Mainstreaming 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

This is the chance for the mainstream media to redeem itself for it's generally lazy, ideological, partisan hackery that it has been inflicting on the people lately. With the "Truth" movement gaining mainstream traction, now is the time to put this baby to bed, once and for all- even on the off chance the Truthers are right. Like a sliver in the bottom of your foot that's been ignored, this 9/11 conspiracy movement has been festering in the shadows, slowly bringing in converts. Well, there is no better cure for infection than to be brought into the light (did I just mix my metaphors? Whatever.) The truly insidious thing about this is that a lot of the stuff makes sense to the average Joe and Jane Schmoe who know jack squat about architecture, physics and what have you. Very good friends of mine watched some "documentary" on the web and found it all very convincing-- because they don't know any better-- just like the people who come up with these theories. And then along comes an "expert" to lend these proceedings an air of respectability, and then you start adding Celebrities.

Here are a list of some of the main points in the Truther Conspiracy:

• The Fire from the jet fuel wasn't hot enough to melt steel, ergo demolitions had to have been used.

• The concrete clouds shooting out of the towers as they fell are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions, ergo, demolitions had to have been used.

• Seven hours after the towers fell, WTC 7 collapsed for no apparent reason, ergo demolitions.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg, not even going into theories about the Pentagon or United 93.

The answers are out there. Whaddya think, O-Nerds? Pick a theory and give it your best shot, pro or con.

to argue 9/11 was not orchestrated to start an endless war and take our freedom by criminal elements of the u.s. government is like arguing Halo even comes close to comparing to Half-Life... i put it in nerd speak for you.

"there are none so blind as those who choose not to see"

Here we go...

I know jack squat about architecture, physics, and what have you, but ignoring that, I see very little basis for conspiratorial claims. Mr. McGovern said that "staged terror attacks across Europe and the U.S. are "probable" in order to justify a potential invasion of Iran." But, Iran is as yet uninvaded (and if that changes, it will be mostly their own fault). Moreover, Ahmadinejad became president in 2005, four years after the terror attacks. And the clandestine nuclear program was not revealed until 2002. Before then, what was our particular problem with Iran? Was it really that big a threat?

Mr. Roberts asserts an energy deficit, but provides no attempt to calculate one. Without any hard evidence, what is there to prove? He does have a Ph.D. from Georgia Tech, so what gives?

Mr. Jones... His case is an unfortunate one. After publishing some presumably scientific work on his alternate hypothesis, his colleagues abandoned him, and his University put him out to pasture. Cover-up? The question is, even if his work had been submitted and reviewed by the proper venues, would the reaction have been the same?

Admittedly, this is neither a conclusive nor scientific rebuttal.

I have been researching 9/11 for over four years and there are serious unanswered questions from that day. Although, most in the mainstream media and lots of others call anyone that questions the official story a nut job, crazy or unpatriotic I asked you to check into the story for yourself. People are attacked for proposing alternative theories without discussing the subject matter of what the person is proposing. See ad hominem logical argument.

In regards to the truth of 9/11 coming into the mainstream, there is alot of attention on Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen and Mark Cuban who are subsequently marginalized as kooky, what would you call the hundreds of professors, politicians, high ranking military officials and survivors that question the official story? See www.patriotsquestion911.com. You will be surprised to see there are well respected people out there that think the official story is untrue.

There are many important unanswered questions from 9/11, I will propose 5. I hope you investigate these for yourself.

1) Never in the history of steel structures has a building collapsed from fire yet 3 did on 9/11; WTC tower 1,2 & 7. All three buildings came down at free fall speed with no resistance; tower 7 was never hit by an airplane yet came down symmetrically in seven seconds?

See video of the implosion of world trade center 7 here (you will be shocked) http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

Additionally odd, tower 2 fell before tower 1 although tower 1 was hit first and tower 2 was hit with a glancing blow. The explosion/ collapse in tower 2 started above where the plane hit the tower?

2) There is no large plane wreckage in front of the Pentagon from the 757 that hit it. Taking from the official story, the 757 that hit the pentagon flew over a highway, parallel and 15 to 20 feet above the ground and impacted the pentagon between the 1st and 2nd floor. (Official story) The airplane did not leave any markings or large debris (ex wings) on the front of the pentagon. The 757 supposedly was sucked into a 16ft by 24ft hole, before the ceiling collapsed a 1/2 hour later, and incinerated. How did this plane hit only 15 ft above the ground after descending so rapidly without ever hitting the ground and flown by an amateur pilot? The 3 slides the pentagon released to the public shows a small shaped device flying horizontally, very low to the ground and leaving a small smoke trail. How come the Pentagon has not released video from the cameras mounted on the roof? Lastly, after traveling through three rings of the Pentagon, the plane or whatever it was left a small circular exit hole in the third ring.

3. All four hijacked planes flew for an average of 40 minutes, 1 hour 50 minutes total, without any fighter jet intercept over NY and Washington. As you are aware, NY and Washington are some of the most protected airspace in the world.

4. Where is the plane wreckage from the plane crash in Shanksville, PA? In pictures and video all you see is a small ditch with no fires, plane debris, seats, bodies, etc.?

5. How were the Patriot Act and the War on Terror so quickly developed after 9/11? Was this new program a reaction to 9/11 or something that was worked on before September 11th and just conveniently ready for a terrorist attack?

9/11 was an inside job, a false flag operation. Sadly, the sophistication of this operation points more towards state sponsored terrorism than Osama and a small group of amateur pilots. How often have our leaders evoked the memory of 9/11 to rally our people for certain causes (i.e. Iraq)?

Fight on in peace. I hope you decide to investigate the truth of 9/11 for yourself.

Namaste

Shawn Cooper

PS For a summary and the best documentary of 9/11 I recommend watching Loose Change 2. You can watch it for free here-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+2&hl=en

Or visit www.wtc7.net or www.st911.org and start your own research...

A previously unapreciated Rosie O'donnel became my hero today for voicing what it is that any simple-minded free thinker must already be aware of but is either afraid or just too compliant. That took guts Rosie and perhaps more people will be inspired to think on there own rather than blindly following the fairytale of mainstream U.S. media. POWER-ON ROSIE!!!

Is that traction like in a tractor pull at some fairground?

What do you call that?

The "among others" truth traction?

I'm not a structural engineer; I have no background in it. Truthfully, I accepted the general consensus. After reviewing the 9/11 Truth movement writings, I decided to look at this on my own.

The first two articles I found here and here indicate (mostly) that fire did not 'melt' the steel. In that respect; the media was errant (or maybe over-simplfied) in their explanation. However, both sites provide interesting conclusions that are nearly identical in that it was structural damage on the floors hit by the 747's that caused the collapse.

I know from experience that security was lax prior to 9/11. My laptop case carried a small network toolkit that contained (among many other items) a 3 1/2" knife. More than sufficient to cause serious harm to anyone. I carried that on every flight I made for two years without a single question from the gate security. Most flights I was on, you could have opened the cockpit door easily; they weren't locked.

4-5 people could have easily taken control of a plane with few passengers; look how easily one person can rob a bank with 30 or 40 customers in it. No one wants to be the 'human sacrifice'. Except for the plane that crashed here in PA--but they already knew what was up.

Sorry, the conspiracy theory doesn't really wash well--especially if you have read/seen how building collapses are done in real life.

If you have done your research and you still believe the official story, you are either incredibly stupid or a part of a parade where the blind lead the deaf

Tongue FIRMLY planted in my cheek

Scene: Deep in the Command Center of W4rl0ck (his mothers' basement)

"No man, I swear I know this is true because, like, I cracked the servers that belong to the New World Order, man." (drinking deeply of yet another Mountain Dew and tossing can into growing mountain of dew cans behind him.)"Man I swear I have it right here on my hard drive--it was the conspiracy of all conspiracies. The NWO joined forces with the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral commission, AND the whole thing was financed by the WTO through the World Bank."

In other words, the whole conspriracy theory of 9/11 is about as plausible as any other conspiracy theory of world dominance.