The Audacity of Controlled Demolitions

One of the weirder sideshows in the Barack Obama campaign is the presence of 9/11 "Truthers" - various wings of the unconnected movement to launch a new investigation into whether terrorists actually brought down the World Trade Center. One Truther got a plum position at Obama's Austin, Texas rally and hoisted a "Investigate 9/11" sign for most of the speech, in full view of media shutterbugs. Now there's a YouTube video from Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth where, after bothering some Obamaniacs about their theories, group founder Justin Martel (who looks uncannily like a guy who used to show up to Chicago-area Guided by Voices shows and force whiskeys on Bob Pollard) gets in the candidate's face.

MARTEL: Senator Obama, I'm the founder of Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth and...
OBAMA: Good to see you.
MARTEL: Will you stand behind Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul in calling for a new investigation into 9/11?
OBAMA: You know, I think we need to investigate a whole range of options, although I have to be honest, some of the issues you guys have raised I'm not entirely confident are the truth.
MARTEL: Thank you for answering.
OBAMA: You're welcome.

Uh, what's Martel referring to? I know Ron Paul criticized the 9/11 Commission, but he doesn't have the Aaron Russo view that the events of 9/11 are so shadowy that we need to re-investigate them.

In any case, the 9/11 Truthers are one of the biggest argument against traditional media hacking I've ever seen - they can force themselves into the frame at political rallies, anti-war demos, and honest-to-God 9/11 memorials and reporters adhere to a secret treaty not to cover them. With reason, as there's no reason these guys are more newsworthy than the average Larouche Tabernacle Choir.

(Side note: Obama's response to Martel is a pretty good, as these things go, but he can't top the moment in the movie Feed when a prankster asks Bill Clinton if he's pro-choice and then says "How many abortions have you personally made necessary?" Clinton holds up his hand in an "o" shape and bellows: "ZERO! Zero!" Then he gladhandles the guy until most of the cameras move on.)

UPDATE: Here's that Buzz Aldrin video mentioned in the comments. Best punch since Chris Makepeace slugged Matt Dillon.

Comments

Guy Montag | April 5, 2007, 9:43am | #

So, why are these people so much easier to find than ANYBODY in-the-flesh who believes Iraq was behind 9/11?

The latter keep getting quoted in polls that Leftists use for their 'arguments' against people who do not agree with them. Especially if they are of the Leftist-surrender-monkey variety.

Odd that the press is not covering them "with reason" and continue the rumor about "70% of Americans believe Iran == 9/11". Seems that both stem from the same reason.

Cab | April 5, 2007, 9:50am | #

Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth

I love the use of the word 'scholars' in this organization's name.

It reminds of the movie Borat when he called those guys in the RV "young scholars" just because they were in college.

David | April 5, 2007, 9:52am | #

So, why are these people so much easier to find than ANYBODY in-the-flesh who believes Iraq was behind 9/11?


Well, they are a more active, in your face breed of nut that the Iraq believers. Plus, I think a good percentage of them do it for attention.

Bryan | April 5, 2007, 9:57am | #

Dammit Weigel, I disagree with you a lot, but I respect a reference to GBV. Especially an obscure reference to one of its fans that used to show up and make Pollard drink. Nice work.

Pro Libertate | April 5, 2007, 9:58am | #

Obama should've slugged him. Like Buzz Aldrin with that Moon Hoax™ dude.

Missed an opportunity to get my vote, anyway.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 10:02am | #

I know Ron Paul criticized the 9/11 Commission

Well, there was that "Ron Paul blames the FAA for 9/11" video that was just linked here at HnR. So, watch that for a start.

Figuring out why the air defense response on 9/11 was so slow is a great thing to investigate, IMO, and long overdue.

oh, and, yeah: Flt 93 was shot down.

And WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Other than that stuff, the official story is probably pretty much accurate.

Ethan | April 5, 2007, 10:11am | #

I have had a few debates with these folks who think that F93 was shot down (or that it never existed at all), that WTC Building 7 was a controlled demolition and that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. I don't know what the truth really is, but I found their evidence to be sorely lacking. Their most common argumentative tactic, in my experience, was to respond to my questioning of their claims with the accusation that I was working with the feds to discredit them. The constant ad hominems became wearisome, and so I exited the discussion. Oh yeah, and they started blaming "the Jews."

Lamar | April 5, 2007, 10:13am | #

I've always been a little shocked that we basically had two F-15s protecting the entire eastern seaboard. Of course, it is consistent with Don Rumsfeld's "do it on the cheap" philosophy.

Guy Montag | April 5, 2007, 10:14am | #

PL,

Like Buzz Aldrin with that Moon Hoax™ dude.

Well, if he had been confronted by this Moon story Aldrin would have folded like a cheap tent!

Guy Montag | April 5, 2007, 10:16am | #

Lamar,

Just what would we have more that 2 F-15s flying around, armed and wasting gas for? The Chinese airforce invasion? The Russian one? The french one? The Cuban one?

Oh yea, it is part of the 9/11 was setup thing.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 10:16am | #

I have had a few debates with these folks who think that F93 was shot down . . . they started blaming "the Jews."

Yeah, it is popular to stereotype all the people who fail to believe any aspect of the official story. They are all the same. They are all anti-semitic. They are LaRouchites. And so on. Pretty weak, if you ask me.

SmartGuy Peter McHollis | April 5, 2007, 10:16am | #

I've always been a little shocked that we basically had two F-15s protecting the entire eastern seaboard. Of course, it is consistent with Don Rumsfeld's "do it on the cheap" philosophy.

Right, to me the real scandal of 9/11 is that we have a multi-trillion dollar military dedicated to "defense" but for some reason it only takes 19 inexperienced men to lauch a major attack.

VM | April 5, 2007, 10:26am | #

Cab | April 5, 2007, 9:50am | #
Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth
I love the use of the word 'scholars' in this organization's name.

Like when the embassy was stormed and taken back in 79 by Iranian "students".

do you remember the SNL skit about that:
people dressed up as hollywood style "arabs" with "terrorist" expressions walk into a CIA office
["student" 1] we are students from the middle east
["student" 2] but not Lybia
[1] um, yes. we are interested, for a school project, on terror
[2] but not lybian school

etc. etc. etc.

Paul Bannister | April 5, 2007, 10:26am | #

David: I see why this is called "Hit & Run". You hit 9/11 activists, then you run away.

Ethan: playing the "they are blaming the Jews" card is pathetic. There are some very well researched and exhaustive investigations by bloggers and such out there, and not one of them pins the blame on members of a single religion. But you wish they did, so you can call them "anti-semites".

The most common claim is that people in high levels in the government assisted in making 9/11 happen. The evidence is quite abundant. Google it and decide if you think its credible. Building 7, upon a closer look, is incredibly suspicious in its collapse. That the Commission Report ignores this event completely is incriminating.

If there wasn't evidence of a cover-up, perhaps there wouldn't be tens of millions of Americans who think the official story is a lie and a cover-up of what really happened.

The 9/11 Truth Movement is growing at an astronomical rate and can't be ignored. So keep trying to plug the holes in the mainstream media wall, David. But eventually the dam is going to break.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 10:26am | #

Just what would we have more that 2 F-15s flying around, armed and wasting gas for? The Chinese airforce invasion? The Russian one? The french one? The Cuban one?

1. To answer your 1st question: I don't think anybody said anything about them flying around.

2. To answer questions 2-5: yes, yes, yes and yes.

3. Now a question for you: What kind of prior announcement would you have an enemy give us before having our defenses at the ready?


2.

Guy Montag | April 5, 2007, 10:27am | #

Right, to me the real scandal of 9/11 is that we have a multi-trillion dollar military dedicated to "defense" but for some reason it only takes 19 inexperienced men to lauch a major attack.

Yea, we did not "connect the dots" before and the new Congress sure as hell is not going to let us start now.

Guy Montag | April 5, 2007, 10:31am | #

The most common claim is that people in high levels in the government assisted in making 9/11 happen. The evidence is quite abundant. Google it and decide if you think its credible. Building 7, upon a closer look, is incredibly suspicious in its collapse. That the Commission Report ignores this event completely is incriminating.

Yes and this wacky claim is much more common than any "Iraq did it" claim. Somehow, the "we did it" version never shows up in a poll or quoted by a 'blogger, or by a 'journalist' and the latter does all of the time. Just ask those two goofballs I ignore here.

Ryo | April 5, 2007, 10:31am | #

I'm sorry but saying that the "9/11 Truth Movement" has validity because so many people believe it is akin to saying McDonald's hamburgers are probably worth eating because millions eat them every day.

Paul Bannister | April 5, 2007, 10:35am | #

Responding to the McDonald's reference:

It's more like this...

9/11 Commission Report = McDonalds Hamburger

9/11 Truth Movement = Healthy Alternative

VikingMoose | April 5, 2007, 10:37am | #

Greetings Paul. I'm Viking Moose.

I'd like to introduce you to a good friend of mine. INCIF.

INCIF, this is Paul. Paul, welcome to the INCIF!

Pro Libertate | April 5, 2007, 10:37am | #

Guy Montag,

Well, when I asked my 11-year old stepdaughter how far away the Moon was, she said, "Five thousand feet".

The kids are always arguing over who has to shower first. I used to use the arbitrary and capricious methods appropriate in the home, if not in our government, but I decided it would be more fun to give them trivia questions. Whoever gets it right (or close to right, depending on the question) gets to decide which of the other children bathes first. They love that part of it. From this exercise I've learned that the sun is eight billion miles away, and the circumference of the Earth is several million miles.

The 9/11 conspiracy crap is just that. The various claims are no less unreasonable than those about the Moon landing. Go read Popular Mechanics. . .or are they part of the millions of people involved in the plot? There may be a few things we don't know about the attacks or our response to them, but the idea that our own government did this is silly from the get-go, and the lack of evidence or a confession is rather telling. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

dhex | April 5, 2007, 10:37am | #

"If there wasn't evidence of a cover-up, perhaps there wouldn't be tens of millions of Americans who think the official story is a lie and a cover-up of what really happened."

popularity makes something more likely to be true?

that's fascinating.

"Yes and this wacky claim is much more common than any "Iraq did it" claim."

seeing as this has been beaten into the ground by years of failed warfare, there might be a reason for that.

joe | April 5, 2007, 10:38am | #

"Just what would we have more that 2 F-15s flying around, armed and wasting gas for?"

The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

jake | April 5, 2007, 10:46am | #

The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

So what? Are you saying it is the responsbility of the US Air Force to defend against a handful of non-uniformed criminals?

Guy Montag | April 5, 2007, 10:47am | #

PL,

Um, did you think that moon joke was serious?

Paul Bannister | April 5, 2007, 10:48am | #

Dhex:

Yes, that's what I'm saying. If there wasn't so much evidence implicating involvement of people in our government, then the 9/11 Commission Report would continue to be accepted by our society. But there are so many holes in it, it can't be anymore.

It's really not a complicated concept. When something is suspicious, people suspect things, rightly or wrongly.

But your arguments, and that of many of so-called libertarians I've come across, revolve around the same concept of "Just because people suspect a conspiracy, doesn't mean its true".

How many people suspect OJ Simpson is not innocent, even though he was acquitted? By your standards, because people are skeptical about it, then it means HE MUST BE INNOCENT!

Give me a break. Try looking at all the problems with the official story before getting all philosophical on us.

I believed the official version for years, until I actually took the time to order the report and realize it is a huge cover up courtesy of Phil Zelikow's executive direction.

Some James | April 5, 2007, 10:49am | #

I just don't understand how these truthers can have that much faith in the competence of the government and the ability of people to keep secrets.

Has the entire rest of the Bush Administration just been a ploy to make their incompetence around 9/11 (and before and since) more believable?

How does Bush manage to be simultaneously retarded and cunningly diabolical in so many peoples' minds?

stephen the goldberger | April 5, 2007, 10:49am | #

why isn't anyone talking about the fact that there were so many jews in new york that day?

joe | April 5, 2007, 10:49am | #

As far as 9/11 conspiracies go, the only thing that doesn't make sense to me is the assertion that Cheney received Bush's permission to give the shoot-down order.

There were three people - Lynne Cheney, Scooter Libby, and the secretary in the room - who were taking notes of what transpired among the principles the White House, and not one of them wrote down a single note indicated that the phone call in which Bush supposedly gave Cheney that authority ever took place.

Not his wife. Not his Chief of Staff. Nobody. But in their unsworn, unrecorded testimony, which they gave at the same time, sitting next to each other, Bush and Cheney both told the commission that the conversation had taken place, and the commission reported it as fact.

And no, Flight 93 was not shot down. By the time Cheney gave the order, it had already crashed.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 10:50am | #

Just ask those two goofballs I ignore here.

1. I don't think the US, nor the Israeli, nor any other, government did 9/11.

2. I think Iraq may have had a hand in Oklahoma City, although, as Pro Libertate correctly points out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

3. TWA 800 is another one that seems pretty fishy. I think the government's claims about that one are extraordinary, and that they failed to show any extraordinary support for their theory. I don't have any either, sadly.

4. Flt 587 is sort of on the borderline between being suspicious and not suspicious. An interesting case for a media / gov't skeptic.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 10:51am | #

And no, Flight 93 was not shot down. By the time Cheney gave the order, it had already crashed.

By the time they reported Cheney's order, and the timing of Cheney's order, they had already figured out that there were no hostile witnesses to the crash.

Rhywun | April 5, 2007, 10:52am | #

The most common claim is that people in high levels in the government assisted in making 9/11 happen.

I guess that explains the total failure of the government defense, y'know, doing it's job. It couldn't be incompetence!

Pro Libertate | April 5, 2007, 10:53am | #

Guy Montag,

No, of course not. However, I do think this is serious.

jb | April 5, 2007, 10:53am | #

"How does Bush manage to be simultaneously retarded and cunningly diabolical in so many peoples' minds?"

The same way so many Republicans support unironically the party of small government and invasive theocracy.

It's not just the liberals who can hold contradictory ideas in their mind at the same time.

joe | April 5, 2007, 10:55am | #

jake,

Given that the French had broken up an al Qaeda plot to hijack and airliner and crash it into the Eiffel Tower in the late 1990s, and that the U.S. government itself had recently run a counter-terror drill involving hijacked airliners being used as missiles, and that an Egyptian passenger plane had been deliberately crashed into Long Island Sound by a pilot yelling "Allah Akbar" in October 99, yes, I'm saying that a responsible defense pollicy would have taken into account attacks from the air.

Which is not to blame the Air Force. The mission they'd been given was to guard against attacks by other countries' airborne military assets.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 10:55am | #

Jews brought towers down
Terrorists far too stupid
The truth is out there

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

Nine Eleven Truth
Towers demolished by Bush
Give jobs to Dick's friends

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

I hope these haiku
Make you search for bits of fact
Please ignore "Truthers"

Rhywun | April 5, 2007, 10:55am | #

(apologies for the atrocious grammar in my last post)

jake | April 5, 2007, 10:56am | #

How many people suspect OJ Simpson is not innocent, even though he was acquitted?

Totally irrelevant to the discussion, but let's follow it up anyway.

OJ was aquitted by a jury that said that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. One juror said it was likely that OJ did it, but the prosecution screwed up.

A jury in a civil case, using a lower standard of proof, stated that OJ did it and awarded the next of kin lots of money.

OJ did it, he basically said that a few months ago.

Move on to something more useful.

Guy Montag | April 5, 2007, 10:56am | #

PL,

hehe

jake | April 5, 2007, 10:58am | #

The mission they'd been given was to guard against attacks by other countries' airborne military assets.

Then what exactly was your post about? Are you claiming that the Bush adminstration should have changed the standing orders of the Air Force and given them the authority to shoot down civilian jet liners within the US proper?

Jake Boone | April 5, 2007, 10:59am | #

"Truthers" won't accept
that what happened on that day
was incompetence

grumpy realist | April 5, 2007, 11:00am | #

Do not explain by conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.

I see conspiracy theorists as people begging for an explanation, ANY explanation, that avoids them having to confront the fact a heck of a lot of supposedly intelligent people can end up being really, really stupid.

Wonder what the overlap is between the 9-11 conspiracy theorists and the "we never landed on the Moon" theorists?

Jake Boone | April 5, 2007, 11:00am | #

Come on, folks. You know the rules. All arguments in a 9/11 conspiracy thread must be presented in 5-7-5 haiku form or they will be considered irrelevant.

Paul Bannister | April 5, 2007, 11:01am | #

don't think the US, nor the Israeli, nor any other, government did 9/11

Neither do I.

But I do suspect people IN our government's defense and intelligence agencies, working with moles in very high places, conspired to make the events of 9/11 happen as a pretext for war.

Yes, I believe Dick Cheney was directly involved.

Yes, I believe there is the possibility of involvement of the intelligence agencies of Britain, Turkey, Pakistan and Israel.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 11:01am | #

Then what exactly was your post about? Are you claiming that the Bush adminstration should have changed the standing orders of the Air Force and given them the authority to shoot down civilian jet liners within the US proper?

Yes, at some point in time between 8.25am and 10.00am on 9/11. Preferably at 8:47 am on 9/11.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 11:04am | #

Yes, I believe Dick Cheney was directly involved.

I think he was too busy getting his staff to take CIPRO that day to have had too much involvement.

swillfredo pareto | April 5, 2007, 11:08am | #

an Egyptian passenger plane had been deliberately crashed into Long Island Sound by a pilot yelling "Allah Akbar" in October 99

You're mixing up your crashes. EgyptAir 990 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off of Nantucket. TWA Flight 800 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off of Long Island.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 11:08am | #

Can we pretend that
This thread never happened, guys?
Too much stupid here

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 11:10am | #

I believe one truth
Paul Bannister is a fool
Probably coked up

jake | April 5, 2007, 11:11am | #

You missed my point Dave W.

Should the Bush adminstration, in August of '01, have added to the expressed purpose of the Air Force the mission to monitor commercial air traffic and shoot down a civillian jet ASAP on orders from the commander in chief.

VM | April 5, 2007, 11:13am | #

Hey Dave W.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 11:14am | #

Ignore the Dave Dub
He is mad like a hatter
Drinks much corn syrup

Eric the .5b | April 5, 2007, 11:15am | #

I see why this is called "Hit & Run". You hit 9/11 activists, then you run away

*grins and goes to take drink, then pauses, blinks, and puts the drink down*

OK, that was actually a fresh formulation of name-jokes. Bummer.

Pro Libertate | April 5, 2007, 11:17am | #

Let me suggest that if a conspiracy theory makes government-hating, quasi-isolationist, power-distrusting libertarians laugh out loud, your theory may need some bolstering. We want to believe that the feds do such things. Start talking about Waco or something like that. But 9/11? I even object to joe's characterization that it was this Administration's fault. Nonsense. We didn't take those kinds of threats seriously, even after the first WTC attack. We were cocky, and they were lucky. And stupid, since we went a little invasion-happy afterwards.

Nat | April 5, 2007, 11:18am | #

The 9/11 Truth Movement is growing at an astronomical rate and can't be ignored.

Neither can the homeless schizophrenics I pass on the way to work every morning, or the asshole college dropouts handing out LaRouche pamphlets on campus. Doesn't mean I have to take anything they say seriously, though. I actually feel a little sorry for them; they clearly don't have health insurance to pay for the psychiatric meds that they, and you, desperately need.

What perplexes me is how the movement can be growing (which I doubt) when so many of the different claims involved - e.g. a missile, not a plane, crashing into the Pentagon - have proven to be complete bullshit. (Actually, it's funny how the Truthers can't even agree on which elements of the attacks were staged and which were real.)

I just don't understand how these truthers can have that much faith in the competence of the government and the ability of people to keep secrets.

You're giving them too much credit; none of them have thought matters through this carefully. Certainly none that I've read have adressed this discrepancy despite repeated questioning from all sides of the political spectrum. The most brutal takedown I've read was by raving far-leftist loon Alex Cockburn, who wrote that there's clear evidence that Bush and Cheney are opportunistic criminals, but zero evidence that they could pull this off without fucking up. Personally, I believe that there are many good reasons for impeachment, but 9/11 isn't one of them.

As Matt Taibbi pointed out, the paranoia and bullshit surrounding 9/11 is very similar to the paranoia and bullshit surrounding the Oklahoma bombing. Which suggests to me that the goal of the conspiracy theories isn't "truth-telling" but personal aggrandizement. Some people really just need to find a hobby.

Max | April 5, 2007, 11:20am | #

So, why are these people so much easier to find than ANYBODY in-the-flesh who believes Iraq was behind 9/11?

Dick Cheney believes in the Atta in Prague story, and it would be difficult to believe that without also believing that Iraq was likely involved in 9-11. When asked about it, he's always said something like "we don't know for sure".

And then there's Laurie Mylroie and her neocon fan club (e.g. Richard Perle). Of course, many of the neocons are probably only pretending to believe this horseshit, because it's useful to them. They tend to be cynical, amoral types.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 11:21am | #

Nine eleven truth
Kennedy conspiracy
Both are laughable

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 11:21am | #

Should the Bush adminstration, in August of '01, have added to the expressed purpose of the Air Force the mission to monitor commercial air traffic and shoot down a civillian jet ASAP on orders from the commander in chief.

They probably should have. Or maybe they should have after the Payne Stewart plane scare. Or maybe they should have when that hi-jacker wanted to take a FEDEX plane into FEDEX hq in '94. Or maybe they should have after that Lone Gunman episode gave everybody bad ideas.

My point is that this should have been done (and was) by 8.47am on 9/11 at the very, very, very latest. When people say that there is no evidence that Flt 93 was shot down: that is my evidence. there was not much plausible deniability left for the air defenses for too long after 8.47 am on that day. At least not for hi-jacked planes that reached the vicinity of non-friendly witnesses too long after this point in time. That was the true limiting factor as far as how long the air defenses could hold off.

VM | April 5, 2007, 11:23am | #

"So, why are these people so much easier to find than ANYBODY in-the-flesh who believes Iraq was behind 9/11?"

gotta find a different sports bar, obviously.

(plus you have to go to back then - not now - then. Since it's been shown to be wrong, they'll deny it now. Avoid the dissonance, etc.)

or maybe not.

Lamar | April 5, 2007, 11:27am | #

"Just what would we have more that 2 F-15s flying around, armed and wasting gas for? The Chinese airforce invasion? The Russian one? The french one? The Cuban one?"

So planning for contingencies, in your view, is all about NOT planning for contingencies (because ha ha ha Somalia can't attack us! We're Rick James, Bitch!). Well lookey what happened, Montag. That unforeseen occurrence? That's why you have F-15s stationed strategically. I can't claim anybody knew the unforeseen occurrence would be commercial jetliners, but that's the nature of 'unforeseen' now isn't it?

Your post is even sillier when you consider that it is our nation's capital that was left undefended. Just because the Cubans/French/Russians/Chinese/Montagese weren't a threat doesn't mean you leave the city undefended.

On a slighly less sarcastic note, I have to call horse hockey on your fake concern about wasting gas in F-15s. That's a real hoot.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 11:29am | #

Drinks much corn syrup

Of course, I had to come off the corn syrup thing (somewhat) after I collected more evidence:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119126.html#659466

Maybe that will happen with Flt 93 someday.

jake | April 5, 2007, 11:31am | #

Or maybe they should have after the Payne Stewart plane scare.

Which was clearly and verifiably the result of a system malfunction.

Or maybe they should have when that hi-jacker wanted to take a FEDEX plane into FEDEX hq in '94.

Which was roughly the same as every disgruntled employee that has shot up his past employer's place of business.

There is no way the US government would have been allowed to shoot down a commercial jet prior to 9/11.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 11:37am | #

Or maybe they should have after the Payne Stewart plane scare.

Which was clearly and verifiably the result of a system malfunction.

I think the reason it wasn't shot down is because it wasn't heading toward NYC or DC. the cause of the "hi-jacking" wasn't particularly relevant to the fact that they failed to put a missile in it.

Or maybe they should have when that hi-jacker wanted to take a FEDEX plane into FEDEX hq in '94.

Which was roughly the same as every disgruntled employee that has shot up his past employer's place of business.

yeah, best to let the stae police handle this kind of thing. Posse commitatus and all./sarc

There is no way the US government would have been allowed to shoot down a commercial jet prior to 9/11.

It probably depended upon whom they thought the hi-jackers were.

Guy Montag | April 5, 2007, 11:40am | #

Dick Cheney believes in the Atta in Prague story, and it would be difficult to believe that without also believing that Iraq was likely involved in 9-11. When asked about it, he's always said something like "we don't know for sure".

And after the government knew for sure they repeatedly said Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

Now, where are these "70% of the American people who believe Iraq was behind 9/11"? Not that I ever remember YOU saying this is still true, there are a few folks posting here who believe this and have stated it recently. When called on it they come back with "maybe it is less now."

Yea, like so close to ZERO that you can't find any of them.

Plenty of 9/11 conspiracy freaks out there. There are a couple posting here right now. They are at all of the protests. They are in the story that this post is about. They host ABC talk shows. One can not turn around without bumping into them.

Yet, people like you keep pretending that 'the Right' believes (present tense) that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Obviously, they were providing haven "The Base", knowingly letting members use Baghdad hospitals, meeting with them, etc. ALONG WITH every other anti-USA terrorist group in the Middle East.

And then there's Laurie Mylroie and her neocon fan club (e.g. Richard Perle). Of course, many of the neocons are probably only pretending to believe this horseshit, because it's useful to them. They tend to be cynical, amoral types.

That is cute. No evidence, so make up a conspiracy of silence for what you want them to believe.

tarran | April 5, 2007, 11:41am | #

All this business could be avoided if passengers were allowed to defend themselves. But nooo. Better a few thousand people die the the government give up its precious monopoly on defensive services.

I would love to see an airline company called "Second Amendment Airlines"* I somehow don't think they would face any hijackings.

*Yes, it's hard to run an airline, and the likelihood of attracting enough passengers for such a radical idea is quite low. In short it owuld probably never work, but a fellow can dream. ;)

Guy Montag | April 5, 2007, 11:44am | #

(plus you have to go to back then - not now - then. Since it's been shown to be wrong, they'll deny it now. Avoid the dissonance, etc.)

Ah, so all of the folks who write "70% of the American public still believes Iraq was behind 9/11" are just using the wrong tense? And then they (sometimes) backtrack and say "it may be less now, like 60%" is some other easy to explain mistake?

I just find them to be bad liars.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 11:45am | #

I hate this damn thread
By extension, I hate y'all
Can't we let this die?

Guy Montag | April 5, 2007, 11:45am | #

So planning for contingencies, in your view, is all about NOT planning for contingencies (because ha ha ha Somalia can't attack us! We're Rick James, Bitch!). Well lookey what happened, Montag. That unforeseen occurrence? That's why you have F-15s stationed strategically. I can't claim anybody knew the unforeseen occurrence would be commercial jetliners, but that's the nature of 'unforeseen' now isn't it?

Your post is even sillier when you consider that it is our nation's capital that was left undefended. Just because the Cubans/French/Russians/Chinese/Montagese weren't a threat doesn't mean you leave the city undefended.

On a slighly less sarcastic note, I have to call horse hockey on your fake concern about wasting gas in F-15s. That's a real hoot.

Talk about a silly hoot.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 11:46am | #

Hijack by haiku
Poetry our boxcutter
Jake Boone as Atta

thoreau | April 5, 2007, 11:47am | #

This thread is full of crazy talk.
Just lots and lots of stupid squawk.
But I won't make a haiku post.
I'd rather eat some moldy toast.

thoreau | April 5, 2007, 11:47am | #

I'll rhyme my posts like Doctor Seuss.
No matter what says Viking Moose!

dhex | April 5, 2007, 11:48am | #

"Yes, that's what I'm saying. If there wasn't so much evidence implicating involvement of people in our government, then the 9/11 Commission Report would continue to be accepted by our society. But there are so many holes in it, it can't be anymore."

this is where you and i obviously part ways. first and foremost, plenty of people believe plenty of things in large numbers - a tremendous amount of people 200 years ago (to pick the most obvious of obvious-ishes) believed africans were inherently and genetically inferior to europeans. obviously this is unconnected to whatever the truth may be. shorter, less polemical version = belief does not make something so.

generally speaking, i see the 9/11 truth stuff as a secular response to the problem of existence. you're actually all failed existentialists - the world cannot truly be chaos, therefore order must be somewhere. even if that order is evil, at least order exists. chaos is the true enemy.

whereas, perhaps due to my simpler levels of mentation, see this as an extension of a different kind of truth - there is no safety zone, and the superstate can't protect anything but its own interests (and even that it's not very good at), much less its own citizens.

besides, who has the greatest stake in the 9/11 truth narrative? the government. who benefits most from stories of government omniscience and cruelty? the government. who has the deepest interest in being seen as an ultimately capable - if insane - hand in the course of history? the government.

were i more of a jerk i'd accuse you of being CIA/NWO plants. i spent a lot more time listening to alex jones than you might think at first glance. (i will admit to nearly falling asleep during from freedom to fascism, however)

dhex | April 5, 2007, 11:52am | #

gub'mint omniscience
i don't buy that no siree
i must be a sheep

dhex | April 5, 2007, 11:53am | #

a better pretext
blow planes up on the tarmac
stock prices stay sound

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 11:57am | #

Haikus shun my-hop
But nobody think that here
Can't deal with ly-hop

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 11:57am | #

Rhyming posts are quite obtuse
On this I agree with Mr Moose
But your couplets don't scare me
I love reading awful poetry!

Ethan | April 5, 2007, 12:00pm | #

Yeah, it is popular to stereotype all the people who fail to believe any aspect of the official story. They are all the same. They are all anti-semitic. They are LaRouchites. And so on. Pretty weak, if you ask me.

I wasn't making any claims about everyone who doesn't believe the official story. I was merely describing my experience and why I exited the discussion.

dhex | April 5, 2007, 12:01pm | #

i don't think that i shall see
a poster as lovely as timothy
held beneath his internet sway
but on that note i call "not gay"

VM | April 5, 2007, 12:03pm | #

It's now time for rhymes to end
A serious tone we shall attain
To brainy matters go and attend
Avoid couplets and Moose disdain

Too much already time has passed
Go and search for nobler aims
We must stay strong and be steadfast:
Shun and eschew silly word games.

In to the world you're now set loose
Rhyme-free and blessed by your friend Moose!

thoreau | April 5, 2007, 12:05pm | #

I will not every write haiku.
I'd rather move into a zoo!
But on this thing we all agree:
The truther folks are all crazy!

Lamar | April 5, 2007, 12:06pm | #

Guy Montag:

Yes, leaving New York City and Washington D.C. undefended is a silly hoot.

dhex | April 5, 2007, 12:06pm | #

to be fair, i feel kinda bad about the time i walked past a dude handing out flyers by hunter college and whispered "you're getting warmer..." as i took one.

thoreau | April 5, 2007, 12:06pm | #

I must learn to hit preview first.
Spelling mistakes make me look worse.

I will not ever write haiku.
I'd rather move into a zoo!
But on this thing we all agree:
The truther folks are all crazy!

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 12:07pm | #

dhex is all right
So is the Viking Moose man
Rest suck, save Doc T.

VM | April 5, 2007, 12:08pm | #

"I must learn to hit preview first.
Spelling mistakes make me look worse."

Errata like these hit with a burst
Correct them all and not be terse.
These games take far too much time
We must suppress the urge to rhyme.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 12:10pm | #

ee cummings
would
b e
proud of this post
but
I a
m

Not sure
what it means

really

thoreau | April 5, 2007, 12:13pm | #

Whether we rhyme or haiku,
We all agree on what to do:
Threadjack! Threadjack! All the waysie!
To crowd out all the "Truther" crazy!

thoreau | April 5, 2007, 12:14pm | #

Or we could stop rhyming and just post corn syrup jokes.

Q: Why did the bottle of corn syrup cross the road?
A: Somebody gently bumped it.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 12:16pm | #

I will combine forms
Crowd out truther's coming storms
Next, cuneiform!

Max | April 5, 2007, 12:16pm | #

Guy,

I'm not aware of any change in the views of Dick Cheney (who is not "the government", whatever that means) or the other people I mentioned. Maybe they have secretly revised their views - I don't know, and neither do you.

And I don't know why you believe that polls that show a large percentage of Americans believing that Iraq was likely involved in 9-11 are all "lies", despite being conducted by perfectly respectable polling outfits. Your belief is rather like a, um, conspiracy theory.

joe | April 5, 2007, 12:18pm | #

"Then what exactly was your post about?"

The lack of precautions taken to defend against hijackings and rogue pilots. I thought that was pretty clear.

"Are you claiming that the Bush adminstration should have changed the standing orders of the Air Force" Yes.

"...and given them the authority to shoot down civilian jet liners within the US proper?" The details are above my pay grade, and standing orders like that are a pretty scary idea, but there should have been more than two aircraft dedicated to defending such extensive airspace.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 12:23pm | #

Dammit posts are getting through
And I can't find cuneiform codes
What else can we possibly do
To hijack the thread from the truther chodes?

Fingers numb from typing these
Back all sore from the office chair
Why must truthers come down from there trees?
Stranger still why do I care?

joe | April 5, 2007, 12:23pm | #

jake,

"Should the Bush adminstration, in August of '01, have added to the expressed purpose of the Air Force the mission to monitor commercial air traffic and shoot down a civillian jet ASAP on orders from the commander in chief."

Why are pretending that standing orders to down passenger jets without getting clearance or orders, and having the military take over the air traffic control system is the only possible alternative to having two fighters patrolling the eastern seaboard?

False dilemma is a rather obvious fallacy, jake.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 12:23pm | #

*their

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 12:27pm | #

ooooh, jokes:

Q: Why does Flt 93's blackbox audio cut out at 10.03 when the impact was at 10.06?

A: Somebody gently cut it.

joe | April 5, 2007, 12:29pm | #

Just is case you were wondering, jake, yes, it is very obviously that you avoided the questions "Why were there only 2 F-15s defending the entire eastern seaboard?" and "Should the government have been better prepared to defend against airborne terrorism?" and answered instead the question "Should Air Force pilots have standing orders to shoot down passenger jets?"

Lamar | April 5, 2007, 12:32pm | #

Guy:

FYI: the poll you are talking about? You know, the one where you snark that perhaps they got their verb tense wrong? Remember you call them "bad liars"? Well, it turns out that the poll was done in 2003. Why are you blabbering about polls that lie when you're the one with the faulty information? Is there a recent story you could point us to that says 70% of Americans believe Iraq was behind 9/11? And by recent I don't mean September of freakin' 2003.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Look a post by Dave W
What's funny is I can't see you
You post and post and post and post
Frankly, Dave, you're quite verbose
And yet, thanks to Mr. Half a B
I can't see you, but you see me.

I see you've posted, but don't read the words
I think your writing's for the birds
If you'd been in the Hitchcock pic
You'd not be here being such a prick
You'd be a famous movie star
Instead of the weird Canadian that you are
Also you would be quite aged
Unable to get on the intertron to act so rabid

Happy Jack | April 5, 2007, 12:41pm | #

Boy howdy. I didn't realize I would be eating popcorn for lunch.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 12:47pm | #

Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews
Halliburton, Israel
Bushitler Jews JEWS!

jake | April 5, 2007, 12:48pm | #

"Just what would we have more that 2 F-15s flying around, armed and wasting gas for?"

The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

To which I replied:

The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

So what? Are you saying it is the responsbility of the US Air Force to defend against a handful of non-uniformed criminals?

To which you replied:

jake,

Given that the French had broken up an al Qaeda plot to hijack and airliner and crash it into the Eiffel Tower in the late 1990s, and that the U.S. government itself had recently run a counter-terror drill involving hijacked airliners being used as missiles, and that an Egyptian passenger plane had been deliberately crashed into Long Island Sound by a pilot yelling "Allah Akbar" in October 99, yes, I'm saying that a responsible defense pollicy would have taken into account attacks from the air.

Which is not to blame the Air Force. The mission they'd been given was to guard against attacks by other countries' airborne military assets


To which I replied:

The mission they'd been given was to guard against attacks by other countries' airborne military assets.

Then what exactly was your post about? Are you claiming that the Bush adminstration should have changed the standing orders of the Air Force and given them the authority to shoot down civilian jet liners within the US proper?

To which you never actually replied to . . . except to accuse me of shifting the conversation from a post that I never actually referenced.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 12:51pm | #

I can't see you, but you see me.

(Half a) Be(e) that as it may, it is hard to see why you would get so upset about the idea that Flight 93 was shot down. I mean, I would have shot it down if I could. Wouldn't you have?

Is the idea of government lying really that upsetting to you? What would change for you if a conclusive videotape of the shoot down magically emerged tomorrow? Would that really change anything?

Are you so angry with me just because I am insane, and you figure that people with the raw IQ points that I have should always be sane? I just don't get it, at least not on this particular thread.

I mean, I can understand a bit why people get mad when I go hard after the government contractors and grant recipients. That is a nasty form of personal politics I choose to play as a libertarian. There is nothing personal about the question of why exactly Flt 93 went down though.

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 12:51pm | #

In my mind you all
Are on fire because of this
Weigel, no more threads

VM | April 5, 2007, 1:00pm | #

Tim - last day at work?
tomorrow starts long weekend?
even not catholic?

Mrs. Moose and I
will enjoy nice ribeye steaks
for Friday's dinner

No holiday here
just normal weekend good times
think lent is stupid

Copenhagen Haiku
en to tre fire fem
en to tre fire fem seks syv
en to tre fire fem

Vienna Haiku
aans zwaa drae viea fü'f
aans zwaa drae viea fü'f sex siem
aans zwaa drae viea fü'f

Mark Borok | April 5, 2007, 1:00pm | #

It's obvious that Bush and Cheney planned 9/11. They wanted to start a war with Iraq. The 9/11 attacks had no obvious ties to Iraq. Who else but Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would orchestrate such a hoax and then forget to make at least some of the hijackers Iraqis? The incompetence proves it.

Lamar | April 5, 2007, 1:03pm | #

Jake,

Your attempt to paint this as an either/or proposition is patently ludicrous. You're in some bizarre justify-at-all-costs mode.

Given the importance of the cities and chemical factories along the east coast, we should have had more air power at the ready. You'll have to decide within your own mind whether this constitutes "authority to shoot down commercial airliners."

I think it's more appropriate to say that the Air Force should have had a contingency plan for hijacked or disabled aircraft of any type. This most likely would have included provisions for shooting down commercial airliners.

By the way, there is absolutely nothing in the Air Force's mission statement that suggests its mission is limited to fighting the aircraft of foreign military forces. It's not in the old mission statement, and isn't in the new mission statement. Zero, zip, nada.

Brian24 | April 5, 2007, 1:05pm | #

it is hard to see why you would get so upset about the idea that Flight 93 was shot down.

Well, yeah, exactly. So if it had been shot down, why would anybody cover that fact up? Not many people would have blamed Cheney (or whoever) for pulling the trigger.

Look, we will never have perfect knowledge of what happened on 9/11. Hell, if you've ever tried to reconstruct what happened in your average traffic accident, you'll find conflicting stories as well as conflicting physical evidence, so that's even more true in an event of this magnitude. It's easy to find inconsistencies in any official story if you look hard enough.

But to be believable, a conspiracy theory has to offer a MORE convincing narrative than the original narrative. I have yet to see a competing narrative that made any sense at all. When you guys have a plausible counternarrative, let me know.

joe | April 5, 2007, 1:12pm | #

Lamar,

"By the way, there is absolutely nothing in the Air Force's mission statement that suggests its mission is limited to fighting the aircraft of foreign military forces. It's not in the old mission statement, and isn't in the new mission statement. Zero, zip, nada."

No, not in the mission statement, but the assumptions underlying their operations to protect American airspace are, or at least were, pretty obviously centered around that threat.

Guy Montag | April 5, 2007, 1:15pm | #

I'm not aware of any change in the views of Dick Cheney (who is not "the government", whatever that means) or the other people I mentioned. Maybe they have secretly revised their views - I don't know, and neither do you.

JFC, this is pathetic.

Les | April 5, 2007, 1:16pm | #

I think it's fascinating that of the dozens, if not scores, if not hundreds, of people required to demolish the WTC and then keep the project a secret, not one single person has come forward with evidence of the plot, despite the millions of dollars in book deals and appearances which await this person. Not one journalist has been able to uncover a single "unnamed source" to provide any evidence of the project.

Meanwhile, the simplest plots by just a few soldiers to murder just a few people on the other side of the world usually results in some guilty soul confessing and/or copious amounts of evidence against the conspirators.

Eric the .5b | April 5, 2007, 1:22pm | #

The silly sheeple
Never understand the truth
Saucer hit the Pent!

There never were planes
Not even the one you saw
EVIL GRAY MIND BEAMS.

GWB?
Like he could keep a secret
MIBs spin all...

Why fight the reptoids?
Why send Marines to Saturn?
That or fight Grays here.

jake | April 5, 2007, 1:25pm | #

Given the importance of the cities and chemical factories along the east coast, we should have had more air power at the ready.

What exactly can a fighter jet do when the pilot of a commercial jet refuses to go where the fighter tells it to?

The logical conclusion of putting up fighter jets to protect vital infrasture is to shoot down anything that threatens that infrastructure.

Putting up more jets to cover the same space is only useful if you need to shoot down many threats.

lunchstealer | April 5, 2007, 1:25pm | #

The planning by the US government for perpetrating the 9-11 'attacks' started much earlier than anyone believes. Mathias Rust, you know, the guy who landed a Cessna 172 in Red Square back in '87, was a plant. As part of a conspiracy between hard-liners in the Kremlin and Pentagon, who both realized that American paranoia was key to sustaining a military industrial complex in both countries (Russian paranoia can pretty much be taken for granted).

Now, the Korean and Vietnam wars were, as everyone knows, carried out with the express purpose of undermining American post-WWII confidence and instilling the appropriate fear of Russia and the Red Menace. However, Vietnam was a miscalculation, which became clear during the Carter administration as American self-confidence sagged so low that Americans were actually begining to lose faith in the cold war, and support for unilateral disarmament - disasterous for both US and Russian military industry - was threatening to break out into the mainstream in the US.

Thus Reagan was brought in, with his "Bear in the Woods" ads and resurrection of the B-1, B-2, M-1, Trident, Minuteman, the 15-carrier navy, and the ultimate military-industrial coup, SDI. Unfortunately, he was too effective, and swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. The cold war became untenable, because America was now clearly too strong.

It was already clear that civilian terrorism was the key to both problems. Military un-fucking-vincible? Easy, introduce 'asymmetrical warfare'. The US/Kremlin power brokers had been tinkering with it in South America for years, as a sort of R&D project, but hadn't figured they'd need to parlay it into a replacement for the traditional cold war.

Now, it is our air force that instills the most confidence in Americans. So a really terrifying attack against America would have to penetrate our air defences. The early experiments in American-soil terrorism, the first WTC bombing and the OKC bombing, had induced yawns in most people. Sure any asshole could drive a bomb up to anything he wanted. It didn't bring the terror.

But they'd already planned for this. A really terrifying attack would have to come from the air. But it could be too clear that they were staged if people didn't already kind of believe that civilian flights could penetrate a really tight air defense. This is where Mathias Rust comes in.

How better to plant the seed of mistrust of air power than by having a some euro-loser land an airplane in Red Square?

It couldn't be an American, because if a plucky American teen had done it, people would have assumed that he'd won through with faith in God, a picture of his sweetheart, and a can-do attitude. It would just reaffirm our faith. But if some German nihilist can put down his collection of Kraftwerk and Autobahn LPs long enough to climb into a Cessna and land in Red Square as some sort of ironic post-modern statement, then maybe - just maybe - even OUR air defences could be penetrated in such a way.

This was the key to making the American public believe that a bunch of godless Muslims could be responsible for destroying a landmark that we didn't really care about anyway.

A Wowed Moose | April 5, 2007, 1:32pm | #

*puts down Intertubz, realizing Lunchstealer has said pretty much everything that's needed.

lunchstealer | April 5, 2007, 1:35pm | #

And yes, I am just mocking the idea that the Air Force could, in the pre-9/11 atmosphere, be expected to scramble fighters to shoot down airplanes. I'm a little surprised that we actually had fighters fueled and armed with live ammo, much less an effective 24/7 CAP. The cold war was over, and as always, the US was still thinking in terms of our last war. The only thing you'd need ready-alert fighter-cover for was a Pearl-Harbor style massive air invasion. We'd have plenty of strategic warning that such a thing was possible.

And just as we should have known that an air attack on battleships in a harbor could be devastating - as the British had just done it at Taranto with biplanes, of all things, we still didn't parlay that knowledge into an effective air defense plan for Pearl Harbor.

So yeah, we knew that theoretically there was a possibility of an airliner used as a missile, nobody was actually going to put a real-world defense plan into place. It was just too abstract to really prepare for.

Eric the .5b | April 5, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Evacuation?
Lots of Jews in the Towers
But not one damn Gray.

Nobody mentions
Orbiting death ray platforms
Alternative 1

What of passengers?
Vanished from planes with their brains...
Gray delicacy?

How to see the truth?
Can one guard against MIND RAYS?
Sweet, blessed tinfoil

Timothy | April 5, 2007, 1:43pm | #

Delicious noodles
Unlike truther movement
More noodle, less truth

VM | April 5, 2007, 1:44pm | #

Half a bee kicks ass
Timothy rocks hard as well
lunchstealer wins thread

Half a bee speaks of
"Orbiting death ray platforms"
Moon Unit Zappa?

Dr Evil would
use laser beams on large sharks
to deal with those freaks

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 1:48pm | #

Well, yeah, exactly. So if it had been shot down, why would anybody cover that fact up? Not many people would have blamed Cheney (or whoever) for pulling the trigger.

I don't know if you remember, but the story of whether the jet was shot down or not didn't come down right away. After the "official story" that the jet was not shot down came out, the question of if / when Cheney gave a shoot down order did not come out for a longer time, like weeks IIRC.

The reason the shoot down of Flight 93 was covered up is because of White House concern that the shoot down would not play well, and that the fact that the terrorists brought it down would play better.

This was probably a government miscalculation, or an example of government "incompetence," to put it in Rhywun's (and others) parlance. because the problem then emerged that people were asking "where was the air defenses?" "where was GWB?" There was not a good answer to that question, because the true answer was "the air defenses were there, we just neglected to mention it." Not being able to tell the truth, because of the hasty ill-considered lie, they decided to release the Flt 93 black box (unlike the other black boxes which have been withheld) and distract everybody with the dramatic passengers-brought-down-the-plane-story.

The cover up seems silly now because it was not a plan, or conspiracy, that was conceived ahead of time, but rather a case of a hasty initial lie leading to bigger, unforeseeable lies as time marched on.

jake | April 5, 2007, 1:51pm | #

Dave do you really believe the stuff you right?

VM | April 5, 2007, 1:52pm | #

No korn syrup here
serious stuff we discuss
be batshit elsewhere

joe | April 5, 2007, 1:53pm | #

"The logical conclusion of putting up fighter jets to protect vital infrasture is to shoot down anything that threatens that infrastructure."

Yes, but your "sttanding orders" wording is just so much misdirection.

"Putting up more jets to cover the same space is only useful if you need to shoot down many threats."

Or, you know, two threats, in different locations on the East Coast.

lunchstealer,

Remind me how many ICBMs have been fired at the United States. Remind me how many truck bombs have been set off here using explosives smuggled over the border. We were spending quite a bit of money to defend against both of those "theoretical" threats.

I think you described pretty well why the Air Force itself couldn't be expected to recognize and respond to the threat - counter-terror wasn't their job. There probably wasn't anyone in the Air Force chain of command who was tasked to think about al Qaeda launching attacks on American soil. That was for the CIA, FBI, DIA, and other departments.

But the point is, once the White House and DoD principles starting receiving such compelling evidence of a threat on American soil, there should have been a response coming from those places across a whole range of security- and defense-related departments, because the White House should have ordered it. They didn't, because Bush and Cheney didn't care about terrorism, so much so that they demoted the head of our counterterrorism efforts back down to sub-cabinet level position.

This isn't about the Air Force, it's about the policymakers.

jake | April 5, 2007, 2:04pm | #

it's about the policymakers

It always is, isn't it joe.

Lamar | April 5, 2007, 2:08pm | #

Since I already said that contingency plans would include shooting down commercial airliners, your post is moot. Yes, one purpose of F-15s is to shoot down airplanes, the other is to force planes onto a different course, another is to closely monitor the jet's path, and another is deterrence.

Of course, in the pre-9/11 environment, we didn't want to pay to protect the east coast, and we judged "Bin Laden determined to strike using airplanes" as farce. We shut down Plattburg AFB in the mid 1990s. We just left NYC open to air attacking thinking it couldn't happen to us. My first post blamed Rummy too much.

joe | April 5, 2007, 2:09pm | #

You mean, am I always going to hold it against George Bush that he told his briefer on August 6, "OK, you've covered your ass now," and then went on vacation?

Yes. Yes, I am.

lunchstealer | April 5, 2007, 2:14pm | #

Remind me how many ICBMs have been fired at the United States. Remind me how many truck bombs have been set off here using explosives smuggled over the border. We were spending quite a bit of money to defend against both of those "theoretical" threats.


Prior to 9-11, no ballistic missiles had been used to attack the US, but several of the non-intercontinental variety had been used to attack US troops and Israeli civilians.

As for explosives smuggled across the border, were we really spending much on that pre-9/11? I mean, we did sort of accidentally catch that guy trying it for the millenium thing in Washington state, but I kinda thought that he was just caught by guys whose big job was looking for British Columbia creeper weed.

Eric the .5b | April 5, 2007, 2:14pm | #

Side note: Obama's response to Martel is a pretty good, as these things go, but he can't top the moment in the movie Feed when a prankster asks Bill Clinton if he's pro-choice and then says "How many abortions have you personally made necessary?" Clinton holds up his hand in an "o" shape and bellows: "ZERO! Zero!" Then he gladhandles the guy until most of the cameras move on.

Time and Bush make Clinton ever-increasingly more likable.

jake | April 5, 2007, 2:18pm | #

it's about the policymakers

The statement is true about every failure of every administration since the beginning of the republic.

I was admitting the truth of your comment, while poking you in the ribs at the same time.

thoreau | April 5, 2007, 2:20pm | #

joe is bringing up some points that I would like to ponder and discuss, but I feel a duty to do whatever it takes to shoot down this thread.

Some things in life are bad,
They can really make you mad,
Other things just make you swear and curse,
When you're slurping down life's corn syrup,
Don't grumble--get a workout!
And this will keep you from obesity:

Always look on the bright side of life!


Just felt like randomly derailing things.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 2:23pm | #

And yes, I am just mocking the idea that the Air Force could, in the pre-9/11 atmosphere, be expected to scramble fighters to shoot down airplanes.

Let's say North Korea and Cuba got together in 2001 and decided that North Korea would supply the nukes and Cuba would supply the 747s and runways.

Would the airforce have been ready for that?

I mean, presumably our intelligence didn't believe that the Norkos had nukes, but do you really want to rely on that?

I believe that jets did fly between Cuba and Canada back then. It seems to me like an awful lot of those could have gotten thru to the eastern seaboard population centers in the US.

The "official story" of 9/11 requires us to believe that there would have been virtually no immediate response to this kind of attack. I refuse to believe that.

There were planes ready to go. Cheney was the hold up. But even he didn't dare let Flt 93 come sailing into DC at 10.30 am. that would have been just too, too blatant.

Pro Libertate | April 5, 2007, 2:26pm | #

Foresight is not a strong point of governments or of military leaders. Ask the French, who have been prepared for their last war with Germany in each war with Germany. Of course, I don't mean that we shouldn't learn when our vulnerabilities are exploited, but the trick of any offensive move is to focus your attack on defensive weaknesses, not strengths.

Next time, terrorists will throw us a breaking ball, and we'll shoot down planes that haven't been hijacked. Or something equally icky. We're both extremely powerful and supremely vulnerable. That's what makes America so charming.

thoreau,

You want the crucifixion thread. Aisle 23. Incidentally, they sing that song in Spamalot, which frightened and confused me.

Dakota | April 5, 2007, 2:38pm | #

"Next time, terrorists will throw us a breaking ball, and we'll shoot down planes that haven't been hijacked. Or something equally icky. We're both extremely powerful and supremely vulnerable. That's what makes America so charming."

Well we almost got that when that douchbag from Scranton (or wherever) got "lost". I was on my way to lunch and all of the sudden F-16's were dropping flairs on some prop plane. Funny enough my first response was "holy shit, sombody better shoot that bastard down".

lunchstealer | April 5, 2007, 2:46pm | #

Well we almost got that when that douchbag from Scranton (or wherever) got "lost".

Why on earth would anybody ever let Michael Scott get behind the yoke of an airplane?

VM | April 5, 2007, 2:48pm | #

"that douchbag from Scranton (or wherever) got "lost"."

the one with thirty thousands pounds of bananas?

lunchstealer | April 5, 2007, 2:58pm | #

By the way, kudos to the haiku patrol, who kept this thread from being NEARLY as annoying as it could have been.

ChrisO | April 5, 2007, 3:24pm | #

The evidence clearly points to a connection between 9/11 and the assassination of Princess Diana.

Neil Hamburger joke | April 5, 2007, 3:26pm | #

the assassination of Princess Diana.

Princess Di -- even her name would tell you there was going to be trouble. Liv Ullman -- now her parents had the right idea.

Robert | April 5, 2007, 3:28pm | #

Funny, but I and other people I know or have heard from all remember hearing after 9/11/01 that Bldg. 7 was in trouble and was about to be demolished for safety reasons, and when it came down I thought that's what they'd done. It wasn't until much later that I heard anything to indicate its collapse was anything other than deliberate.

This reminds me of my friend's TV serial, Lost, which looks all mysterious until you realize it's the hilarious interplay of a lot of little scams by various con artists in the unwitting service of a bigger one. (AFAICT, it's a medical hoax whose purpose will be to suck in $plenty.)

VikingMoose | April 5, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Oh no not again
lunchstealer's premature hope
dashed on batshit talk

joe | April 5, 2007, 3:31pm | #

Dammit, thoreau, the commenters brought down the thread by themselves!

What are you, some kind of troublemaker?

JasonL | April 5, 2007, 3:35pm | #

There is a pathology to creating entire mythologies supported by no evidence, then endlessly criticizing other people for being unskeptical. There should be an investigation. The official version is that such odd and inconsistent behavior is the result of a need to feel superior, but I don't buy it.

These people always drink water. Water that our government 'ensures' the safety of. Think about it. Who benefits?

Pro Libertate | April 5, 2007, 3:43pm | #

Big Dihydrogen Monoxide!

Bored Mongol Hoard | April 5, 2007, 3:46pm | #

The real evil is
Dihydrogen monoxide
Ban it all to hell!

Timon19 | April 5, 2007, 4:05pm | #

Dakota,

How in the hell does that work, exactly? Flares from F-16s are purely defensive and designed to spoof missiles. They can't be "dropped on" something unless you are talking about the ground or are extraordinarily lucky. "Dropping" them "on" a much slower prop plane would be an even fancier trick.

Now I'd believe you if you said they were jettisoning flares in order to signal the other a/c.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 4:16pm | #

Funny, but I and other people I know or have heard from all remember hearing after 9/11/01 that Bldg. 7 was in trouble and was about to be demolished for safety reasons, and when it came down I thought that's what they'd done.

Bldg. 7 came down at 5 pm on 9/11, so it wasn't in trouble after that date -- it was already gone.

FEMA initially said it was fire. Now the official seems to be shifting toward the theory that it was impact damage from collapse of one of the towers. A new report, by NIST, is due out soon, apparently. On the possibility of controlled demolotion, the Wikipedia is surprisingly cryptic:

[b]Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, conspiracy theorists believe the collapse was the result of a controlled demolition. When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts."[13] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse", NIST said that, "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[/b]

My comments: this makes it sound like they had 200+ scientists studying the wreckage, looking for explosives residue, but somehow I doubt that that really happened. That "facts are facts" statement does not exactly inspire confidence in the scientific process going with WTC7 forensics.

Les | April 5, 2007, 4:32pm | #

Dave,

Given your beliefs, what do you think is preventing just one of the scores of people involved from coming forward to make millions of dollars (not to mention alleviate their guilt)? Why do you think no journalist has come forward with an anonymous source providing concrete evidence (some small piece of communication, for example, seeing as how a project like this would require reams of it) of this conspiracy? Do you think that every single mainstream journalist who has spent considerable time following the story has been prevented by their employers or someone else from coming to the same conclusions as the conspiracists?

Why do you think it is that we're able to uncover concrete evidence of small conspiracies involving, for example, illegal activities of members of the armed forces on the other side of the world, but can't uncover concrete evidence of gigantic conspiracies in our own country?

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 4:54pm | #

Given your beliefs, what do you think is preventing just one of the scores of people involved from coming forward to make millions of dollars (not to mention alleviate their guilt)? Why do you think no journalist has come forward with an anonymous source providing concrete evidence (some small piece of communication, for example, seeing as how a project like this would require reams of it) of this conspiracy? Do you think that every single mainstream journalist who has spent considerable time following the story has been prevented by their employers or someone else from coming to the same conclusions as the conspiracists?

Why do you think it is that we're able to uncover concrete evidence of small conspiracies involving, for example, illegal activities of members of the armed forces on the other side of the world, but can't uncover concrete evidence of gigantic conspiracies in our own country?

How many people do you think would "need to know" if Flt 93 were downed by a missile? I mean, if there were witnesses to it going down, that would be one thing, but they didn't announce what happened to it until after it was apparent there were no witnesses. With no witnesses, I don't think more than a single flight crew, and its direct chain of command, needed to know that Flt 93 was shot down. And that is not a "conspiracy" because those people talk, and make confidential communications, as part of their job, thus obviating the need for any special meetings or non-standard communications. I don't even think the people who cleaned up the wreckage needed to know, or would have known.

How many would need to know about WTC7? Basically a demolition team and its chain of command. Again -- maybe 5 people? Like the poster above said -- there was talk that the building would have to be demolished for safety reasons. That is not particularly unusual. If those people weren't in the military, then they're continuing silence may have had to be bought. I doubt it would be that expensive. Even if somebody came out and said, "I carried a demolition charge down to the basement and put it on a beam" then the fire department response would be that that is SOP for a distressed building in a high density zone. there is not millions of dollars worth in any single person's knowledge, except for the landlord and the plunger-pusher.

I mean, for chrissakes, the landlord gave the order to demolish the thing on live television. How can that possibly be considered as a "conspiracy theory?!?!?!"

As far as conspiracies overseas -- the real question isn't how many we know about, but how many we don't know about. Case in point: we know something about Pat Tillman's death because he was a football star and media celebrity. The official story is that he died from three bullets to the head shot by somebody far enough away to mistake him for a jihadi on the rampage. It is obvious that there is more to that story than meets the eye. If they aren't telling us the truth about Tillman's death, then what percentage of the deaths do you think we are getting the truth about?

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 4:57pm | #

Further to previous:

I think it would have taken a few more people to manipulate the blackbox data (that is, chop the 3 minutes off the end of the tape). but I believe tat the blackbox of Flt 93 was handled at a high enough level that secrecy would not really be a problem even about this aspect. What would Pvt. Wannapayout report to the media? "I wanted to hear the blackbox on 9/12 and they wouldn't let me." that is about all an underling could say.

lunchstealer | April 5, 2007, 5:25pm | #

Dave, I'm not sure anybody here appreciates all this 'black box' business. It's racist and sexist.

And the thing about the plunger wasn't funny either. This is a place for serious discussion, not half-baked sexual innuendo.

Les | April 5, 2007, 6:11pm | #

I don't even think the people who cleaned up the wreckage needed to know, or would have known.

You really don't think that the people who investigate what causes plane crashes can tell a plane that was forced down from a plane that was shot down? Why on earth would you think that? If Flt 93 was shot down, that means that those investigators became part of the conspiracy when they all reported that it crashed. There's lots of relevant information here.

How many would need to know about WTC7? Basically a demolition team and its chain of command. Again -- maybe 5 people?

And again, the teams of investigators that turned up zero evidence of a controlled demolition? Why are they silent?

I think there's a thorough debunking of WTC 7 conspiracy theories here.

I don't doubt that the government lies all the time, but when it does, there is usually evidence of it. When a plane is shot down or a building demolished, there is always evidence of it. There is zero evidence that Flt 93 was shot down or that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Or all the people who investigated these things are part of the conspiracy.

Also, how many mainstream journalists who have spent considerable time following the story has been prevented by their employers or someone else from coming to the same conclusions as the conspiracists?

l. ron hoover | April 5, 2007, 6:17pm | #

This is the funniest Reason thread I've ever read (oops, an internal rhyme - I guess it's catching). Kudos to all and Happy Easter!

Oh, and to add to VM's 1:00 post:

CHICAGO HAIKU
One, two, three, four, five.
One, two, three, four, five, six, sev-
One, two, three, four, five.

Dave W. | April 5, 2007, 6:42pm | #

You really don't think that the people who investigate what causes plane crashes can tell a plane that was forced down from a plane that was shot down?

I don't think that any investigators did investigate this. Name one investigator who actually touched a piece of debris from Flight 93. Of course, it also needs be born in mind that to really draw any conclusions about wreckage or lack thereof, a consultant would need to have access to all the wreckage, every bit.

If a consultant touched no wreckage (let alone all of it), in the field or in the lab, then it is easy for the consultant to be truthful and say that all the evidence s/he studied is consistent with the plane being brought down by passengers and it is easy for the consultant to say thats/he sees no evidence of a missile or the like.

Since no consultant actually touched any wreckage (let alone all of it), they did not have to be part of any part of conspiracy and they did not have to lie.

And again, the teams of investigators that turned up zero evidence of a controlled demolition? Why are they silent?

Same deal as with Flt 93. Name me one consultant who touched any substantial portion of the wreckage of WTC7. It is easy to "see no evidence of explosives" if you are not down at ground zero before they start carting the evidence away. They are silent because they were not at WTC7's ground zero before they started carting evidence away.

Also, how many mainstream journalists who have spent considerable time following the story has been prevented by their employers or someone else from coming to the same conclusions as the conspiracists?

There is considerable stigma attached to pointing out the things I am pointing out on this thread. this is a board dedicated to mistrust of the government's goodness and competence and yet we somehow get the haiku squad. Imagine what kind of a reception you would get as a journalist writing for a periodical aimed at people who trust the government more than we do! Journalists, like anybody else, know what side the bread is buttered on. If they forget, then their editor reminds them. That is his job.

Remember, only half of the title Popular Mechanics relates to mechanics.

Dave W.'s ed. | April 5, 2007, 6:44pm | #

--borne in mind that to really draw any conclusions about a missile or lack thereof--

Jake Boone | April 5, 2007, 8:40pm | #

I'm finally back
it's not true about love, but
haiku conquers all

Les | April 5, 2007, 10:48pm | #

Dave, you're suggesting that before any investigative teams went into WTC7 or the Flt 93 wreckage, someone had arranged to take out only the incriminating evidence. Among all the debris and carnage, only the incriminating evidence was removed from these sites (pictures of the wreckage of both sites exist, so it's not like someone came in and took it all away). The implausibility of this suggestion (not to mention the notion that "they" waited several hours and for teams of firefighters to be present before demolishing the building), in combination with the complete lack of any evidence to support it, is why it's not taken seriously. I think it has little to do with stigmas or prior beliefs.

Timon19 | April 6, 2007, 12:54am | #

More about the pull business...

Isaac Bartram | April 6, 2007, 11:14am | #

So, OK, I get it now.

The Evil Conspiracy Crew (ECC) rigged the Twin towers with explosives for a controlled demolition. At the same time the ECC put chemicals into the New York City water supply that would cause millions of New Yorkers to have identical hallucinations that airplanes had flown into the towers.

Then, the ECC got all the TV broadcast and cable networks to broadcast computer simulations of planes flying into the towers and then they set off there charges bring the towers crashing down.

Then eight hours later the ECC brought down WTC7, because, well, you know, in destroying two of the biggest building in the world ang killing thousands of innocent victims the ECC just hadn't made a powerful enough statement to get the people riled up in patriotic fervor to go fight the war to guarantee the profits that have since been flowing into the coffers of Halliburton and the Carlyle Group. Which was the reason the ECC did it to begin with.

Yeah, that's, like, way more plausible than the "official" version.

VM | April 6, 2007, 11:55am | #

thanks l ron!

(oh - that wasn't a sonnet. only two strophes, not three. written in iambic tetrameter, not pentameter. was just a fun riff on the style)

Isaac Bartram | April 6, 2007, 12:26pm | #

Quote from Timon19's link:

They further argue that fires caused by burning jet fuel from the crashed planes could not have caused the collapse, since jet fuel burns at a temperature of no more than 1500° Fahrenheit,1 while a temperature of approximately 2800° is needed to melt steel.

I love how much of the "skeptic's" "proof" is based on such claims. It just demonstrates the fact that most of this "skepticism" is based on ignorance and belief in untruths.

The fact is that it only takes temperatures around 800F to impair the strength of steel. The 1500F and the 1000F (minimum) fire that contiued as the contents and furnishings of the offices ignited was more than enough once the heat had penetrated the sprayed-on fire-proofing. Combine that with the fact that the damage from the original hits had seriously compromised the integity of the structure.

Timon19 | April 6, 2007, 12:30pm | #

Isaac,

I think the very point you made about weakening (and expanding) steel was made in the link provided as well.

Isaac Bartram | April 6, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Possibly. By the time I can get to read it in full (this weekend) this thread shal have received it's rightful burial.

I've said the last I will say on this matter.

If people want to continue to believe batshit insane theories in the face of all the data that is actually out there and simply recite the untruths and misinformation they've heard as though it was proof, that's fine with me.

Isaac Bartram | April 6, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Correction:

"...this thread will have received it's rightful burial."

The word was not just mispelled it was misused.

Lamar | April 6, 2007, 3:10pm | #

Isaac Bertram:

You have a good point. The WTC didn't melt to the ground, and nobody claims it did. It fell down due to structural compromise. Freakin' Rosie idiots.

Robert | April 6, 2007, 4:44pm | #

Funny, but I was sure Bldg. 7 came down not on 9/11/01 but two days later. I remember its having caused Internet disruptions from that time for about a week afterward.

Timon19 | April 7, 2007, 12:22am | #

Robert,

WTC 7 came down on the day. I remember watching it happen on the teevee, pretty distinctly.

Dave W. | April 9, 2007, 9:24am | #

Then eight hours later the ECC brought down WTC7, because, well, you know, in destroying two of the biggest building in the world ang killing thousands of innocent victims the ECC just hadn't made a powerful enough statement to get the people riled up in patriotic fervor to go fight the war to guarantee the profits that have since been flowing into the coffers of Halliburton and the Carlyle Group.

WTC7 was demolished for safety and insurance reasons. Just like the Murrah Building in Oklahoma. Nor is there anything particularly sinister about the fact that they failed to disclose the demolition. they were just trying to maximize p.r. leverage out of the terrorist attack and got a bit carried away. Same reason, basically, as to why the shoot down of Flight 93 was covered up.

Pro Libertate | April 9, 2007, 5:44pm | #

An allusion to My Bodyguard without anyone mentioning Animal Mother/Jayne Cobb? No wonder Firefly got canceled.

I blame Hit & Run.

lunchstealer | April 9, 2007, 5:56pm | #

Pro Lib, Perhaps you'd have gotten a better response with a "Molly and Roni's Dance Party" reference in one of Radley's police misconduct threads.

Erica | April 10, 2007, 2:02pm | #

You can throw around unfounded acusitory statements all you want, but jet fuel does NOT burn hot enough to melt steel. The simple facts of temperatures:

* 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

The black smoke caused by the fires where the planes hit indicates that the fire was oxygen-starved. LESS oxygen means a COOLER fire.
Both buildings of the WTC were contained a steel core constructed of dozens of columns that acted as a "backbone" for the whole structure. It is physically impossible for ANY fire, no matter how long it burned, to melt ANY portion of this steel core, let alone melt it to the point of collapse.
These buildings collapsed near free-fall speed; WTC 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds and an object dropped from the rooftop would reach the ground in 6 seconds (t=(2H/g)^1/2). If these were "pancake" collapses, as the 9/11 Commission would like us to believe, then as each floor fell, the floor below would impede it's fall, thus slowing the collapse.
This evidence comes from physicists from across the globe, and they are in agreement with each other because, regardless of whether you're a Republicrat or a Demopublican, the NUMBERS don't lie.

If you'd like to call Issac Newton a "conspiracy theorist" because his laws of physics don't support the "official" story, be my guest.
Those of you who try to discredit those with actual HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE are going to feel REALLY stupid in the very near future when this all starts to unravel.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!