Scrap Book - Doco - Documentation - Media Snippets: Iraqi OIl worth 29 trillion USD and other 911 blogger postings

'Terror Timeline' author raises questions about 9-11

Submitted by u2r2h on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 6:11am.

Terror Timeline' author raises questions about 9-11

Talk included film marathon critical of U.S. government

Sunday, September 10, 2006

BY ELIOT BROWN OF THE JOURNAL STAR

PEORIA - With the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11 fast approaching, a series of films critical of the U.S. government's official version of the disaster were shown Saturday at the Peoria Public Library.

The film marathon, which attracted about 60 people, featured a talk by Paul Thompson, author of "The Terror Timeline," a book that pieces together news stories and government documents to raise questions about the government's possible prior knowledge of or involvement in the attacks.

After the talk was a screening of the recently released "9/11: Press for Truth," a film based on Thompson's book that also chronicled the campaign of four Sept. 11 widows who pushed for an investigation into the attacks, an effort that culminated in the 9/11 Commission report.

"We're just wanting to put the facts out there," Thompson said before his talk. His book and the related film question, among other things, whether and how the federal government ignored multiple warning signs to the attack.

Thompson pointed to numerous warnings from outside governments and within the U.S. government, including a memo generated for President Bush in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," and which Thompson believes should have received more attention.

"How is it that all these things came in ... and yet when the Bush administration was asked, 'What did you do?' they couldn't point to a single thing," Thompson said.

Fueled in part by Web sites and videos on the Internet, many conspiracy theories about Sept. 11 are gaining some following across the country. A Scripps Howard poll conducted in July that surveyed 1,010 adults found that 36 percent considered it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that the federal government either participated in the Sept. 11 attacks or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East," according to Scripps Howard News Service.

Among the theories is the notion that the World Trade Center's twin towers were taken down by explosives, rather than collapsing on their own after two hijacked planes struck them, and the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile rather than a Boeing 757 aircraft. These and other theories have been featured on the popular Internet video "Loose Change," a film that has been heavily criticized for fact errors.

The "9/11: Press for Truth" film shown Saturday did not focus on any specific conspiracy theories, though it questioned the generally accepted conclusions about the terrorist attacks. Many who attended the film said they were skeptical of the government's involvement in Sept. 11 before seeing the video, and they found the subject matter interesting.

"There's a huge number of unanswered questions," said Jay Meinrich, a Peoria resident who said he believes the federal government was involved in the attacks.

"The main thing was the very quick targeting of Osama Bin Laden," he said of his initial reasons for being skeptical. "It seemed like a quick rush to judgment."

The video screening will continue at the library at 4 p.m. Monday, the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Eliot Brown can be reached at 686-2114 or ebrown@pjstar.com.

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/091006/TRI_BATS31T1.020.shtml

COMMENTS:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=press+for...

Submitted by Anon (not verified) on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 10:31am.

Is It on DVD?

This documentary is great -everyone should see it,
where can we get 50 or 100 copies?

Submitted by trollosaurus (not verified) on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 2:26pm.

Here?

http://www.911pressfortruth.com/dvd

Submitted by Sitting-Bull on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 5:20pm.

http://www.thenewamerican.com

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml

Submitted by Fred (not verified) on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 10:57am.

9/11: Press The Truth

I just finished watching "9/11: Press The Truth" online and although it seems only to promote the "incompetence theory and government cover-up", it also strongly hints at the LIHOP theory.

It does not go into any detail about the causes of the collapse of the Twin Towers or WTC 7 other than to say that 'before 9/11 and since no steel structure high rise buildings have ever collapsed due to fire'. It does not address anything about the Pentagon strike or Flight 93 either. But I believe that this film could be used very effectively to open up the eyes of many people who would otherwise automatically shut down if they were immediately told about the MIHOP theories.

Perhaps we could use this film as a 'gateway drug' to get people to watch more of the MIHOP based films like Alex Jones' "Martial Law", "Loose Change", "Face The Facts", "What's The Truth" or a seminar/lecture by Professor Steven Jones, Dr. David Ray Griffin and others.

Show them "9/11: Press The Truth" then hand them a copy of the Northwoods Document http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf and say "Now, would you be interested in learning more facts regarding 9/11 and our government's involvement?"

Just a thought.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

Submitted by Cincy911Truth on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 11:20am.

The movie is certainly

The movie is certainly palatable as it has the credibility of the Jersey Girls behind it, and uses the 'Terror Timeline' (a brilliant piece of work) to show a clear and unmistakable path through the spin generated around 9/11.

This is perhaps the single most powerful tool to educate the masses, it gives a narrative that is sound reasonable and believable.

I am surprised the google video is not on the top of 911blogger under recent media.

LIHOP will get you to a new investigation, and a new investigation will get you to MIHOP.

Submitted by imgstacke on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 11:48am.

exactly

I just got done explaining to someone else that it's a gateway film then I see this post.
I concur whole-heartedly.
It's not about how effective it is at showing the bottom of the rabbithole...
that in itself is entirely ineffective.
Getting people to warm up to the idea is the first measure of business.

It takes extremely open minded individuals to see light in films like Martial Law and others right away.
Most people abject to what these films talk about, unless they're eased into it by way of just highlighting how entirely BS the official story is.

Ya know, so many people are expecting these films to get people to perform high jumps off the ski ramp....and that since the instructor can't reasonably be expected to get the performer to do these things off the bat, they claim the instructor is useless, or some 'agent' and other conspiratorial tripe.
To get people to understand these alarming concepts, they need the basics layed down in front of them first of all.
This film lays down the basics. It gets the baby-steps rolling for the inert public to start the wheels turning inside the head.

I think we need many more films like these that highlight all the inconsistencies instead of starting off with a conclusion.
With enough of these, it will reach a point where people have little choice but to simply accept the fact that an inside job makes the most sense.
Let's not work backwards, let's support the most effective learning process for people to wake up.

Submitted by Thrashaero (not verified) on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 11:50am.

recipe

My proposed 'lesson plan' to the truth of 9/11 being exposed effectively...

1) 9/11: Press for Truth

2) The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News special you never saw

3) Terrorstorm

In that order.
These, in my opinion, are the most professional looking films. Other movies are good but they have that 'amateur' feel to them which tends to give people bad first impressions.

The first presents the official story to be a fraud.
The second looks at the surrounding aspects around 9/11.
the third of course delves into the 'real world' big picture of summarizing what is going on beyond 9/11.

It would be important to append your own comments about each, that there may be some aspects that aren't entirley supported by you.
I have found flaws with each of them and therefore tell people I don't believe EVERYTHING it says, that there are some errors/inefficiencies...just as with any documentary.

Submitted by Thrashaero (not verified) on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 12:55pm.

Right on Trashaero!

Also consider "911revisited" in between PFT and TS.

Submitted by Observer (not verified) on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 1:36pm.

LC2E, Sept11REvisited TerrorStorm

I've made and given away 1400+ copies of LC2E and September 11 Revisited. I'm adding Terrorstorm.
Press for Truth would be great but it is copy protected.

The criticism of Press for Truth is that it is LIHOP. I think that anything that causes a break in the "official" story is a good thing. Once people have doubts they may look for themselves or start talking to others and soon find themselves MIHOP.

True, Press for TRUTH has little to offer us as far as new unseen evidence, but it does offer hope that TENS of MILLIONS will be joining us soon.

We must be the change we wish to see in the world. M Gandhi

Submitted by Joe on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 5:19pm.

Include a David Ray Griffin lecture

Excellent choices. In addtion I would include a David Ray Griffin lecture. I have used the Madison, WI speech to introduce the concepts to many individuals. He is an excellent speaker and they seem comforted by the fact that he is a silver-haired theologian, it took place at a university, and it aired on C-Span.

Submitted by intheyearzero (not verified) on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 5:38pm.

Excellent choices!

I think you may be very correct in your presentation chronology and strategy Trrashaero. Easing them into it slowly may work very well. What have your responses been like?

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

Submitted by Cincy911Truth on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 7:29pm.

9/11: Press For Truth

9/11: Press For Truth, in combination with the Jersey Girls about to begin their full steam ahead National Campaign calling for a new 9/11 investigation, is going to be what ultimately leads to the collapse of the Bush administration. It is inescapable. Anyone who watches 9/11: Press For Truth and thinks otherwise, didn't actually watch 9/11: Press For Truth.

I am predicting that that combination of 9/11: Press For Truth, and the Jersey Girls' National Campaign, starting on Monday at the National Press Club, will lead to the collapse of the Bush administration very quickly.

9/11: Press For Truth is incredible. I presently do not see any way that logical, rational, sane people can deny nor refute its content. It is brilliant. I believe that it IS the first answer to the question of "how to win this."

A new 9/11 investigation is when all of the other main alternate 9/11 theories and explanations will get their shine, and those which are true, will be proven as such. Those which are quack, will be dropped in the garbage. Bye bye NPT, to name but one.

SEND THE 9/11: PRESS FOR TRUTH LINK FAR AND WIDE!

Submitted by - Ø®£Z - on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 12:11pm.

9/11 Press For Truth indeed

9/11 Press For Truth indeed is a very good film! probably the best and most effective one ive seen so far on this subject.
Also, i think it does more than just hint at LIHOP... i'd say it hints more at MIHOP in a way. But that is not of great importance i.m.o., what it sure does is showing that something is terribly wrong. And its going to be hard for the 'debunkers' to trash this one!!
Is anyone aware of german subtitles being in production or planned for this?
It's exactly the kind of film i'd like to show to my non-english speakin relatives and friends.
-Alois

Submitted by alois (not verified) on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 3:53am.

I just downloaded the XVID

I just downloaded the XVID DIVX version

torrent on http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/

have yet to view it.

But I found this incidental music
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=19651

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT HERE
and tell us all what this music on radio4all is?

IF YOU ARE ALL SMILES PLEASE DONATE TO radio4all.. they NEED IT. PLEEEAASSEE.

I know for a fact that this is a must hear:
http://www.radio4all.net/pub/files/tuc@tucradio.org/0524raymcgovern.mp3

type TUC RADIO into the radio4all search...

Submitted by u2r2h on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 2:20am

====================================================

Despicable MSM articles....

Submitted by u2r2h on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 6:39am.

As we speak, every 20 minutes there is a new despicable article that
dis-informs and slanders:

http://news.google.com/news?scoring=d&q=9%2F11+conspiracy

The enduring conspiracy factor
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/A...

... the 1969 Apollo moon landing was staged in Hollywood;

"The Kennedy assassination was of such historical significance that the explanation that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone sounds weird,"

Frank Greening,

He expected his study would lend credence to the conspiracy theorists, but to his surprise, it showed that trauma at upper levels could indeed bring down the buildings in the manner and rate that occurred.

9/11: A defining moment for US
http://www.teluguportal.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13055

Then there are the inevitable conspiracy theories with some suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were in fact the handiwork of the administration designed to give it an excuse to fight a war for oil in the Middle East.

Two 20 something kids have even produced a short video of "Loose Ends" picked up from the Internet footage of the attacks to suggest that the twin towers fell in a controlled implosion, the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile and not a plane, and the third flight headed for the White House was taken down by the US Air Force.

There is of course a perfectly logical explanation for the little puffs of dust seen rising from the bottom of the twin towers even before they collapsed and a smaller hole in the outer wall of the Pentagon.

The fumes at the bottom rose because of the build up of air pressure lower down as the upper floor fell and the hole in the Pentagon was only 75 feet wide because it was made by the fuselage of the Boeing 757 after its 124-foot-wide wings had broken off.

The fifth anniversary Monday also witnesses a whole host of rituals like peace marches, memorial meetings, interviews with the survivors and so on.

In 9/11, they see a government conspiracy
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0910911-conspiracy0910.html
True believers gather in NYC to offer theories, try to change minds
Ellen Barry Los Angeles Times Sept. 10, 2006 12:00 AM

NEW YORK - Striding into Washington Square Park with a fistful of photocopied circulars and an earnest expression, Eric Williams could have been an environmental canvasser or a hip missionary. In fact, he is a pastry chef,

Raft of books mark 9/11 anniversary
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/484626.html
NOT A SINGLE CONSPIRACY BOOK MENTIONED...

911 Plus Five Equals...?
http://www.alternet.org/story/41439/
By Will Durst, AlterNet. Posted September 8, 2006.

nothing from WILL at all.... sad. But there is a good one in the comments:

Top 19 Omissions & Distortions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dainin on Sep 8, 2006 5:54 PM
David Ray Griffin, The 911 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions...

Published September 10, 2006 [ From the Lansing State Journal ]
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060910/OPINION02/6091005...
Duane Hershberger: For some, reason collapsed along with WTC's two towers

ccording to Scripps Survey Research Center, over one-third of Americans believe the U.S. government was complicit in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Fully 16 percent specifically blame the World Trade Center collapse on government-planted explosives.

That is, one in every six American adults assert their government schemed to kill 3,000 people, and only missed killing 25,000 by not detonating sooner.

It would be comforting if the one in six belonged to the same group of Americans (58 percent) who, according to a Zogby poll, can name the Three Stooges, but not the three branches of government. You could write off the conspiracy theorists as ignorant kooks.Advertisement

Unfortunately, ignorance is not the issue. The conspiracists probably can name the three branches of government: the Evil Executive, the Lawless Legislative and the Jejune Judiciary.

From a those-around-me-are-sane standpoint, the "government bombed the WTC" theory is a mild delusion, comfortably nestled among the ideas that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, that 4,000 Jews who worked in the WTC called in sick on 9/11 and that al-Qaida had no involvement with the attacks. Speaking relatively, these are the "reality-based" ideas.

Momentarily at the fringe, government-murder-plot-wise, we have Professor Emeritus A. K. Dewdney, at the University of Western Ontario. He believes (and I quote):

1. Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off; shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.

2. Two previously prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA11 and UA175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers.

3. These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (18 minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.

4. A fighter jet (under remote control), or a cruise missile, crashes into the Pentagon.

5. Back at the airport, the (innocent) passengers from three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA93).

6. This plane takes off, flies toward Washington, and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.

7. Under cover of darkness later that evening, the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.

Dewdney has contributed to Scientific American and is the author of several books on computer science. Neither he, nor BYU professor Steven Jones - the academic progenitor of the WTC bombing theory - are self-evidently flakes. Nonetheless, neither would go unheralded in a pie-crust factory.

I haven't space to present rebuttals to the "theories" mentioned above, but I can point you to some debunking information linked through my blog: http://otherclub.blogspot.com/2006/09/911-conspiracy-debunking.html

==============================================

Measure up your theories against this clever write-up.

Submitted by u2r2h on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 6:19pm.

Shooting down the best of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Updated Sun. Sep. 10 2006 1:49 PM ET

Michael Stittle, CTV.ca News

The first strike was a surprise, but when the second jetliner struck the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, dozens of cameras recorded the explosion. The world's major news organizations, alerted after the first plane hit, watched carefully. But in the chaos it was difficult to make sense of the attack, or even know that an attack had occurred.

Details emerged slowly. Structural engineers and other experts started investigating how the towers fell, until conjecture became fact: fuel heated the buildings' steel support columns, weakening the beams until the floors sagged and collapsed.

Yet five years after the terrible event, some believe there is more to the story -- that the official version of events is wrong. Just days before the anniversary, Steven Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University in Utah, was suspended on paid leave because he argued explosives brought down the towers.

Conspiracy theories, many accusing the United States government of orchestrating the attacks, grew in popularity. A documentary called Loose Change, collecting these theories and stating them as the truth, became a underground hit on Google's online video website and YouTube.com.

A message on the documentary's official website declares: "IT IS EVERYONE'S DUTY TO VIEW THIS FILM!"

According to a July survey conducted by the Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University, 36 per cent of Americans felt it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either knew of the attacks and did nothing -- or even helped in the attacks -- because they wanted to start a war in the Middle East.

9/11 conspiracy theorists purport to use eyewitness accounts, expert analysis and photographic evidence to back their claims. Generally, they examine mysterious inconsistencies in the official version of events - specifically, how the Pentagon and World Trade Center were damaged and destroyed.

Here is an analysis of the major theories, and how they are proven wrong:

World Trade Center: Explosives, not planes, destroyed the towers

Conspiracy theorists like Jones, the Utah physical professor, argue the towers collapsed at about a free-fall speed -- the same time it would take an apple to hit the ground after being dropped from the top floor.

Footage of the event shows it took nine seconds for the north tower to fall, and 11 seconds for the south tower.

The argument is that the towers should have slowly fallen down, instead of quickly collapsing like a building destroyed by an expert demolitions team. Therefore, explosives were placed inside the building beforehand and detonated. In fact, moments before each floor collapsed, a flash of light could be seen, likely from a blast.

Even stranger, American Airlines Flight 11 hit the north tower first, more than 15 minutes before United Airlines flight 175 exploded into the south tower. Both planes were Boeing 767s, with the same mass and presumably the same speed and force of impact. And yet, the south tower fell first.

Further evidence the planes did not bring down the towers is that their burning jet fuel would have had little effect on the buildings' integrity. Steel melts at an extremely high temperature of about 1,500 degrees Celsius, but jet fuel has a maximum temperature of 1,100 degrees Celsius.

Why this is wrong:

The idea that the planes did not destroy the towers is so prevalent that the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released a detailed scientific explanation to refute the claim.

NIST studied the collapse for three years, using 200 technical experts -- from the institute itself, the private sector and the academic world. Together, they surveyed a massive amount of data, including videos of the collapse, eyewitnesses accounts and 236 steel fragments.

According to the institute's findings, the towers collapsed for two reasons:

First, the impact of the planes damaged the buildings' structural integrity. The south tower was hit second but was the first to collapse, because Flight 175 hit the building's corner, creating a major imbalance. Flight 11 hit the middle of the north tower, leaving the corners in far better shape.

Second, in some areas of the towers, the temperature of the spilled jet fuel was as hot as 1,000 degrees Celsius. The intense heat added stress to already weakened floors, which sagged inward and added weight to the support columns.

When conspiracy theorists argue the jet fuel was not hot enough to melt the towers' steel columns, they are correct. But the towers did not collapse because the steel melted, they collapsed because the columns, already damaged by the jetliners' collision, softened and warped under the heat, until they buckled and the floors collapsed.

The planes also broke water pipes connecting the emergency water sprinkler systems. But even if the sprinklers had worked after the planes hit, they would have done little to lessen the severity of so much inflamed jet fuel, spread over an estimated 40,000 square feet.

As for why the buildings fell so quickly, the answer is simple: when the top floors collapsed, they carried so much weight that the lower floors had absolutely no resistance to the force.

As Thomas Eager, a professor of materials science at MIT, told the Washington Post: "At first, I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come down in their own footprints. Then I realized that it wasn't that amazing -- it's the only way a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent air can come down."

When eyewitnesses claim to have heard explosions prior to the collapse, these just the sounds of a massive building contorting and crushing anything inside. And flashes of light that seemed to indicate bombs detonating were not explosions. They were pockets of airs being forced out of windows as the sagging floors pushed downward.

The Pentagon: A missile, not a plane

Still images captured after the Pentagon was struck show a small hole in the side of the outer ring wall - too small for a Boeing 757 to have crashed through the wall.

There were also seemingly no large aircraft parts recovered from the wreckage of American Airlines Flight 77. In fact, photographs of the scene show very few aircraft parts anywhere.

And what about the wings? Shouldn't the impact from a jetliner leave not just a narrow hole, but heavy damage on either?

Instead, conspiracy theorists claim missile blew through the Pentagon, or perhaps a smaller plane, like a jet. Either one could have knocked a neat hole through several walls of concrete and steel, but not a massive jetliner.

The U.S. government has not helped its case: it was only until 2006 that the justice department released two videos, recorded on Pentagon security cameras, that show Flight 77 hitting the building. The videos were only released after a group called Judicial Watch requested the footage using the Freedom of Information Act.

Both videos can be seen here.

But the videos are a poor document of the attack. The actual collision only appears in two frames, because the plane was traveling at 530 miles per hour (853 kilometres per hour) when it hit.

Worse, with the angle of the videos, all sense of scale is lost. In the foreground, a passing car takes up most of the screen. The object hitting the Pentagon occurs in the background, and it's difficult to determine how large the object is in relation to the five-story building.

Why this is wrong:

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) examined the Pentagon damage between September 2001 and April 2002. When the group's investigators arrived at the scene, much of the material and wreckage had already been removed as workers struggled to keep the outer ring from collapsing. This is why photographs show very little wreckage.

But ASCE still had access to crucial evidence like eyewitness accounts, original architectural plans and subsequent renovation designs, and information on what materials were used in the building.

The group was able to determine the actual size of the hole before the building collapsed, by simply looking at which support columns were broken after the plane hit. ASCE measured the hole at 27.5 metres in diameter.

According to Boeing, the measurements of a Boeing 757's wingspan is about 38 metres, while the body's exterior width is 3.7 metres.

According to the ASCE report, neither wing actually penetrated the building, because they were damaged before the plane hit the outer facade. Flight 77 hit the ground before the Pentagon, and much of its left wing likely ripped off or was badly damaged. When it crashed into the building, the other wing shattered on impact, along with the front of the plane.

It was actually the rear body of the plane that passed through the building, after the front opened up a hole. What continued into the Pentagon after the impact were the end sections of the fuselage and the landing-gear -- heavy equipment that must necessarily be durable enough to carry tons of steel as the plane touches down on a runway. The black box, also located near the back of the plane, was recovered from deep inside the building.

The plane also hit a section of the Pentagon that had recently undergone renovations, to make the walls even more blast resistant, along with the windows.

But stronger proof is the forensic evidence that identified 64 people aboard Flight 77, linking DNA of the victims' remains to DNA samples given by family members. Even the hijackers' remains were found, close to where the plane hit the outer wall because they were presumably near the front.

Secrecy or cover-up?

Conspiracy theories surrounding Flight 77 and the Pentagon are fueled by a lack of video footage of the event, and the military's slow response to the attacks. After all, how could the United States possibly allow a jetliner so close to the Defence Department's headquarters?

For some, it may be easier to believe the government planned the attack to gain support for a war in the Middle East, rather than the fact it failed to use the most powerful military in the world to effectively respond to four hijacked planes.

The 9/11 Commission Report, prepared by the National Commission on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, shows that various agencies were unable to properly communicate information about the jetliners, especially Flight 77.

The sector of NORAD responsible for monitoring the area of the Pentagon is the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, New York.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NEADS had access to just four immediately available fighter jets that could take off in a moment's notice: two from Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and two from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia.

The Otis jets were first scrambled during the attacks in New York, while the Langely jets were sent just moments before the Pentagon was hit.

Flight 77 lost contact with Federal Flight Administration (FAA) controllers at 8:56 a.m., after hijackers took control and turned off the transponder - a device that tracks the plane through radio signals. The Indianapolis Center was monitoring the flight and had noticed it veer off course, but also lost radar contact. Later investigations found the radar had a software problem, and there was poor radar coverage where Flight 77 was heading.

The radar signal was only restored at 9:05 a.m., just before the hijackers turned Flight 77 east toward the Pentagon. But officials never saw the plane change direction, and lost track of its path. FAA Officials at the Command Center never asked other centers to look for the plane, so it continued unnoticed toward the Pentagon.

It was not until 9:20 a.m. that the Indianapolis Center discovered other planes had been hijacked.

At 9:24, Langely jets were scrambled but mistakenly told that Flight 11 - already a burning wreck inside the World Trade Center - was the plane heading to the Washington, D.C. area. Officials ordered them to find a ghost.

The FAA never mentioned Flight 11 to the military until 9:34 a.m. But by that time it was too late. The Langley jets had earlier been given no real target, so they had followed protocol and were heading due east from Virginia to get out of local airspace traffic, instead of north to the capital.

It was impossible for the pilots to find Flight 77 in time. At 9:37 a.m., the jetliner tore a hole into the Pentagon. The Langely jets were 240 kilometres away.

As the report concludes:

"(The military) had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington, and the fighters were in the wrong place to be able to help. They had been responding to a report about an aircraft that did not exist."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060906/911_Conspir...

COMMENTS:

No matter how much perfume

No matter how much perfume you try to spray on the official story it still ends up smelling like a pile of sh*t ?.
Wonder why that is?

Submitted by justacitizen on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 6:34pm.

Americans

I think that the best way to fight terrorism is to look at why all this has happened. What did we as Americans or rather, our government do to provoke this? Why does everyone hate us so much? Why are we in Iraq? We need to look at how it is that we handle world affairs. We can't bend the rules that we help set up within certain global organizations. We need to change, but in those weeks following the attacks we told the world that we will not change. We need to stop imposing our way of life on others. We need to make a better effort to try to accomodate to the language and customs of the countries that we visit.

Submitted by quasimoto (not verified) on Tue, 09/12/2006 - 1:08am.

What's with the tiny font?

It wrecks the rest of the blog posts.

Submitted by BCS on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 8:26pm.

close the html next time

k? thanks

Submitted by OWN the NWO on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 8:31pm.

I sent this to ctv.ca feedback

Did Mr. Stittle overlook something here? In order to shoot down the
first conspiracy theory he non-chalantly broke some fundamental laws
of physics. An hour long diffuse fire of well less than 1000 degrees
celcius would not even begin to weaken the 4 inch thick girders of
this building . Hence, how does the weight alone of the upper floors
simply crash through these extremely strong supports as if they were
not even there?????

Incredible that Mr. Stittle is attempting to sweep this strikingly
obvious fact under the carpet. I've noted that the I.Q. of major
media journalists reporting on this issue is excessively low for some
reason.

The fact that these towers fell at free-fall speed cannot be changed,
nor will the laws of physics budge as the result of double talking
lies. I suggest you reconsider your argument, before you are made a
mockery.

Submitted by Canadian Truth ... on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 1:42pm

=================================================

A LOT of articles about 911 conspiracies ...

Submitted by u2r2h on Mon, 09/11/2006 - 1:18am.

Is American Democracy Too Feeble To Deal With 9/11?

By Paul Craig Roberts, September 10, 2006

http://vdare.com/roberts/060910_911.htm

Under the title:
Debunking 9/11 -- It's time to finally put the conspiracy theories to rest.
by Sonny Bunch
the prestigious magazine
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/665awc...
lets Philip Zelikow tells us about conspiracy theories:
"Our worry is when things become infectious, as happened with the [John F. Kennedy] assassination. Then this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding."

... Loose Change is filled with utter horseshit.
http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=7586
LOOSE BRAINS 09.11.06 By Devin Faraci
... a movie that serves as a meticulous piece of propaganda for stupidity...

The EVER SO INFORMATIVE http://wsws.org with a very readable
article:
Five years since 9/11: A political balance sheet
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/9111-s11.shtml

What is known about the events of 9/11?

The so-called 9/11 Commission was nothing more than a cynical and mendacious exercise in politically-expedient cover-up, organized with the more or less explicit purpose of blocking a real criminal investigation and preventing the discovery of evidence that 1) linked the 9/11 terrorists to US intelligence agencies, and 2) exposed criminal complicity on the part of elements within the state in facilitating and abetting the success of the 9/11 conspiracy.

The fraudulent character of the 9/11 Commission was guaranteed by the selection of its leading personnel, beginning with its chairperson, Thomas Kean. He brought to this investigation all the integrity and zeal for truth that one would expect of a former New Jersey governor and board member of Amerada Hess, the international oil corporation. Indeed, among Kean’s special qualifications for serving as co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission may have been his own secretive business dealings with the Saudi-controlled Delta Oil Company, whose owners are believed to have provided millions of dollars in financing to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

MUST READ!!

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/9111-s11.shtml

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/local_news/epaper/2006/09/...

Commentary: Democrats screen movie questioning 9/11 story

By George Bennett

Palm Beach Post Columnist

Monday, September 11, 2006

Five years later, the suggestion that a shadowy domestic cabal and not Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks has gone from tin-hat chatter to an officially sanctioned way to recruit grass-roots workers and drum up a few bucks for the Palm Beach County Democratic Party.

The local party's Volunteer Outreach, Information, Coordination and Education (VOICE) Committee is sponsoring a screening of the 9/11 conspiracy pic Loose Change later this month (suggested donation: $5) with a special appearance by Space Coast Democratic congressional long shot Bob Bowman, a prominent doubter of the official 9/11 narrative.

The VOICE Committee's Rick Neuhoff handed out Exposing the Myth of 9/11 fliers at Thursday's Democratic Executive Committee powwow. Neuhoff says he's convinced that President Bush had "foreknowledge" of the attacks and that the World Trade Center "didn't come down because of the planes."

The local Democratic Party isn't endorsing any 9/11 theory, Chairman Wahid Mahmood says, just trying to present "an educational process for all of us."

The 911 Truth Movement

by Joe Plummer

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_joe_plum_060910_the_911_truth_mo...

Prior to 9/11, I was painfully naïve. I had never heard of operation Ajax, Operation Gladio, or Operation Northwoods. I knew nothing of the cover up surrounding the attack on the USS Liberty; I knew nothing of the Gulf of Tonkin deception or the "surprise attack" on Pearl Harbor. I'd never heard of "false flag" operations, and I sure as Hell would have never believed "my government" would coordinate and participate in terrorist attacks against civilian targets. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO502B.html Sadly, I now know otherwise.

More articles are appearing MY THE MINUTE:

http://news.google.com/news?q=9/11+conspiracy&scoring=d

===========================================

Newspaper Snippets .

Submitted by u2r2h on Tue, 09/12/2006 - 4:06am.

Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already
By Matthew Rothschild
http://progressive.org/mag_wx091106

Another lefty who is not patient enough to properly observe,
and then QUICKLY makes up his mind... cocksure.

Maybe they all have slow internet and cannot
download footage that SHOWS the explosions etc etc.

But they are hardly alone. Even convinced conspiracy
theorists ..amazingly, they all have seen the
second plane that buttered into the south tower
... and they ALL think that this footage is authentic.

Simply ridiculous.

COMIC RELIEF...

Stan Cox: 9/11 - Based on a True Story
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 09/05/2006 - 2:00pm. Guest Contribution
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/391

My Reply to The Progressive

"Mr. Rothschild:

Thank you for addressing this unsettling phenomenon.

In the interest of helping you lay this monster to rest, let me suggest several “anomalies” that you might cast light upon:

- The unprecedented behavior of the Secret Service at Booker Elementary. (Some would say not unprecedented: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/jfk-stand-down-by-...)

- The money transfer link between the ISI Chief (meeting with US officials in DC on 9/11), Atta and Standard Charter Bank (WTC7 tenant). By the way, the “Jersey Girls” raise this prominently in the new film 9/11: Press for Truth, and formally demanded a new “independent” investigation yesterday at the NPC. Worthy of media attention?

- This seemingly forgotten money trail: http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/dec/17wtc.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/12/20/wtc.harddrives.idg/
Who would have had reason to believe the computers would be completely destroyed? Perhaps Convar, its parent Kroll or the FBI could be asked to release the results of this investigation.

As it turns out, even the revelation that “Corley, by the way, also headed up the investigation of the Murrah Building’s collapse in Oklahoma City” fails to comfort some, who cannot understand how the “fog of war” accounts for such specific early reports:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok_city1.wmv

There are many other seemingly taboo questions that Popular Mechanics or the State Department would do well to answer if the nation is to be rid of these crippling doubts about the “official story”, but you get the idea.

A Concerned Reader"

Submitted by Michael Fury (not verified) on Tue, 09/12/2006 - 1:09pm.

============================================

Iraqi Oil worth 29 trillion (times 10!)

Submitted by u2r2h on Tue, 09/12/2006 - 7:18pm.

According to the US dept of energy Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraqâ??s true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. Deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels), but have not been explored.

That makes 432 billion barrels times todays oil price per barrel, 67 dollars - something like 29 trillion dollars

Trillions in oil revenues is not the only money to be made from the invasion of iraq - the cost of the Iraq war to the taxpayerswas is budgeted at over 318 billion dollars . All of the weapons, uniforms, bases, vehicles, fuels, food and its preparation - all are purchased from private corporations. According to the national priorities project, an non proit that analyzes where federal dollars are spent - more than 28 billion of the total will be paid by the people of New York State - that 28 billion is enough to convert 93,743,138 homes to renewable electricity - according to the 2000 census, there were 105,480,101 occupied housinf units in the united states - just the money paid for the Iraq war by the people of New York state in enough to convert around 90 percent of Amwerican homes to renewable energy.

http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=19743

Why times 10?

If a bank uses the oil-reserves as a collateral, it can immediately proceedd to create 290trillion in money-supply.... enough to keep the USA going for a few years.

Guess who owns the import-export-bank in Iraq? USA.

COMMENTS:

Nice one

Thanks for this, it's good to put figures to the motive for going to war. I wonder how much individuals in the administration stand to gain financially, once they have left office.... of course...

And also those behind the scenes, that were never in office....

It really is disgusting, this greed without limits that seems to envelop the deeply corrupt individuals in power....

Submitted by Bellerophon (not verified) on Tue, 09/12/2006 - 9:22pm.

Correction

Oil's price goes up as it becomes more scarce. So it's worth WAY more than that.

Submitted by Anonymous2 (not verified) on Tue, 09/12/2006 - 9:50pm.

does it?

Oil's price goes up as it becomes more scarce.

does it? or are we just told that it's scarce so that the price can go up? - oh well it amounts to the same either way.

good blog U2R2H!

Submitted by james ha (not verified) on Tue, 09/12/2006 - 10:37pm.

Rumors of Iraq's oil potential have been greatly exaggerated

The 112 billion barrels in "proven" reserves is highly suspect, as are the proven reserves for the rest of the OPEC nations. The 220 bbl in "probable" and "possible" reserves is even less credible. The "years of wars and sanctions" in Iraq happened long after the wave of oil discovery, which peaked globally in the 1960s.

The highest production rate Iraq has ever achieved was around 3.7 mbpd in 1979 and is now fighting to break 2 mbpd.

Anyone who thinks they know anything about oil must see The End of Suburbia or read Powerdown by Richard Heinberg, Hubbert's Peak by Ken Deffeyes or, since you're already -- presumably -- a 9/11 truther, Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert.

Submitted by BCS on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 1:41am.

Oil Sands are the 2nd "largest"

www.sfgate.com search: "oil sands": when you get to the results click on "full archive"... Oil is such a limited resource: I hope more thought and ingenuity will be used on bio-compatable alternative energy... soon, before we are glowing in the dark.

FUELING AMERICA - OIL'S DIRTY FUTURE - Canadian oil sands: Vast reserves second to Saudi Arabia will keep America moving, but at a steep environmental cost
Robert Collier, San Francisco Chronicle, 05/22/05
At the end of a long northern highway, surrounded by a flat horizon of spruce forest and muskeg swamp, lies the energy future of the United States: the largest known petroleum deposit in the world outside Saudi Arabia. This future isn't a pretty sight...

FUELING AMERICA/China moves fast to claim oil sands /Although Chinese holdings in Alberta are still small, they are a foothold on the North American continent as the U.S. rival seeks to develop energy sources worldwide to boost its rapidly growing economy
Robert Collier, San Francisco Chronicle, 05/22/05
If Americans think the oil sands bonanza in their northern backyard will solely benefit the United States, they may be surprised. Chinese officials are making fast inroads into Alberta, snapping up petroleum deals with the skill of Texas oilmen. While the...

FUELING AMERICA: Canadian oil sands - Life in a boomtown
San Francisco Chronicle, 05/22/05
Fort McMurray, below, a northern outpost of 56,000 in Canada's Alberta province, has boomed since it became economically viable to mine oil sands in the region. Despite the billions of dollars to be made from the vast deposits, mining interests are having...

Submitted by justin howard (not verified) on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 12:15am.

Also supports Palast theory

These facts also support the argument popularized by Greg Palast that the objective of the war was not so much to gain access to the oil itself, but to control the release of the oil to the market, and thus manipulate (keep high) the price of oil from other oil-producing countries.

The upside to this is that it makes Venezuelan oil more profitable (since it is more expensive to access) resulting in a big petroleum bonanza for that country, which Chavez seems to be pretty shrewd about using.

Submitted by casseia on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 12:57pm

===============================================

Submitted by u2r2h on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 7:13pm.

Book Review: The Terror Conspiracy (Jim Marrs)

Wednesday, 13 September 2006

Conspiracies Abound

Questioning everything about 9/11

By Kurt Brighton

“The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11, And The Loss Of Liberty”

By Jim Marrs, published by The Disinformation Company

The unthinkable happened five years ago on a balmy day in September, and reams of paper as well as thousands of terrabytes have been devoted to the subject. And when something unthinkable happens, people start to look outside of the realm of the thinkable.

In addition to triggering an instantaneous clamp-down on civil liberties, the expansion of domestic spying programs unheard of since the COINTEL program of the ’60s and ’70s, billions of dollars in increased Pentagon spending, billions of dollars dumped into private defense contracts, an ongoing war against a nebulous enemy that can never be shown to have been decisively defeated, and an ongoing war in a country that had little or nothing to do with the attacks, the events of 9/11 also spawned a surfeit of conspiracy theorists.

Funny thing is, once you get past the knee-jerk dismissal of alternative theorists as wild-eyed crackpots colluding in mom’s basement while wearing tinfoil hats, there’s a lot that doesn’t add up about the government’s official story. A whole lot.

In his new book The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11, And The Loss Of Liberty, journalist and former U.S. Army service member Jim Marrs has put together a sober, meticulous and compelling look at the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, distortions and errors that are widely reported as gospel regarding the attacks. He’s backed by hundreds of credible sources, including firefighters and police officers who were at Ground Zero that day, engineers, architects, former FBI and CIA agents, politicians and high-ranking bureaucrats, as well as mainstream news stories that fell by the wayside, and independent research by accredited scholars. He also looks at the formidable war-making/surveillance machinery that was engineered in the aftermath of the attacks, as well as connecting the dots between the players and the events in a way that probably hasn’t been done under one cover before.

There are things here that most people have probably heard about, such as the Bush family’s close ties with the al-Sabbah ruling family of Saudi Arabia, and that the administration arranged to have 40 members of the bin Laden family (also Saudis) flown out of the country in the days following the attacks when all domestic flights were grounded. And everyone knows that the Bush administration fought tooth and nail to block any investigation of the attacks, finally giving in to public pressure brought to bear by the families of 9/11 victims after nearly two years of stonewalling.

But here’s some things you probably didn’t know:

• Hani Hanjour, the hijacker who is believed to have flown the 757 into the Pentagon after diving into a 7,000-foot corkscrew descent and flattening out at treetop level—a maneuver that most military pilots couldn’t even pull off in a hog like a 757—had been denied the rental of a single-engine Cessna 172 a month before 9/11. The reason: flight instructors gave him three chances—three different test flights—but he was unable to control or land the tiny craft.

• Photos taken immediately after the impact on the Pentagon, before the walls collapsed 30 minutes later show a hole that was not big enough to accommodate the girth of a 757, even if you carefully parked it there, much less slammed into it at 600 mph.

• Tapes of firefighters who made it to the 78th floor of the South Tower (the plane hit the 80th floor) indicated they were confident the fires were controllable, and mentioned no fear of imminent danger. The building fell a few minutes later.

• There are no examples of a steel-frame building collapsing due to fire alone. The 47 steel columns used in the buildings were certified to withstand temperatures of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit—the temperature of burning jet fuel—for several hours before melting. The South Tower fell in just 56 minutes. In Caracas in 2004, a 50-story steel-frame building burned for 17 hours and did not collapse.

• Dozens of witnesses, including firefighters, police officers, maintenance workers and office workers in the towers reported explosions going off on the 20th floor and below—some even prior to the planes hitting the buildings. Dozens of other witnesses outside the buildings reported seeing puffs of smoke and hearing noises indicative of demolition explosions.

• WTC 7, a 47-story building that was used by Rudolph Guiliani as a base of operations during the early part of the disaster response, collapsed on its own around 5 o’clock that afternoon. No plane hit it, and there were only small fires apparent. FEMA could offer no explanation, and rather than explain it, the 9/11 Commission declined to even mention its collapse.

• Steel from the towers was unceremoniously cut up and sold for scrap overseas before an investigation into the causes of the fire and the collapse could be conducted, an unprecedented move in any fire investigation, let alone in the single biggest modern attack to take place in the continental United States.

That’s only a small sample of the eye-popping information here, and from an author who is no stranger to covering controversial topics—Marrs is the author of the New York Times bestseller Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy—called “the mother of all John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy books” and upon which Oliver Stone’s JFK was based—and he’s the author of Alien Agenda, the bestselling UFO book in U.S. history. Question him if you will, but Marrs provides more than 400 footnotes, so those who doubt the doubters have ample opportunity to backtrack his sources. Whatever your political leanings, The Terror Conspiracy is a must-read for anyone looking to understand why so much about 9/11 makes so little sense, and it is presented in a smart, crisp manner that will keep you turning pages as if it were another Da Vinci Code.

It’s a shame it doesn’t come with a tinfoil hat though. Mine’s getting really worn out.

http://www.fortcollinsweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&...

Check out my LIST OF MIHOP books:
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2006/06/911-was-inside-job-911-books.html

COMMENTS:

Vendor Suggestion

Hi u2r2h,

I linked to your "List of MIHOP" books and have to say that you've done a nice job compiling this.

I have only one minor quibble. You provide links for readers to go to Amazon.com to purchase their books. I would like to suggest that you consider a link to the Peace Resource Project as an alternative.

http://911sharethetruth.com/911books.htm

Gabriel Day, the owner of PRP, is a dedicated activist working toward exposing 9/11 Truth and deserves our support a lot more so than does Jeff Bezos at Amazon.

Thanks for considering a change to your website.

Submitted by Raymond Duray (not verified) on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 7:59pm.

Yes, Support Gabriel Day (n/t)

Submitted by lakezoarian on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 8:35pm.

What does "n/t" mean?

I've seen it lots and I get the point but I can't figure what the letters stand for.

Submitted by casseia on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 1:22am.

n/t = no text. It's common

n/t = no text. It's common to use it when the entire message is in the subject line.

Submitted by dreadwolf (not verified) on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 8:02am.

Demolition proof - this convinced me as never:

Download http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-5.avi (1.7 MB)

Have a look at about 1s in (33rd frame of the video or so) and look at the closest corner.

During whole video you can observe squibs going down in waves,
from left to right, on the left-hand wall of WTC.
But at this certain moment you can see squibs that had gone off
at the lowest level of demolition wave and still(!!) ,many(10?) upper floors
are INTACT near the corner.

Those can't be pancaking floors.
If pancaking hasn't stopped there - why there is no sign of puffs/squibs for so long?
If they had stopped to pancake there - why would everything down under continue as usually?

I still wonder why it took me so long to belive it....
Those towers are just falling to pieces in front of our eyes.

Submitted by salvi (not verified) on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 8:04pm.

check out Dr Jones on thermite

http://www.supportthetruth.com/jones.php
This should reinfoce your perspective.

Submitted by glowform on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 8:13pm.

but that let me see it with my own eyes...

Thanks, of course I know Jones, I've read his paper, I know thermate theory and he is very much correct.
You must understand that there is a difference when you start to see the demolition precisely with your own eyes.

Submitted by salvi (not verified) on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 8:54pm.

yes

but combined with the molten metal and evidence of thermite it just becomes such a solid case. Additional supporting evidence is very useful for making a case to those still unsure.

Submitted by glowform on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 1:15am.

A must see!!

Has every one seen this video? very powerful:
http://www.supportthetruth.com/wtc7.php
A must see!!

Submitted by glowform on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 8:04pm.

Report From NYC

Jim spoke at several of the events in New York, and I can tell you- he's one helluva public speaker, too! What a treat.

Submitted by lakezoarian on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 8:07pm

======================================

Submitted by u2r2h on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 7:46pm.

TRANSCRIPT DEMOCRACY NOW: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics

9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of "Debunking 9/11 Myths"

Monday, September 11th, 2006

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203

September 11, 2001 - five years after the attacks many people are asking questions about what happened on that day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites, articles, books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the government's account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called "Loose Change." Now, a book dealing with many of these theories has just been published by the magazine Popular Mechanics, it's called "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts." In a Democracy Now! national broadcast exclusive, we host a debate between the filmmakers of Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics on 9/11. [includes rush transcript]

We continue with our 9/11 coverage today on this fifth anniversary of the attacks. Last week we heard from New Yorkers calling on the federal government to stop ignoring the health effects of the attacks on the World Trade Center. A major new study of 9/11 finds that nearly seven out of every ten first responders at Ground Zero now suffer from chronic lung ailments. We also spoke with a man whose brother was killed at the World Trade Center and is now spearheading a movement against President Bush's war on terror. And we looked at September 11th 100 years ago, when Gandhi launched Satyagraha, the modern non-violent resistance movement that continues to this day.

Today, a debate about 9/11. Ever since the attacks took place, many people across the country have raised a number of questions about what actually happened on that day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites, articles, books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the government's account of what happened.

The most popular of these is a documentary called "Loose Change." The 80-minute film first appeared on the web in April 2005. Since then, it has had at least 10 million viewings and is described by Vanity Fair as "the first Internet blockbuster." As the popularity of "Loose Change" has soared, a book dealing with the questions it and others have raised about 9/11 has been published. It's called "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts" put together by the editors of the magazine, Popular Mechanics.

Today, we talk about some of the 9/11 theories and the arguments against them.

Dylan Avery, writer and director of "Loose Change."
Jason Bermas, researcher for "Loose Change."
James Meigs, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics. Part of the editorial team that produced "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts."
David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics. Part of the editorial team that produced "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts."
RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Today, we bring you a national exclusive: a debate about 9/11. Ever since the attacks took place, many people across the country have raised a number of questions about what actually happened on that day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites, articles, books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the government's account of what happened. The most popular of these is a documentary called Loose Change. The 80-minute film first appeared on the web April 2005. Since then, it's had at least 10 million viewings and is described by Vanity Fair as “the first internet blockbuster.”

As the popularity of Loose Change has soared, a book dealing with the questions it and others have raised about 9/11 has been published. It’s called Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts. It’s put together by the editors of the magazine Popular Mechanics.

So today, we'll talk about some of the theories and the arguments against them. We're joined in our studio by the filmmakers of Loose Change. Dylan Avery is the writer and director of the film and Jason Bermas is the film’s researcher. From Popular Mechanics, we're joined by David Dunbar, the executive editor of the magazine. He led the editorial team that produced Debunking 9/11 Myths. James Meigs is also with us, the magazine's editor-in-chief. Before we go to all of them, let's go to a clip of Loose Change that deals with the attacks on the Pentagon on 9/11.

NARRATOR: 10:06 a.m., Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Flight 93 was en route from Newark, New Jersey to California with 45 passengers when it went off course at 8:56 over northeastern Ohio. According to the official story, Flight 93 was en route to Washington, D.C., when it was overpowered by a group of passengers and crashed into an abandoned strip mine in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Out of all the events of 9/11, the one that has caused the most confusion is Flight 93: it was shot down/it wasn't shot down. However, evidence suggests that perhaps Flight 93 was nowhere near Shanksville.

FOX NEWS REPORTER: I wanna get quickly to Chris Chaniki. He's a photographer with the Pittsburgh affiliate, a FOX affiliate. He was back there just a couple of minutes ago. And Chris, I've seen the pictures. It looks like there’s nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.

CHRIS CHANIKI: Basically that's right. The only thing you could see from where we were was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. You could see some people working, walking around in the area. But from where we could see, there wasn't much left.

FOX NEWS REPORTER: Any large pieces of debris at all?

CHRIS CHANIKI: No. There was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.

FOX NEWS REPORTER: Smoke, fire?

CHRIS CHANIKI: Nothing. It was absolutely quiet. It was actually very quiet. Nothing going on down there. No smoke, no fire, just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part of the NTSB crew, walking around looking at the pieces.

FOX NEWS REPORTER: How big would you say that hole was?

CHRIS CHANIKI: From my estimates, I would guess it was probably about 20 to 15 feet long and probably about ten feet wide.

FOX NEWS REPORTER: What could you see on the ground, if anything, other than dirt and ash?

CHRIS CHANIKI: You couldn't see anything. You could just see dirt, ash and people walking around.

NARRATOR: Wally Miller, a Somerset County coroner: “It looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky.” In the Washington Post: “It looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a ten-foot ditch and dumped trash into it. And as for the passengers: “I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there.” In the Pittsburgh Review: “I have not to this day seen a single drop of blood, not a drop.” It would seem that on one day, for the second time in history, an entire plane along with its passengers disappeared upon impact.

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of Loose Change. We'll talk with the filmmakers, as well as the editors of Popular Mechanics, when we come back from break, and then we’ll take on the issue of what happened in Washington, the question of what hit the Pentagon. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: As we take on the issue of what happened on September 11th, 2001, our guests are Dylan Avery, writer and director of Loose Change; Jason Bermas, researcher for the film; James Meigs is also with us, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics; and David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics, who led the editorial team that produced the book, Debunking 9/11 Myths. Jim Meigs, you’re the editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics; your response to this excerpt of Loose Change about what happened in Shanksville?

JAMES MEIGS: You know, that clip is really interesting, because it shows how slickly made this film is, how compelling it is at asking a series of sort of hanging questions and putting some spooky music behind it and making it sound as if someone’s covering up these facts. But a brave researcher can dig down and put all the pieces together. In fact, there's answers to all those questions.

If you look at the sources that were used throughout that clip, they’re all things that came up in the first day or two after the attacks. In some cases, somebody is standing across the field and saying, “I don't see a plane.” Well, when a plane strikes the ground at 500 miles an hour, flying almost straight down, there typically isn't much visible above ground.

They also quote the coroner in the Shanksville area. We talked to the coroner. He had the horrific job of collecting the body parts and cataloging and performing all the necessary tests. Those bodies were identified. The plane wreckage in the pieces -- the tiny pieces it was in after it had hit the ground was, you know, collected from the hole, cataloged.

And the black box was recovered. And we know what went on, because of the records of the voice cockpit recorder, and in this case, quite a few phone calls from the aircraft itself to various people on the ground. So we know a lot of what happened on Flight 93.

The film is alleging that no plane crashed there at all. The people were sent off somewhere to somehow be disposed of. If you are going to allege something so far beyond what a huge body of evidence would suggest is the truth, then you do need to pull together some evidence. And so, we fully support asking questions and being skeptical, but if you’re going to ask questions, you also have to look for the answers. And when you get answers, you can't ignore them.

AMY GOODMAN: James Bermas of Loose Change -- Jason Bermas.

JASON BERMAS: I'd just like to thank you for the opportunity to take on the government's lies and Popular Mechanics, which is a Hearst yellow journalism publication’s lies, as well. And I would just say, look for yourself. This is an open field, and for the first time in history, we have a crater and no plane there. Look at any other plane crash, and you’ll find a tail section, a wing section. There were reports that this actually was strewn out over eight miles, and we have videotape of smaller pieces of debris. The coroner speaks for himself. We have the Pittsburgh Gazette, the editor-in-chief there, saying, again, there’s nothing there that looks like a plane.

Again, don’t believe us. Go to seeloosechange.com right now and watch for free. But take a look. All those people -- you would normally have NTSB people in blue jackets to get the plane parts and put them back together. That's what happened with TWA-800 that was in the ocean. And you don’t have that. You have people in hazmat uniforms. Why? So all’s we’re saying is, look, there's no plane in this open field at all. There's a ten-foot crater by 16-foot, and there’s just smoke there. So where is this plane? That's all we're saying.

AMY GOODMAN: What about what the coroner said, collecting body parts?

JASON BERMAS: Well, he's never addressed us. And if you look at all of his media accounts in the days after, when he was first asked, again, he said there were no body parts, and to this day he has not seen a single drop of blood. So, again, I would say that's more reliable than, you know, four years after the fact being contacted.

JAMES MEIGS: Did you talk to him?

JASON BERMAS: He won't address us. Basically we have had people contact him, and he hangs up on us.

JAMES MEIGS: I find typically when we investigate these things, it's very easy to find public records, to find the reports from all the various agencies that have investigated these accidents. The transcripts of the voice cockpit recorder have been released. In many cases, again, the sources, Jason, those are -- newspaper articles are written day of, day after, a couple of days after.

DYLAN AVERY: No, one of them was a year after the fact.

JAMES MEIGS: Perhaps.

DYLAN AVERY: No, it was.

JAMES MEIGS: You know what it was like on those days, and you know how chaotic it was. You know how much misinformation typically comes out in the early hours of a major news event. Over time, with further research and good reporting, you can sift through those things, and you can make progress and get into the truth. Typically, what we see on conspiracy websites is citations that go back to the earliest moments, when the least information was available, and virtually no reference to the voluminous research which was done to follow up.

AMY GOODMAN: Dylan, what about the issue of cell phones?

DYLAN AVERY: The issue of cell phones is that for a majority of Flight 93’s flight, it was flying over cruising altitude, and a number of these -- now, a majority of the phone calls were coming from air phones. But the cell phone calls were coming from cruising altitude. Now, it is pretty much impossible in 2001 to sustain an extended conversation over a cell phone at cruising altitude from a commercial airliner. But, I mean, that's not our strongest evidence. I mean, that’s just one of the many things about that day that don't add up to us.

And we haven't gotten to hear the cockpit voice recorder. We haven't gotten to hear any of these alleged phone calls. I mean, the government is cherry-picking the evidence that it releases to the government. And I feel that if our government was truly attacked by surprise and we had absolutely no inclination of the attacks, they would not be so reticent to release the 84 videos from the Pentagon, the cockpit voice recorder of Flight 93. The list of things that the government is holding from us goes on.

AMY GOODMAN: David Dunbar.

DAVID DUNBAR: With regard to the cell phones, we did what any reporter would do. We talked to experts in the field. And, in fact, cell phones do work at that altitude, up to 35,000 feet and higher. And --

DYLAN AVERY: In 2001?

DAVID DUNBAR: In 2001, and it might be instructive for you to talk to some of the cell phone experts. There are a lot of dropped calls, because the plane is moving at high-speed and the hand-off sometimes get dropped. That’s true, and we know from the public record that, in fact, a lot of the cell phone calls were cut off. And most of the phone calls were made from the air phones. But nevertheless, talk to the experts, and you’ll find out that you can make a cell phone call from a commercial plane.

JASON BERMAS: If I may address that for one moment? If that's true, then why in 2004 did American Airlines spend tens of thousands of dollars to put cell phone towers in their planes so people could make those calls? Why spend tens of thousands of dollars three years after the fact, if they worked so well on September 11? What he's saying is a total lie.

AMY GOODMAN: James Meigs.

JAMES MEIGS: We didn't say they worked well. We said they worked. And if you look at the record, many of the calls were dropped, they were incomplete, but especially over rural areas. You know, if you think about a cell phone tower, it can cover a couple hundred square miles. That coverage area goes up into the sky, as well as horizontally across the ground.

DYLAN AVERY: Actually, they’re designed to point downward.

JAMES MEIGS: The reason that they’ve improved the system was to avoid the dropped calls and to isolate the cell phone transmissions from any possible interference with the avionics.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re not going to cover any issue comprehensively. We have a lot of issues to cover, and I'd like to turn now to an excerpt --

DYLAN AVERY: Yeah, the cell phone is a weak argument.

AMY GOODMAN: Why do you say that?

DYLAN AVERY: I mean, it's not our best evidence. I mean, there’s tons of things you can discuss besides the cell phone.

JASON BERMAS: Just the fact the plane is not there, I think, is our best evidence, and anyone can see that.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's turn to the Pentagon right now, in the excerpt of Loose Change that deals with the attack on the Pentagon.

JAMIE McINTYRE, Sr. Pentagon Correspondent: It might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.

NARRATOR: The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane. Indeed, from these pictures it seems that there's absolutely no trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757. But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 people found at the Pentagon. The Armed Forces DNA identification laboratory, which was responsible for the task, was also responsible for identifying the dead in Shanksville. Keep that in mind for later.

So what is a Boeing 757 made of? The exact details are not public knowledge. But what we do know is that Flight 77 had two Rolls Royce RB211 engines, made of steel and titanium alloy, which are nine feet in diameter, 12 feet long and weigh six tons each. Titanium has a melting point of 1,688 degrees Celsius. Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, which can maintain a constant temperature of 1,120 degrees Celsius after 40 minutes, but only if the fuel source is maintained. The fuel would have burned off immediately upon impact. Therefore, it is scientifically impossible that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by jet fuel.

AMY GOODMAN: Dylan Avery, the narrator and filmmaker of Loose Change, a film that is getting tremendous attention. Millions of people have downloaded it. Dylan and Jason are here in New York in this weekend of the anniversary giving out thousands of copies of the film. The issue of the Pentagon, David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics?

DAVID DUNBAR: Well, the clip starts with a red herring, claiming that experts say the plane was vaporized, which is untrue. And in addition, in our book and I believe even in the film, there is evidence of debris on the lawn of the Pentagon. There's plenty of debris that's been found inside the building. There were -- the largest chunk was probably the landing gear that punched through the C-ring to make that 16-foot exit hole. So there's plenty of physical evidence, including the flight data recorder and forensics that were done, that there was a 757 that struck the Pentagon. And I'm still waiting, after five years, to see any physical evidence of any kind that would indicate that it was a missile or anything else that hit the Pentagon.

AMY GOODMAN: Dylan Avery.

DYLAN AVERY: Well, I mean, we've been waiting five years to see clear video of what actually happened at the Pentagon. And you guys are coming on and saying that you’re experts on the fact, when nobody has seen what has happened. You guys claim to have seen photographs that have been released just to you. And I want to know why those haven't been released to the public.

AMY GOODMAN: What photographs have you seen?

DAVID DUNBAR: Can I add a point about that? I am not coming on this show and presenting myself as an expert in metallurgy or structural engineering. I'm coming on the show as the editor of this book. And what do we do? We do what you would do, Amy, or any other journalist would do. We talk to people who are experts in the field. And that's what we did with this book in order to debunk these 9/11 myths. I highly recommend it for documentary filmmakers or anybody else who wants to look at the data. That’s what we did. We talked to people who were there at the scene. We talked to structural engineers. We talked to aviation crash experts.

AMY GOODMAN: Jason Berman.

JASON BERMAS: Ms. Goodman, I'd just like to address the fact that they have claimed that they have 84 videos through a FOIA request pertaining to what did strike the Pentagon. But the bottom line is, nothing should have struck the Pentagon. We know through the 9/11 Commission testimony that Norman Mineta, the head of the Transportation Department, was in a bunker with Cheney prior to the Pentagon strike. Now, this is the only three-and-a-half minutes out of the hundreds of hours that’s been censored by C-SPAN. Why? Because he says he's in a bunker with Cheney, and an aide walks in and says, “Sir, the plane is 50 miles out. Sir, the plane is 30 miles out. Do the orders still stand?” Cheney snaps his head around and says, “Of course, the orders still stand.”

By the time it was ten miles out, it was too late, and the Pentagon was struck. That is a direct stand down order. And if you listen to the NORAD tapes, later on some of these people are actually tracking these planes, asking to shoot them down, and they’re getting a negative shoot-down order. Why is that significant? Well, in June of 2001, Cheney signs a DOD memo putting shoot-down orders in his hands, Rumsfeld' hands and Bush's hands alone, where it was standard operating procedure if colonels were to intercept these planes and they saw a threat, they could do the shoot-down order.

JAMES MEIGS: Let's back up a little bit.

AMY GOODMAN: Jim Meigs of Popular Mechanics.

JAMES MEIGS: We started talking about physical evidence for an aircraft hitting the Pentagon, that an aircraft was seen by hundreds of people, eyewitnesses. The wreckage was removed from the Pentagon. The bodies were removed from the Pentagon and identified. None of those people have materialized to explain that this was a conspiracy.

We're not a political magazine. We're about facts. We're about what happens when airplanes crash, how buildings are built, and so we're not going back to conspiracies that might have been hatched, you know, during the Kennedy administration or other eras, but we are looking for physical evidence, positive evidence for any of these claims. Every time we get into detail on one, they fall apart.

The stand-down order is a good example. If you look at the NORAD tapes -- and Vanity Fair, the same magazine that did a very laudatory story on you guys, has a story in their current issue that includes these tapes. And what you see is it was total chaos that day. Nobody knew where the planes were. It was complete disorganization, and the protocol for how to handle a commercial aircraft that was off course was a complete mess. And, in fact, I think on September 10th, 2001, most of us would have been horrified to think that the minute a commercial aircraft goes off course there would be an F-16 on our trail with sidewinder missiles. That was not a country, I think, many of us would want to live in.

AMY GOODMAN: Jason Bermas

JASON BERMAS: What Mr. Meigs doesn't want to address is that that article clearly states that the same kind of thing were happening in the drills as what was happening on September 11th. You have comments like, "I've never seen so much real world stuff," during an exercise. You have somebody following Flight 11 for 20 minutes after it's hit the World Trade Center, and then you have Cynthia McKinney twice asking for reports on these drills, the last time in a 2005 Department of Defense budget thing from Myers and Rumsfeld, and she never gets it. And she asked them, "Well, do these war games help or hurt us?" And Richard Myers actually said, "They helped our response on 9/11," which is total nonsense.

We know at 8:45 in the morning, the CIA at the NRO building is running a drill of ramming a plane into a building. We know that FEMA was here the night before in New York City for a bio-terror drill. We also know the FAA is running drills of 20-plus hijacked jets going in and out of radar at the same exact time these four hijackings are happening. That's what he doesn't want to tell you.

DYLAN AVERY: I also want to jump in. We still have not seen any pictures of two RB211 engines, the tail section, any of that. We have not seen any significant parts of debris. And I would like to know what sources you have that the landing gear created that punch-out hole, because I have heard completely different responses. I heard the fuselage is what caused that hole.

JAMES MEIGS: There's a photo of it.

DYLAN AVERY: There's a photo of the landing gear causing that 16-foot hole?

JAMES MEIGS: There's -- you know, one of the things that you can do, the Pentagon and a number of other engineering organizations did intensive studies of what happened at the building. The building is a reinforced concrete building. The aircraft was shredded into relatively small pieces. The heavier -- some of the heavier components traveled farther, including the landing gear. You don't find an intact tail section when a large commercial aircraft hits a reinforced concrete building at 500 miles an hour. This is not a movie.

AMY GOODMAN: I do want to go to another clip of the movie, though, of the film. I want to turn to Loose Change, the part that does deal with the damage to the Pentagon. It begins with a clip of CNN's coverage on 9/11.

NARRATOR: These photos were taken before the roof of the outer ring had collapsed. The only visible damage to the outer wall is a single hole no more than 16 feet in diameter. A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, 44 feet high, has 124-foot wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons. Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from where the wings or the vertical stabilizer or the engines would have slammed into the building?

Remember how big the engines were? If six tons of steel and titanium slammed into the Pentagon at 530 miles per hour, they would bury themselves inside the building leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole with no damage from where the engines would have hit. Why are the windows next to the hole completely intact? Why are the cable spools in front of the hole unmoved?

As to the inside of the Pentagon, there's another hole approximately 16 feet in diameter found on the other side of the C-ring, three rings from the impact? For that hole to have been caused by Flight 77, the Boeing would have had to smash through nine feet of steel-reinforced concrete, traveling 310 feet. The nose of a commercial airliner is composed of lightweight carbon. This is what usually happens to the nose of a commercial airliner in a plane crash. If the nose caused this hole, where is the rest of the debris from the plane? So, what could blow a 16-foot hole on the outer ring of the Pentagon, smash through three rings, nine feet of steel-reinforced concrete and leave another 16-foot hole? A 757? Or a cruise missile?

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of Loose Change. David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics, your response?

DAVID DUNBAR: We just looked at the physical evidence, and when the filmmakers can present some evidence of a cruise missile striking the Pentagon, we'll be happy to look at it and evaluate it and talk to our experts. Just rolling the tape back a bit, the angle that the film shows of the facade of the Pentagon before it collapsed is a misleading picture. That gash in the E-ring was about 90 feet across.

DYLAN AVERY: No, it was not.

DAVID DUNBAR: The wingspan of the plane was about 124 and change, not loose change, but that punched the hole into the building. And then the landing gear was more dense and heavier and continued on through a forest of columns to smash that exit ring. So when you see that nice round hole, that's the exit ring in -- that's the exit hole in the C-ring punched by the landing gear. And Purdue University did a massive computer reenactment of the crash and the aftermath, and they worked with the American Society of Civil Engineers to preparation of their report, and it's conclusive that the plane did strike the Pentagon.

AMY GOODMAN: Dylan Avery.

DYLAN AVERY: The initial impact on the Pentagon was no more than 20 feet wide, and if you are telling me that initial round impact hole in the facade of the Pentagon is 90 feet, then you're telling me that the two windows above it are 30 feet across.

DAVID DUNBAR: And incidentally, about the windows, I'm glad you mentioned that. Those were recently replaced in the Pentagon as part of a whole renovation program designed specifically to be blast resistant after the explosions at the American embassies in East Africa.

DYLAN AVERY: I find it very convenient that Hani Hanjour decided to choose that one particular section of the Pentagon to hit, when he could have just dove straight right into the front door.

DAVID DUNBAR: In the world of paranoid conspiracy theories --

DYLAN AVERY: You're not addressing the evidence.

DAVID DUNBAR: --there are no coincidences.

DYLAN AVERY: You're not addressing the evidence.

JASON BERMAS: I would just like to say this.

AMY GOODMAN: Jason Bermas.

JASON BERMAS: The first official version was this thing bounced off the lawn and hit it, and it would appear that it would have to, because it's such a low-level hit. Okay, it didn't bounce off the lawn, because there's no scratches on the lawn. On top of that, we actually interviewed the first person on the scene before the collapse, and he was on the lawn taking video of it for twelve minutes. His name is Bob Pugh, and it is no more than a 16- to 20-foot hole. And we actually have one of the survivors who crawled out of that hole and said she saw no plane debris. Her name is April Gallup. Explain to me how a woman can come through a hole where a 757 has just impacted the building.

AMY GOODMAN: Ten seconds, Jim Meigs.

JAMES MEIGS: Yeah. We didn't fact check every detail of Loose Change, but what we did do was look at the broad cross-section of conspiracy theories. There are photographs of the plane in the building of wreckage wrapped around reinforced concrete columns, and there is a map of the path of destruction that plane tore through that area.

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to go a break. We want to get to the World Trade Center. We are talking with the editors of Popular Mechanics and the filmmakers who made the film Loose Change. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to another theory put forward by the film Loose Change, is that the fire caused by the airplane crashes wasn't actually hot enough to melt steel and cause the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center to collapse.

NARRATOR: Hyman Brown, civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager: “It was over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it. Although the buildings were designed to withstand 150-year storm and the impact of a Boeing 707, jet fuel burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit weakened the steel.”

Kevin Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories in a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology: “We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even unfireproof steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree, that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.”

Ryan's statements directly contradict statements from other experts claiming that 2,000-degree heat inside the World Trade Center caused the towers to collapse. As such, days after writing this letter, Kevin Ryan was fired from his position. Not even the experts agree with each other. So what else could have caused the Twin Towers and Building Seven to collapse?

PETER JENNINGS: 10:00 Eastern Time this morning, just collapsing on itself…

DON DAHLER: The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed.

PETER JENNINGS: We have no idea what caused this.

CNN ANCHOR: Almost looks like one of those planned implosions.

CHANNEL 8 REPORTER: As if a demolition team set off, when you see the old demolitions of these old buildings. It folded down on itself and it is not there anymore.

PETER JENNINGS: If you wish to bring -- anybody who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you are going to do this, you have to get at the under-infrastructure of a building and bring it down.

WITNESS: We heard another explosion, and I’m assuming that's the one that came from the lower level, since there were two.

INTERVIEWER: Right, because it was like 18 minutes apart.

WITNESS: Well, this is -- no, the first explosion. Then there was a second explosion in the same building. There were two explosions.

INTERVIEWER: Okay.

WITNESS 2: Federal agencies that were down there do believe that there was some sort of explosive device somewhere else besides the planes hitting.

NBC ANCHOR: NBC’s Pat Dawson is close to the scene of that attack. Pat?

PAT DAWSON: Just moments ago, I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department. The chief, Albert Turi, he received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is, another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could. But he said that there was another explosion, which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here. He thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of the film Loose Change. And as we broadcast today at this time in the live broadcast, it's the time of the first plane hitting the first tower of the World Trade Center. Jim Meigs, the editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics, your response to this aspect in Loose Change?

JAMES MEIGS: Yeah, well, that clip is interesting. It’s built largely around the testimony of a guy named Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories. In fact, it turns out his expertise was testing water. He wasn't involved in steel at all. This fact has been widely known, and yet for quite some time -- and even a lot of other conspiracy theorists have backed away from that, and yet it's in the film. And it looks so convincing when you see it, if you don't take the time to go back and do the background research. And if you notice, so many of the clips in that section come from the day of, the day after.

And it ends -- or along the way, don't they say something like, even the experts don't agree? In fact, the experts do agree. The collapse of the World Trade Center is the most intensively studied engineering failure in world history, and thousands of pages of reports, experts, some affiliated with various branches of government, major engineering schools, there's no indication in any of that work to support any of these ideas of demolition or anything like that. And the things that are cited tend to be the experts who on close investigation turn out to have no expertise or first impressions of people on the scene who, of course, heard all kinds of horrible noises and confusing, terrible things in the chaos of that day.

AMY GOODMAN: Jason Bermas.

DYLAN AVERY: Well, real quick, I just want to jump in and say, Kevin Ryan has been open about his statement. He has always been public about the fact that he worked for the -- I don’t remember the exact name, but it was a subdivision of Underwriters Laboratories, which did water testing. But it was the fact that he got the higher-up from -- he got the word from his higher-ups that they actually had certified the steel and, I mean, his science still adds up.

DAVID DUNBAR: In fact, Underwriter Laboratories does not certify structural steel.

DYLAN AVERY: Oh, okay.

JASON BERMAS: I would disagree with that. But aside from the hundreds of witnesses’ accounts of bombs going off in the building, I would just like to go to the official version. They are saying that the intense heat from the impact holes was so intense that it weakened the steel, causing it to do a pancake collapse on top of itself. This is simply a lie. We know two minutes before the first building, which was struck second and burned for less time, we had firefighters in the impact zone saying that they could knock down the fires with two lines, two hand lines. Now, I ask you, can human beings stand in 1,500-degree temperature, 1,200-degree temperature, 600-degree temperature? The answer is: no, they cannot.

JAMES MEIGS: Jason, I think it's telling that every time you disagree with something you call the people a liar.

JASON BERMAS: I'm not calling anybody a liar, sir. I'm calling you a liar, because you are a liar. These people were not lying. They knew they could knock down this fire. They radioed down. They said they could knock it down with two hand lines and literally less than two minutes later, the building imploded on itself. And what you won’t see in the clip there, but you can see at seeloosechange.com, again, for free, are the isolated blast points, 20, 40, and 60 floors below the supposed pancake collapse. And these are blast points. These are not pressure coming from air. And doubt me, because if you watch the first plane hitting the building, the only video of it, you actually see one of these blast points go off 20 stories above that impact, and they try to say that the building is blown out on the bottom level, first floor, right? First of all, the World Trade Center goes into the Port Authority. So why did it go 1,300 feet down the elevator shafts, explode -- decide to explode in the bottom level, leave no fire marks. I mean, it literally knocked off 15-foot panels --

DYLAN AVERY: I would also --

JASON BERMAS: -- of marble and left no burn marks. Marble, when you put fire on it, begins to turn yellow and brown rapidly. Look at the video evidence.

AMY GOODMAN: Dylan Avery?

DYLAN AVERY: I would just like to quickly jump in and ask what your guys’ explanation is for Willie Rodriguez's testimony that he heard, experienced, and his co-workers were actually burned, by an explosion in the basement of the North Tower, prior to the plane hitting? And this has been verified by at least twenty different eyewitnesses.

AMY GOODMAN: Jim Meigs, of Popular Mechanics.

JAMES MEIGS: The -- when the planes struck the buildings, they penetrated the internal core. Jet fuel poured down stairwells and elevator shafts, setting off secondary explosions, not to mention the horrific impact of these fully loaded planes hitting the structure and causing enormous swaying.

DYLAN AVERY: Mr. Meigs --

JAMES MEIGS: Give me a second to finish, Dylan. It's interesting, in that testimony, he says that somebody came out of the elevator area with his skin hanging off. That would be consistent with a fire, not an explosion. And you had a short clip of Naudet brothers’ documentary about that day and of them entering the lobby, but what you didn’t have was their voiceover, where they say they saw humans on fire, which again would be completely consistent with what we saw in all the reports on this, that jet fuel came down the elevator shafts. People died. We're talking about real human beings here, you know. This wasn't a movie. This isn’t a parlor game.

JASON BERMAS: We are talking about real human beings --

DYLAN AVERY: Bermas, Bermas, relax for a second.

JASON BERMAS: -- and we respect them with the truth, sir.

DYLAN AVERY: Relax for a second.

DAVID DUNBAR: It’s interesting to note, too, that --

DYLAN AVERY: But you still didn’t address the fact that it was before.

DAVID DUNBAR: -- conspiracy theorists sometimes cite the Empire State Building crash back in 1945: that building’s still standing, why are the Twin Towers down? But what’s interesting about that 1945 crash -- it was a much smaller plane going at a much lower speed -- it had similarities in terms of the fuel pouring down the elevator shafts and stairwells and, in fact, igniting fires in the lobby of the Empire State Building.

JASON BERMAS: Sir, hold on. True or false: the claim is that this fuel knocked the fireproofing off all the steel, correct? That's the claim?

DAVID DUNBAR: No, nobody’s claiming it knocked it off all the steel. It knocked it off approximately 60,000 square feet.

JASON BERMAS: Well, that’s false.

JAMES MEIGS: The impact, the impact.

DAVID DUNBAR: The impact. The impact of the plane.

JASON BERMAS: Another lie.

DAVID DUNBAR: [inaudible] through the impact [inaudible].

AMY GOODMAN: Now, we only have a few minutes, and I want to get to Building Seven. Dylan Avery what is your thesis of what happened to Building Seven?

DYLAN AVERY: Sure. Well, basically, which is -- this is one thing that a lot of people don't know about September 11th, myself included, until I started doing the research. At 5:20 p.m. on September 11th, World Trade Center Building Seven -- it was a 47-story steel-frame skyscraper 300 feet to the north of the North Tower -- at 5:20 p.m. this building collapses in under seven seconds completely into its own footprint into a debris pile about six or seven stories high. Now, it wasn't hit by a plane. It was hit by debris from the North Tower when it fell. But, if you look at all the buildings surrounding the World Trade Center, and if you actually look at Building Five, which is right underneath both the Twin Towers, that building is engulfed in flames for hours after Building Seven even collapses.

So, we have all the buildings surrounding the Twin Towers heavily engulfed with debris, some engulfed in flames. We have World Trade Center Building Seven, which has isolated fires on floor seven and twelve. It has smoke coming from its south face, and these guys claim that 25% of the building was scooped out. Even if 25% of the bottom of the building was scooped out, that still does not account for the building falling in perfect freefall into --

AMY GOODMAN: And your thesis about what happened? What do you believe?

DYLAN AVERY: It would have had to have been a controlled demolition. That's the only way to prove -- that’s the only way to explain what we saw with our own eyes, and any attempts to discredit that are just not scientifically sound.

JAMES MEIGS: You know, this is a wonderful example of how conspiracy theories work. Any time there’s a little bit of doubt, a little bit of area where we don't know everything, then the answer immediately is, well, someone must have blown it up. It’s a form of argumentation that’s also used by creationists. If they can find one little gap in the evolutionary record, they say evolution’s a hoax. Or Holocaust deniers --

DYLAN AVERY: Mr. Meigs, with all do respect, these are two completely different things.

JAMES MEIGS: Holocaust denial works with very similar --

DYLAN AVERY: Oh, my God!

JASON BERMAS: Oh, man!

JAMES MEIGS: And, but what we see here is -- one of our sources was Vincent Dunn, the retired deputy fire chief for the New York City Fire Department, who wrote the textbook, The Collapse of Burning Buildings. And what he explained is that the building was extremely unconventional. It had this giant Con Ed substation with enormous trusses carrying extraordinarily high loads, very vulnerable to fire and other kinds of damage. It was not a conventional skyscraper by a long shot. Those fires burned unfought for seven hours, fed by diesel tanks that were in the building to fuel backup generators. And when those trusses ultimately failed, the building did collapse in its own footprint. That's what happens when a building's internal supports fail.

AMY GOODMAN: We only have about one minute and we have to divide it. Can you respond to that point and make your larger point?

JASON BERMAS: Please let me respond to that.

DYLAN AVERY: Go ahead, Bermas.

JASON BERMAS: On top of everything he said, that’s where everybody rushed to for the local government, okay? We have somebody who was on the 23rd floor, okay, working with the local government, being escorted by fire fighters. He gets down to the eighth floor, huge explosion in Building Seven. Bomb goes off. Okay, this is his words, not mine: “Why are there explosives in Building Seven.” On top of that, there have been five different reasons why it fell. They’re trying to say generators, there was a big fuel tank, there’s a 20-story thing scooped out of the building, all of which is false, because they don’t know.

DYLAN AVERY: They keep changing their explanations for why the building fell.

JASON BERMAS: And I would say this, the 9/11 Commission Report actually has the nerve in a footnote to say that it collapsed in 18 seconds. Look for yourself and time it. It’s no more than 7 seconds.

AMY GOODMAN: And who do you believe blew up Building Seven?

DYLAN AVERY: We don’t want to try to implicate anybody. We’re just trying to tell people to go out and research for themselves. But, I mean, you have to ask yourself, who could have possibly placed explosives inside Word Trade Center Building Seven, secretly without anyone noticing, and especially the Twin Towers?

JASON BERMAS: Especially because the CIA, the DOD, the Secret Service are all located there.

DYLAN AVERY: Yeah, I mean, that building was a government hotspot.

AMY GOODMAN: Ten seconds, Jim Meigs.

JAMES MEIGS: You know, conspiracies have a way of constantly expanding. You just listed a whole range of government agencies. Apparently the fire fighters we talked to, we at Popular Mechanics, other journalists, our friend David Corn at The Nation is accused to being part of this massive cover-up. The fact is, there are always little details that don't always add up until you finish your research.

DYLAN AVERY: Mr. Meigs, you’re still not addressing the evidence.

JAMES MEIGS: But when you really dig down, every single one of these has a clear explanation. And if there's areas that don't, let's continue to dig. We should be skeptical. We should ask questions. By all means, we fully support the effort to get to the bottom of any remaining questions.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there. David Dunbar and Jim Meigs of Popular Mechanics, and Jason Bermas and Dylan Avery of Loose Change, I want to thank you all for being with us.

=====================================

Submitted by u2r2h on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 10:34pm.

911 = inside job -- Report on USA grassroots TRUTH MOVEMENT (you! ;-)

(the biggest and best) German Internet Magazine TELEPOLIS reports:

[Image]

Inside job?

Haiko Lietz 11.09.2006

Five years after the attacks from 11 September 2001 in the USA a considerable grass root movement developed, which makes circles of the own government directly responsible for the disaster
Four of ten Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was involved personally into the planning of the notices from 11 September 2001. Each third believes to pull that circles of the US Government are involved into the notices directly or did consciously nothing to stop her in order political profit from the situation. How can that be done together? The shock, which population of US suffered before five years, is to be still felt. In addition, the paradox is the product of a gigantic propaganda machine, which feeds the population with the information, until it does not know many no more that they are to believe. America is extremely distrustful. The popularity values of the government are in the cellar. Increasingly it loses the interpretation sovereignty over 9/11. In order to counter this trend, the State department the arguments of the critics on a particularly furnished web page tries to weaken. Who are the critics and which are their arguments? A report over the “New York 9/11 Truth” - movement.

[ ANIMATED PICTURE OF WTC 7 COLLAPSE ]

By the front a shock wave runs… the roof curves inward… then collapses the 47-stöckige multistoried building nearly dead-straight. Within seven seconds - in free fall speed - World trade center 7 fell into its own foundation. How could WTC7 together-sag in such a manner in itself, although it had not been met by an airplane? The steal-strengthened building would be third in the history of the highrise building construction, which collapsed due to a fire. First the two would be the twin Towers. The thesis of an increasing number of Americans: The airplanes were not trips of the collapses, verschworene circles of the government them blow up let.

Ministers franc Morales, diagram designer Les Jamieson and a handful of aids load each Sunday for the info. and discussion evening of the “New Yorker ones 9/11 Truth” - group in pc. Mark's Church in Downtown one-had in. Jamieson is the organizing head, Morales makes available the area and discussed passionately also.

READ THE REST HERE:

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://193.99.144.85/tp/...

More interesting (machine translated) articles:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://193.99.144.85...

Scrap Book - Doco - Documentation - Media Snippets

Monday, May 28, 2007

Iraqi OIl worth 29 trillion USD and other 911 blogger postings

'Terror Timeline' author raises questions about 9-11

Is It on DVD?

Here?

http://www.thenewamerican.com

9/11: Press The Truth

The movie is certainly

exactly

recipe

Right on Trashaero!

LC2E, Sept11REvisited TerrorStorm

Include a David Ray Griffin lecture

Excellent choices!

9/11: Press For Truth

9/11 Press For Truth indeed

I just downloaded the XVID

Despicable MSM articles....

Measure up your theories against this clever write-up.

No matter how much perfume

Americans

What's with the tiny font?

close the html next time

I sent this to ctv.ca feedback

A LOT of articles about 911 conspiracies ...

Newspaper Snippets .

My Reply to The Progressive

Iraqi Oil worth 29 trillion (times 10!)

Nice one

Correction

does it?

Rumors of Iraq's oil potential have been greatly exaggerated

Oil Sands are the 2nd "largest"

Also supports Palast theory

Book Review: The Terror Conspiracy (Jim Marrs)

Vendor Suggestion

Yes, Support Gabriel Day (n/t)

What does "n/t" mean?

n/t = no text. It's common

Demolition proof - this convinced me as never:

check out Dr Jones on thermite

but that let me see it with my own eyes...

yes

A must see!!

Report From NYC

TRANSCRIPT DEMOCRACY NOW: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics

911 = inside job -- Report on USA grassroots TRUTH MOVEMENT (you! ;-)

Inside job?

0 Comments:

Previous Posts