no need to repeat technical facts and arguments that are easily available to all those who prefer to believe the government lies. I have chosen to work on improving the effectiveness of the truth movement that I am a member of and have worked in drafting legislation to get a new investigation through congressional action. All I can say is that those of you who believe the government lies absolutely deserve the government you get.

Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at August 11, 2009 6:37 PM
Comment #286073


I know you’re a member of the organization, but you are completely unable to support your claims. You try to put on the mantle of authority but don’t have the integrity to bear it.

I explained why the claims of your organization are fraudulent. If you think I’m wrong, then show me and everyone else I’m wrong. Saying that you have no need to support your beliefs because there’s enough kool-aid elsewhere isn’t sufficient.

It’s not government lies that your organization’s claims violate understanding of Moment of Inertia. It’s not government lies that you make claims that violate physics and engineering reality. It’s not government lies that you don’t know a thing about how demolitions work. The government didn’t invent science, engineering, technology, and reason in order to lie to you. They exist independent of the nature of this debate, and they, not the government, show that you are wrong.

At this point, it’s time to put up or shut up. You’ve made claims, and your claims have been exposed. By refusing (or being unable) to support your claims, you demonstrate how empty they are.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 11, 2009 7:04 PM
Comment #286088


Have to go with the rest on this. This movement is taking reasonably good technical minds (I hesitate to say good minds because they clearly lack judgement) and putting them to work on activities that in no way help the greater good. Why don’t they put their forces to work to survey bridges and roads in need of repair that are more likely to cause future deaths? At least then the relentless enegery could be channeled into something productive.

Posted by: Rob at August 11, 2009 10:17 PM
Comment #286089

I have to agree with LawnBoy here, I have a long history in physics and engineering and everything that the ‘truthers’ have published as their facts are easily refutable. It just gets tiring doing it over and over again.

And the worst part is that even if for some reason the things you say are scientifically accurate, for what you are suggesting to have had to work it would have required such a massive planning and operation on such a large scale that simply could not have occurred, not even with months to prepare for it, without everyone easily seeing the charges being put into place, or even understanding how MUCH would have to be there. It’s just simply not a feasible plan, especially considering that the same people could then screw up so badly so much so often after the fact…

“Yes, we can put together an operation that will take months to plan and thousands of people would need to be involved and keep their mouths shut, and it would have to go off without a hitch… but why can’t we plant a few WMDs in the basement of Hussein’s palace?”

Further, it makes no sense on WHY it would take place… There was already overwhelming support to invade Iraq, between 55 and 70% of the US populance was good with doing that and Bush even ran on doing something about the situation there. So what was the gain exactly? In fact, just about everything they wanted to do could have been done either without 9/11 or by just bombing a soft US target that would have been MUCH easier to do…

NOTHING at all about ANYTHING that has been argued by the truthers has held up to logic, science or common sense.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2009 10:22 PM
Comment #286096
I have to agree with LawnBoy here
Uh-oh ;)
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 11, 2009 10:41 PM
Comment #286149


“All I can say is that those of you who believe the government lies absolutely deserve the government you get.”

So what you’re saying is that you want people to support this Quixotic quest, even without a sliver of proof that what your group theorizes “may” have happened, actually happened, even though it has been debunked aud nauseum.

Oh, and when questioned as to your motives, you become indignant if people think the whole idea is nuts.

For a “movement” that is suffering a serious PR problem, I really don’t think this is the best way to get intelligent folks to buy in to your “theories”.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 12, 2009 11:12 AM
Comment #286178

Dear Rocky: What I find amazing is how any intelligent, open minded person with critical thinking skills could examine the materials at and still believe the government story. I spent several months studying considerable evidence before I joined the truth movement.

Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at August 12, 2009 7:21 PM
Comment #286181

Joel, I am amazed at your apparent lack of critical analysis regarding the article about the videographer.

He is a government employee, he is given access to record ground zero video which through agency belongs to the federal government and American people who paid him for his work. He then skips the country with government property violating his contract with the American people who paid his salary, and then creates this media show about how he is being persecuted because the federal government wants its property which he stole from it.

He has committed a federal crime. He is wanted in the U.S. for theft of government property. What is he to do. Well, create public sympathy with a fantastick tale about how “his” videotapes can prove something so fantastick no one wants to believe it except conspiracy theorists who believe aliens routinely consort with govenrment officials to take over the world.

Does it not occur to you that if his tapes would exonerate him, he would have released them to the media long ago? Sorry, but, the gullibility finger you point toward others I suspect is pointing in a mirror instead.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 12, 2009 8:07 PM
Comment #286185

What exactly are you supposed to autopsy? The hijackers barrelled both planes into the buildings at hundreds of miles an hour. Even at half that speed, air crashes leave victim’s corpses horribly mutilated, mangled, and burned.

At such speeds, the fuselage crumples and shatters into hundreds if not thousands of razor sharp pieces, tearing apart everybody inside. And then you have the burning and burial inside a smoldering pile of rubble. I know I’m being graphic here, but you should be clear on what you’re expecting the authorities to identify, much less autopsy.

That’s just one example. See, the problem is, 9/11 Truthers have a bad habit of asking questions that a little background knowledge would provide answers to. They don’t eliminate possibilities, but instead proliferate them. Do some research on Thermite, and you’ll understand that it does not cut things cleanly.

Do a little research on what actual controlled demolitions look and sound like, and you’ll find that all the explosions occur before the building implodes, are sequential, and are rigged on buildings often stripped to the girders in preparation for the event. And when they go off, they make an incredible amount of racket, and produce very visible flashes. People would not miss these these things, yet newscasters are caught off guard when WTC7 starts to implode.

These were building that were constantly occupied during the time leading up to their destruction. Controlled Demolition would require the precision placement of charges around girders and support structures, and that these things be subsequently wired to go off in sequence. The sequence is important, because what you’re trying to is time which support fails first, so as to guide the building down. Random charges would not do, and I don’t think you’d want to try and radio detonate charges within the superstructure of buildings that size.

There’s too much folk mythology used, too much science by way of staring at pixellated screens trying to see something. 9/11 Truthers seem to me to be people who cannot accept that this country was fooled by a fool. It all has to be a plot, because otherwise we were lead into war and the other things by folks who, despite everything they said, couldn’t peel a banana without screwing it up.

A government conspiracy can be exposed, the truth is out there! But stupidity or foolishness means that we ourselves suffered a lapse in judgment, and that the world isn’t so transparent to information. It’s not pleasant or reassuring not to know the totality of what happened, or to be confronted with a scarily cryptic world. Much easier to believe that all secrets can be learned, if you just chase after the right people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 12, 2009 8:37 PM
Comment #286186


Look, I’m no structural engineer, however, I wasn’t born yesterday either, and your prickliness on the subject isn’t endearing me to you.

I have read the information at

I have also read the article by T.W. Eagar from MIT and I think I can feel fairly comfortable with his conclusions.

What you and your compatriots are asking us to believe is that a government conspiracy involving hundreds, if not thousands of people has been perpetrated against the American people by American people, and yet not one of these people has stepped forward because they fear for their lives, or whatever.
You are claiming that our government murdered thousands of people, and are continuing to blackmail the people involved in order to gain support for something they were going to do anyway.

Please cite for us what the probability would be, if this is indeed the crime you claim it is, that not one person in those thousands involved hasn’t had a guilty conscience and come forward to tell what you believe to be the truth.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 12, 2009 8:48 PM
Comment #286187


In addition to the other debunking sites I listed above, there’s now one devoted specifically to It’s not finished yet, so some of the pages are more outlines than details, but the introductory pages are more than enough to show that Joel’s favorite site isn’t worth a citation.

Also, it’s been calculated that the full size of the conspiracy needed to pull off what Joel imagines is over 500,000 Americans. Not just hundreds or thousands, but hundreds of thousands.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 12, 2009 8:53 PM
Comment #286189


Thanks for the link.

I love a good mystery as much as the next guy, but at least make it real, and don’t try to stretch my credulity too far, and please don’t belittle me if I don’t believe it when you do.

These guys have just gone too far.

“Not just hundreds or thousands, but hundreds of thousands.”

While I appreciate the correction, my point is even if were a mere 10 thousand people what are the odds that not one person in 10 thousand would come forward for the “good of the country”?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 12, 2009 9:16 PM
Comment #286191


Of course, you’re right. I was just excited to use the turn of phrase :)

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 12, 2009 9:33 PM
Comment #286228

And, since several folks with education symbols behind their names have gone to great lengths to put up a site and foment a conspiracy theory then what is their motive? First we would have to plug financial gain into the equation. Add some career enhancement and image building and, yes, yes, by jove I’ve got it! A study, but not just any study. A study with a price tag of around $100M North. A study that involves folks with education sybols behind their names, a simulation of the event. Build three tall building structures in the desert, gotta rent some desert space too. Maybe have a C5A fly a slug of concrete and steel resembling the weight, mass and signature of a 747 and drop it unto the buildings. Lots of recorders taking data etc. Should be done in about 5-6 yrs. Then wrap it up with a $2M dollar 5000 page report that says the cause of the event is inclusive at this time but with further studies we’ll git er dun.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 13, 2009 1:29 PM
Comment #286232

Roy Ellis-
It would be well North of that, actually.

First, these could not be just shells. You’d have to build them, girder for girder, just like you did the originals.

Second, you’d need to connect them up to equivalent infrastructure.

Third, you might even need to age them thirty years to get the proper response from the materials.

Fourth, you might have to simulate the effects of that 1993 bomb blast.

Fifth, you’d have to very precisely pilot whatever plane you got to the exact speed, trajectory and attitude.

That’s a lot of variables to keep in line.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 13, 2009 2:35 PM
Comment #286246

Embry Riddle is still in business. Why?

Posted by: ohrealy at August 13, 2009 6:11 PM
Comment #286261

Why would Embry Riddly not be in business still?

Posted by: Rob at August 13, 2009 10:30 PM
Comment #286265

Here’s my guess:

After we found out that Voldemort’s name was Tom Riddle, it’s shocking that any company named Riddle is still patronized by the younger generation.

Anyone else have a guess?

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 13, 2009 11:44 PM
Comment #286301

That’s as good a guess as anything that I could come up with. Maybe Batman was supposed to get them?

Posted by: Rob at August 14, 2009 8:09 PM
Comment #286325

This is interesting. I have followed this story for a long time with an eye on the supposed involvement of parties other than a hotch-potch of Saudis. Here’s the thing: the fact of 9/11 is incredibly convenient for some, and less convenient for others. When you analyze physical evidence (on which point I have to listen to experts like yourself) and political implications (bin Laden and Rumsfeld were virtually friends) you have to conclude that something… something… does not add up. Is it a govt conspiracy? Is it looking the other way? Is it tacit cooperation? I can’t answer that, but the answer we have been given is facile and unrealistic. Something happened back then, and it was too helpful to some of our leaders for it to be coincidence. Did Bush know? I doubt it. Did Cheney? I doubt it… but slightly less. Did Rumsfeld? I doubt it… but less still. Was there perhaps someone who did? This isn’t nutjob conspiracy nonsense, this is a genuine feeling that the facts don’t add up, as we’ve been told them. Especially, as you say, the physical evidence. And as you rightly point out, we’ll probably never know.

Posted by: Jon Rice at August 14, 2009 11:47 PM
Comment #286326


OK, I’ll bite, so why should they close?

“Embry-Riddle records show that a student with the name Waleed A. Al-Shehri graduated with a bachelor of science degree in aeronautical science.”

Al-Shehri graduated in 1997, and the FBI believes he was one of the hijackers that flew into the WTC.
This guy was one of more than 42,000 alumni of Embry-Riddle. 25% of airline pilots have graduated from Embry-Riddle.
Would it make you feel any better to know that one of the American Airlines pilots that died that day was also an Embry-Riddle alumni?



Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 14, 2009 11:53 PM
Comment #293044

Let’s just face a few simple facts.

Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

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

How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?

You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.

But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven’t we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the upper knuckles of the trusses were embedded into the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven’t the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS?

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

So why hasn’t Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS fo CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have now, compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn’t changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.

Posted by: psikeyhackr at December 25, 2009 4:30 PM
Post a comment