Dept. of Labor Economist: 9/11 an "Inside Job"?

Look who isn't buying the government's explanation for the World Trade Center collapse:

Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

Whole Washington Times item here; link via Sploid.

Comments

JonBuck | June 14, 2005, 12:22pm | #

Unbelievable. Apprently science doesn't sway some people. It has to be a Conspiracy.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | June 14, 2005, 12:23pm | #

His hat is made out of more than tinfoil...

kwais | June 14, 2005, 12:23pm | #

There was a dude on a thread a few days ago saying the same thing.

That would be a hard thing to pull off though. Covering it would be hard too, but pulling it off would be really really hard. You would have to have been in on Bin Laden's plans, or Bin Laden would have to have been an agent, and his dudes willing accomplices. You would have to have a group of people that you could trust with the dirtiest of secrets ever to place the explosives.

There is an old mob saying; "three people can keep a secret....when two of them are dead".

That is a tough conspiracy to hold together.

Phil | June 14, 2005, 12:27pm | #

Let's see . . . the opinion of scores of professional engineers, architects, and trained investigators, or a labor economist . . . who to believe in a situation involving buildings being knocked over? It's so complicated! Can't the Moonie Times just decide for me?

Shannon Love | June 14, 2005, 12:28pm | #

Boy, the Aggies are going to have a hard time living this one down.

I am impressed, however, that economist these days can also serve as structural engineers.

Jennifer | June 14, 2005, 12:29pm | #

I first heard this particular conspiracy theory a couple years back, and while I don't believe it the videos my tinfoil friend sent me (which mostly focused on the Pentagon, with some WTC flavoring) DID seem to raise some odd questions. Of course, I know next to nothing about engineering.

spritey | June 14, 2005, 12:38pm | #

People who were working at the towers long before 9/11 have testified that they witnessed crews of men working for months in the buildings . . . .refusing employees access to specific areas all the while refusing to identify themselves when asked to do so.

Those same areas were also designated by experts in demolition as the exact areas where it would be necessary to plant and wire explosives to bring the buildings down.

Connecting the dots isn't just for kids.

matt | June 14, 2005, 12:40pm | #

For those interested, the entire article was on LRC a few days ago. Here's the URL:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Native NYer | June 14, 2005, 12:47pm | #

Wow, spritey, do you have any links for that?

I know people who worked at the twin towers (some who made it and some who didn't) and I never heard that story before.

MP | June 14, 2005, 12:49pm | #

Hot damn...this one is rich. OK, Mr. Smartypants Reynolds, why the heck did they bother flying two planes into the buildings if they were just going to blow them up anyhow? Was blowing them up some sort of backup plan? Looks like the Texas sun has fried your brain, Mr. Smartypants Reynolds.

Jennifer | June 14, 2005, 12:50pm | #

Spritley-
The thing is, I have no problem whatsoever believing that our government (not just this administration, tho' they'd be more likely) would stage an attack and kill citizens in order to have an excuse to invade various countries and clamp down on civil liberties. My probelm with this conspiracy is that the details seem too unbelievable. It's one thing to believe Muslim terrorists would kill themselves for the chance to stick it to America or get to paradise, but to kill themselves to help an American conspiracy? And as for the theory that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane. . .well, the videos I've seen looked compelling (Google "pentalawn" for a Cliff's notes version), but that doesn't answer the obvious question of what the hell happened to the plane?

Thomas Paine's Goiter | June 14, 2005, 12:50pm | #

Those same areas were also designated by experts in demolition as the exact areas where it would be necessary to plant and wire explosives to bring the buildings down.

You believe that the gubament shot a missle at the Pentagon, rather than a plane hitting it, don't you?

Phil | June 14, 2005, 12:55pm | #

See, where these conspiracy freaks really get into trouble is when they get into implying that there were no planes really involved at all. (It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed") . . . Adding to the suspicious nature of the small aperture in WTC 1 is that some vertical gaps in the columns on the left side of the northeast hole were so short, probably less than three feet (p. 105) high (p. 27). Not much of a jumbo jet could pass through such an opening, especially since a fuel-laden plane would not minimize its frontal area. . . . The hole in the North Tower also is suspicious because it did not even have a continuous opening at the perimeter, but instead contained substantial WTC material (p. 27) just left of center (pp. 62, 105). This material appears integral to that area, so it did not move much, suggesting minimal displacement and no clean penetration by a jumbo jet. . . .
Adding to the problems of the official theory is the fact that photos of the North Tower hole show no evidence of a plane either. There is no recognizable wreckage or plane parts at the immediate crash site. While the issue probably takes us too far afield, the landing wheel assembly that allegedly flew out of the North Tower and was found several streets away could easily have been planted by FEMA or other government agents. I’ve never seen any objective analysis of this wheel assembly though it would be welcome. In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. )

OK, smart guys, you've got four planes' worth of dead people to explain. Where are they? Where's Barbara Olsen? Steve Push was one of my co-worker's business prospects, and he met with him frequently. Where's his wife? Where's Todd Beamer?

Thomas Paine's Goiter | June 14, 2005, 1:00pm | #

*SIGH*

And as for the theory that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane. . .well, the videos I've seen looked compelling (Google "pentalawn" for a Cliff's notes version), but that doesn't answer the obvious question of what the hell happened to the plane?



http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

PapayaSF | June 14, 2005, 1:00pm | #

MP nails it. Occam's Razor takes down this theory quite easily: if it were true, then why bother with the whole hijacking thing? Just blow up the buildings and blame terrorists.

(I think it also applies to most JFK assassination theories, too. If there was a huge conspiracy in the government, including covering up/faking the autopsy, then why not just have an insider slip something into his coffee one morning and claim he died of a heart attack? What's the point of the added risk and difficulty of recruiting gunmen to do it in public?)

And then there's the little detail of all the video footage of the towers going down: they clearly collapsed first at the floors where the planes hit.

The Great Ape | June 14, 2005, 1:00pm | #

3 things come to mind:

1) There are far too many variables involoved with a huge, fuel-filled plane and zero vision on the inside for these conspiracy theorists to truly be as half-way confident as they sound.

2) Bush was likely going to go after Saddam before 9/11.

3) Spritey, that is weaker than the Michael Jackson case.

friendofliberty | June 14, 2005, 1:01pm | #

Phil,

Where are they?

maybe they were "disapeared" as "enemy combatants". The US government has been seizing people with no judicial process the past 4 years. These people can not contact anyone, no one knows where they are.

Stretch | June 14, 2005, 1:01pm | #

Well, I saw the second plane hit from my office window, so I can guarantee that at least one plane flew into a tower.

And from the Department of Hearsay, a friend of mine in the AF swears that the PA plane was shot down, which only makes sense.

Jennifer | June 14, 2005, 1:01pm | #

No need to sigh, Tom--I've already said that I don't believe it AND that my lack of engineering knowledge is a large factor. Chill.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | June 14, 2005, 1:04pm | #

No need to sigh, Tom--I've already said that I don't believe it AND that my lack of engineering knowledge is a large factor. Chill.

No offense meant towards you, 8675309. I'm just sick of hearing about this stuff.

There were so many eyewitnesses to all of these events and the conspiracy whackjobs have to ignore all of them, PLUS science to make an argument. And there are many gullible people out there in cyberspace that read shit like this as take it as fact.

Tim Cavanaugh | June 14, 2005, 1:04pm | #

but that doesn't answer the obvious question of what the hell happened to the plane?

Where was David Copperfield at the time?

Phil | June 14, 2005, 1:05pm | #

Where are they?

maybe they were "disapeared" as "enemy combatants".

Right. The Bush Administration seized its own Solicitor General's wife -- one of the most visible administration mouthpieces on TV -- and threw her in Gitmo. And landed four planes somewhere, unseen by human eyes, and took all the rest of them too.

Can I get a non-crazy answer, please?

Jennifer | June 14, 2005, 1:09pm | #

Tom-
True, but the point I was trying to make is that for people who weren't eyewitnesses to the attack and don't have any engineering knowledge, the flashpoint videos and other stuff out there on the Web certainly look compelling.

There's also the fact that, to paraphrase Voltaire, "If 9-11 hadn't happened, the government would have had to invent it;" considering all the bullshit policies which have been pushed through using 9-11 as an excuse, I sometimes think that if Bush had the chance to go back in time and stop the attacks he wouldn't, because they've just been too politically useful to him. No 9-11-no Patriot Act. No invasion of Iraq (which he'd been wanting to do since he got elected). No 'enemy combatants' and ability to lock up American citizens without charges or trial. So I can see why some people beyond the usual round of conspiracy nuts believe this stuff.

Native NYer | June 14, 2005, 1:13pm | #

In regards to the lewrockwell article:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/fema.htm

This snopes article refutes the claim that FEMA was in Manhattan on 9/10.

My wife's cousin's husband Oreo Palmer made it up to the 78th floor in Building 2 before the collapse (ran up the stairs. He was a marathon runner and an Iron man racer and a really great guy who gone way before his time) and was in radio contact with the brass while he and another guy (Bucca?) started to put out the fires. His transmissions indicated there was a fire in the building.

I personally know two people who say they saw the jets fly into the buildings that morning.

I personally saw the collapse of Tower 2 and had to walk home 14 miles.

If there was a conspiracy then I hope whoever set it up is hung from a tall tree after being tarred and feathered. I must admit I've wondered myself about how neatly this attack fit into the PNAC document (is that actually real?) but I truly do not believe that there were only bombs, there were definitely jets.

dhex | June 14, 2005, 1:16pm | #

"Just blow up the buildings and blame terrorists."

better yet, blow up the planes on the tarmac.

far more cost effective.

as much as i peripherally enjoy the david icke/alex jones continuum, i do have to wonder if they're in on the joke or serious.

kwais | June 14, 2005, 1:23pm | #

You can't keep a conspiracy that big.

I think that one of the reasons that this conspiracy pops up is that we want to think that our government is so strong and able, that foreigners can't come in and upset our security. That we know what is dangerous out there and what isn't, and we don't want to accept new dangers easily.

There is the desire to think that our government is powerfull and able and is watching and in charge.

The same with the Kennedy assasination.

If you want to see a cover up, read up on the USS liberty. That was one ship in the middle of the sea, and the government was unable to keep that on the downlow. The only help they got was that people don't care.

Strech,
I heard the same thing. That is one guy that had to shoot the plane down, (plus the guy that gave him the order, and those above him) and he is not keeping his mouth shut.

independent worm | June 14, 2005, 1:23pm | #

There is an old mob saying; "three people can keep a secret....when two of them are dead".

Damn! What does it say about NINETEEN people? Even if you accept the official story hook line and sinker, you have to accept a conspiracy by at least the 19 hijackers, and probably Moussaoui, and anybody else the govt said helped them out. Whoa dude! Like, put your tin foil hat away and stuff!

So disclaim all the tinfoil hats you want. You have to believe in SOME kind of "crazy conspiracy", unless you believe Sept 11 was the work of 19 "lone nuts" with no knowledge of one another, who spontaneously decided to hijack four planes all at the same time.

That is a tough conspiracy to hold together.

A couple giant piles of rubble says it ain't as hard as you think. SOMEBODY brought those buildings down; looks like at least 19 people involved. Their success directly refutes the pollyannish "you can't have more than 2 people in a conspiracy" meme.

SPD | June 14, 2005, 1:24pm | #

This topic bears a faint resemblance to that of conspiracists who claim Roosevelt knew beforehand about the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to proceed in order to finally give him an excuse to declare war on the Axis powers.

As with this, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Kennedy assassination, and September 11, there are many theories with a kernels of truth hidden here and there. The trouble is that people believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest.

Shawn Smith | June 14, 2005, 1:27pm | #

I guess he never saw (or doesn't believe) these articles from a few months ago: Popular Mechanics: Editor's Notes: The 9/11 Lies Are Out There and Popular Mechanics: Debunking the 9/11 Myths - March 2005 Cover Story.

I wonder why people, not just this economist, would find it necessary to bring these points up. Does it give them some sense of control in a world that they otherwise have no sense of control? Does it help them to believe they have "inside information" and are part of a privileged class? I just don't get it.

another eyewitness | June 14, 2005, 1:30pm | #

Rockwell and these other conspiracy theorists and "true believers" make me sick. Play politics all you want fellas, but at the point at which you disregard the people who actually died that day, I say enough.

How short a memory this country has.

matt | June 14, 2005, 1:31pm | #

"...but I truly do not believe that there were only bombs, there were definitely jets."

I agree.

I just remembered reading that article the other day and thinking about how some stuff just didn't seem to add up in the official story. But I'm no expert, and neither are most people commenting on one side or the other. That said, a conspiracy wouldn't surprise me all that much.

kwais | June 14, 2005, 1:31pm | #

Also, if you have explosives and wiring in a place where there is going to be fires, that is kind of complicated. I haven't worked with all kinds of explosives, but all the explosives that I have worked with either burn quickly when they get really hot, or they blow up. If you let the explosives blow up in reaction to a blaze, you are not going to have them go off in the appropriate sequence.

I dont' know, it is just way complicated when as mentioned earlier there is a simpler way to do it.

Daniel | June 14, 2005, 1:33pm | #

I suppose every administration has its version of Ramsey Clarke.

quasibill | June 14, 2005, 1:38pm | #

I'll take the bow (more likely tomatoes) for bringing this up the other day on another thread after it was posted on LRC. Like I said then, it brought back to the surface a discussion I had with LSS engineers immediately after the attacks (they were interested to find out the mechanics, because if it were that easy to demolish LSS in place that fast, a lot of re-working of demolition theory had to be done). So it got me a little excited when the dots connected a little.

But then I came back to earth and realized that while blowing stuff up is the only thing government is good at, the conspiracy side of this would be impossible even for this secrecy obsessed administration. So, no, I don't at this time buy the story about explosives etc. But there are some questions about the situation which are unanswered, and as long as they are, I'm going to admit that, while highly improbable, the scenario isn't impossible.

And BTW, I don't know about "thousands of engineers, scientists, etc." - very few people outside the government team were given access to the evidence. So I've only seen 1 team of engineers and scientists come to the publicly accepted conclusion. I'm still a little bit iffy on the conclusion ... well because it is the product of only a government study (see above for why I wouldn't trust a government run study).

kwais | June 14, 2005, 1:42pm | #

"Damn! What does it say about NINETEEN people? "

It is one thing to plan something and carry it out and surprise a lot of people. It is another thing entirely to pull off a big job and keep a secret as to who pulled it off and how. To have people who are alive keep from running their mouths after the fact.

SPD | June 14, 2005, 1:44pm | #

To me, the question isn't how it happened. The question is, what did the Clinton and Bush administrations know about the plot, when did they know it, and did they try to do anything to stop it?

Brian Courts | June 14, 2005, 1:44pm | #

And from the Department of Hearsay, a friend of mine in the AF swears that the PA plane was shot down, which only makes sense.

No it doesn't. An airplane that is shot down would leave a trail of debris for miles. Wreckage would be shed first from the massive damage caused by the missile strike, but then as the airplane starts to tumble out of control it would likely continue to break up from aerodynamic loads. The result of all this would have been pieces of 757 spread across the Pennsylvania countryside instead of, as actually happened, all the wreckage being confined to a very small area.

Doc | June 14, 2005, 1:51pm | #

Wonder how many consipracy's these people believe at the same time?

Do 9/11 tin-foil hatters also believe that landing on the moon was faked? What's the overlap in demographics?

My brother...a lawyer!...is on the moon conspiracy team. *sigh*

Vache Folle | June 14, 2005, 1:52pm | #

Hurray for the conspiracy theorists, say I! I want to see everything questioned. Those of you who are too quick to put tin foil hats on others seem a little too suspiciously willing to support the official version.

jenn | June 14, 2005, 1:52pm | #

There doesn't have to have been bombs for there to be a conspiracy. It could've happened just like the government says, and STILL have been a conspiracy. Obviously, it was a conspiracy for the hijackers, THEY kept a secret just fine up until 9/11.
The conspiracy couldn't have been as blatant as these people are saying, but it IS possible that our government was involved, even to the highest levels.
We need to realize that yes, our leaders WOULD murder people to get their own way, it is extremely naive of us not to assume so.
So while these people are exactly logical, reasonable, or educated enough to decipher what happened that day, we need to encourage questioning of what the party line is saying on the subject.
Its a very American thing to do.

Sandy | June 14, 2005, 1:55pm | #

I think the psychology is that people would rather believe that a Big Evil takes a Big Cause. I.E., a US President being assasinated would take the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the KGB, the elders of Zion, and, um, the Chippewa.

Therefore, to get two Great Big Buildings down, it would take the entire US Government, plus the aforementioned. And, um, the, uh, Navajo. Yeah. Languages without verb tenses are necessary. Somehow.

Plus there's the Galileo Effect, of being the One Who Is Right And Flouts Authority. Of course, if they really believed it, they'd keep their traps shut the way I did about 3 Mile Is~~~~~NO CARRIER~~~~~

Kurt | June 14, 2005, 1:55pm | #

What I find difficult about this conspiracy theory is the claim that no airplanes were involved. The Newyorkers who saw the "event" very clearly saw a plane hit each tower. We all saw that on the TV. This is rather hard to explain away.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 1:57pm | #

Brian,
How do you know the wreckage was confined to a small area? Did somebody tell you that?

Daniel | June 14, 2005, 1:58pm | #

Brian Courts-
I know it can sometimes be hard to detect when in written form, but I believe Stretch was being sarcastic. (Right Stretch?)

Brian Courts | June 14, 2005, 2:03pm | #

David,

Well, the pictures, the eye-witness accounts, no farmers coming forward to show off pieces of airplane in their field, etc. If you want to discredit this, fine, show me some evidence. Did they get to all the Pennsylvania farmers with wreckage in their fields and hush them up too? Are they in Gitmo? Hey, I'm all for questioning the official story of anything, and I'm the last person to trust the government on anything, but you have to have some reasonable evidence and not just throw out baseless claims.

Brian Courts | June 14, 2005, 2:05pm | #

Daniel,

I'm not so sure, but if so, then I apologize to stretch for thinking otherwise. It is hard to tell.

gys44 | June 14, 2005, 2:09pm | #

The reason I could see a need for both demolishing the WTCs and crashing into them is demolishing them alone wouldn't point to dead people like Atta and the other accomplices, whereas crashing into the WTC on suicide missions directly implicates people on the plane.

I'm not a conspiracist by any stretch but always have a healthy skepticism for the claimed truth of events.

kwais | June 14, 2005, 2:10pm | #

"To me, the question isn't how it happened. The question is, what did the Clinton and Bush administrations know about the plot, when did they know it, and did they try to do anything to stop it?"

I still think that for the presidents to know of the event to take place, planned by foreigners, there would still be too many Americans knowing about it to keep it secret.

Chris | June 14, 2005, 2:10pm | #

If the US gub'mint staged the WTC attacks itself, why did it blame OBL instead of Saddam? Why not stage the 9/11 evidence to blame Saddam? GWB wanted Saddam and (as shown) is now trying very hard to find OBL.

blammo | June 14, 2005, 2:11pm | #

The Jesuits did it.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 2:15pm | #

Brian,
I don't know if the PA plane was shot down. I think there is only a 33.3333% chance that that is really what happened.
As far as the collection of wreckage, I think it is conceivable that the government folks with the yellow tape got to all pieces of the wreckage before the farmers. I also think it is conceivable that the farmers were told to be discreet and that the farmers complied with such a request.
I certainly haven't met or heard about any farmer coming forward and saying, "gee, I was right near the crash, but no government agents visited my land or me."

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 2:18pm | #

More to Brian:
not sure what your reference to pictures of teh PA plane means. If you mean that there was too much fuselage in the proximity of the crash site, my response is that it would depend on the manner in which the plane was shot down.

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 2:19pm | #

I don't suppose this Reynolds guy is a Moonie, is he?

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 2:21pm | #

"The reason I could see a need for both demolishing the WTCs and crashing into them is demolishing them alone wouldn't point to dead people like Atta and the other accomplices, whereas crashing into the WTC on suicide missions directly implicates people on the plane."

Bombs would be sufficient. Or have you forgotten the attempted truck bombing of the WTC?

Akira MacKenzie | June 14, 2005, 2:24pm | #

Vache Folle:

Why does your brother not believe in the moon landing?

If he gives you some bogus reason, point him here

gys44 | June 14, 2005, 2:25pm | #

Jon, you're missing the point. It is not the sufficiency with which the towers could be brought down, that is beyond question -- it's the ability to implicate individuals in that act.

Don | June 14, 2005, 2:28pm | #

No it doesn't. An airplane that is shot down would leave a trail of debris for miles. Wreckage would be shed first from the massive damage caused by the missile strike, but then as the airplane starts to tumble out of control it would likely continue to break up from aerodynamic loads. The result of all this would have been pieces of 757 spread across the Pennsylvania countryside instead of, as actually happened, all the wreckage being confined to a very small area.

Brian, Brian, Brian. The F-16 pilot shot the guy flying the 757 in the head with his 9mm pistol.

gys44 | June 14, 2005, 2:30pm | #

Jon - In other words, both demolition and hijacking would need to be done. The problem with demolition alone is it doesn't directly implicate individuals, while the problem with hijacking alone is assuming the planes alone could not bring down the towers, demolition would be needed to do so.

On the flip side, this is the only lead I think the conspiracists have at this point. Everything else is very weak.

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 2:31pm | #

"Jon, you're missing the point. It is not the sufficiency with which the towers could be brought down, that is beyond question -- it's the ability to implicate individuals in that act."

No, you're missing the point. The first WTC bombing was prosecuted. The implication of individuals did not require the deaths of the perpetrators, let alone planeloads of innocents.

It just required a VIN number and a rental truck agency's records. Those shouldn't be too hard for the government to fake.

Mac Daddy Hoon | June 14, 2005, 2:31pm | #

David,

Have you ever seen a plane shot down? I have. I saw a QF-4 Phantom hit with an ATM-7P Sparrow missile. (The T in the designation means that the missile was a test missile that carried a telemetry package for downloading guidance information during the test flight instead of a warhead. Other than this difference, the missile was identical to a regular AIM-7P Sparrow missile; e.g. same rocket, same guidance system, etc.) The test missle hit the target drone dead on and the fireball and debris pattern were huge. I was prepared for it and it still took me by surprise. If an airliner was shot down by a live missile with a warhead, the damage would be even greater and the debris pattern would probably cover scores, if not hundreds, of square miles. There is absolutely no evidence that this occurred with the PA crash.

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 2:32pm | #

"Brian, Brian, Brian. The F-16 pilot shot the guy flying the 757 in the head with his 9mm pistol."

No, Jesus held the debris together until impact, so that his messenger on Earth, George W. Bush, would not be inconvenienced.

Don | June 14, 2005, 2:32pm | #

Do 9/11 tin-foil hatters also believe that landing on the moon was faked? What's the overlap in demographics?

Seems quite a few Europeans belief both.

Tinfoil man | June 14, 2005, 2:33pm | #

Many of the 911 conspiracy theories are pretty dubious, and fall apart under the principles of Occams's razor. One thing still remains unaswered:

How the hell did WTC7 collapse. OK, the WTC 1 and 2 had jet fuel fires intitating an internal collapse. Fair enough.

WTC 7 was another steel frame building. No jets hit it. No raging fires burned for hours. At worst, it was near the debris of the WTC collapses, but that would not take the entire building down in one fell swoop.

Seeing WTC 7 collapse on 9/11 - for no good reason - in what looked exactly like a controlled demoliton has always made me keep an open mind towards the kook theories on the topic.

gaius marius | June 14, 2005, 2:33pm | #

you know, we see the currency this tripe holds in the popular mind -- but then insist that the market, made up entirely of these identical people, is rational. lol...

anyway, what the conspiracy buffs should remember is that events can be spun into what the conspirators desire. there's no need to plot; take advantage of what happens.

the reichstag fire -- did the nazis really set it? no one knows and it doesn't matter. the important part is that the event became the pretense for manifesting nazi ideology and ending the weimar republic with the enabling act. the event was totally secondary -- a building burned down. happens all the time. spinning that into a paranoid delusion of fear and chaos had nothing to do with the event, but was all-important.

pompey's pirates -- did they really threaten to destroy the roman republic. it doesn't matter. interests in rome ensured that it resulted in pompey being given the legal authority to put a massive army in the field indefinitely without territorial restriction.

similarly with 9/11 -- did the government destroy the buildings? i deeply doubt it. but the event is completely secondary -- really is an afterthought now. the reaction to it is where the political con job came in; it became pretense to rewrite and reinterpret entire sections of the law and ages of precedent in policy in favor of an authoritarian universal state.

gys44 | June 14, 2005, 2:35pm | #

You're assuming the gov't is the only other culprit.

Don | June 14, 2005, 2:37pm | #

I sometimes think that if Bush had the chance to go back in time and stop the attacks he wouldn't, because they've just been too politically useful to him. No 9-11-no Patriot Act. No invasion of Iraq (which he'd been wanting to do since he got elected). No 'enemy combatants' and ability to lock up American citizens without charges or trial.

Prior to 9/11, the Bush administration was moving in a very different direction, with little apparent interest in forign policy and more interest in opening up Alaska for oil drilling, removing crappy Clinton EOs (like the drinking water/arsnic regulations), tax cuts, and talk of SS reform. Either the Bush admin was making a very clever ploy to fool everyone, or else they just wern't interested in the things you think they were. And only one of those answers makes sense.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 2:38pm | #

Mac Daddy Hoon,
If a missile did bring down the other plane, it would have had to have been a different type of missile than the one you observed. If the US indeed has less obtrusive missiles, designed for this type of intrigue, then I will guarantee you two things: you would have no way of knowing about them and neither would I.

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 2:39pm | #

"Either the Bush admin was making a very clever ploy to fool everyone, or else they just wern't interested in the things you think they were."

Well, we know he had a "come to Jesus" moment at one point in his life.

Maybe 9/11 was his "come to Stalin" moment.

Phil | June 14, 2005, 2:42pm | #

Those of you who are too quick to put tin foil hats on others seem a little too suspiciously willing to support the official version.

Given that I am personally acquainted with more than a dozen people who sat at their desks in Crystal City or Arlington and watched an airplane hit the Pentagon -- including a former co-worker who was in her car on 395 right next to the damned impact site -- it does not require me to take a great leap of imagination.

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 2:46pm | #

David, it's not a matter of being a "different kind of missile".

If the missile were very delicate in effect, it wouldn't bring down the plane. It might knock out an engine, but planes are built to run on one engine. It might knock a hole in the fuselage, but planes can land in that state. So, basically, a missile such as you posit would at most cause a controlled crash landing, where the pilots would be slowing down. There'd be no reason for it to hit as fast as it did.

The high-speed impact that occurred suggests a controlled flight into the ground, not an attempted landing, nor a disintegration.

norton | June 14, 2005, 2:49pm | #

You're assuming the gov't is the only other culprit.

Right! It's the Joos! THE JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!!!

gys44 | June 14, 2005, 2:50pm | #

I'm Jewish. Lol but that's funny norton.

John Smith | June 14, 2005, 2:52pm | #

The question you have to ask yourself is why would Morgan Reynolds make such an accusation? He was a Bush appointee in the first adminstration. He works at an institution that generally is conservative and supports the policies of President Bush. We must conclude, he is either off his rocker or he appears to know something more than what the public knows. It will be very telling how he is received by the Media. Will they label him a whistleblower or a nut. Look for the official media to discredit him and adhere to the "Official Explanation." They always do. There is no such thing as a conspiracy according to the Media. Yet Lincoln was assassinated by a conspiracy. Kennedy was likely assasinated by a conspiracy. Watergate was a conspiracy, etc. Yet conspiracies are always discredited by the media. What is the harm in re-examining the evidence of the destruction of the WTC by experts who are not employed by the U.S. Government or the City and State of New York?

R C Dean | June 14, 2005, 2:53pm | #

David W. is a great example of a tinfoil-hatter. Every refutation just serves as the seed of more support for his conspiracy. Now we are talking about super-secret missiles that can somehow inflict fatal damage on a plane without causing any debris to fall off.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 2:53pm | #

Jon H,
I don't think it is an impossible technology challenge to make a missile that brings down the plane without making a huge mess. The possibility that occurred to one of the above posters is that the missile could focus on damaging the cockpit. People who know more about jumbo jets than you or I do would probably have even better ideas.
If a missile were designed to bring down a hi-jacked jumbo jet, minimizing damage would be a natural concern, even if no coverups were planned at the time this hypothetical missile would have been designed and produced.

smart ass in the back row | June 14, 2005, 2:54pm | #

Welllll...

I know missiles are in vogue right now, but what if a fighter used a quick burst with his guns to knock out the engines? I've got to believe that would be like shooting fish in a barrel (easily for a trained pilot, I mean), and the plane would stay mostly in one piece, wouldn't it?

Actually, it seems to me that the loss of even one engine would probably be fatal if an unskilled pilot was at the controls of the airliner.

gys44 | June 14, 2005, 2:56pm | #

Gotta say the thing I'm most surprised about is that this news article was posted on the Reason site.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 2:56pm | #

Correction for RCD:
I said that I think there is a 33% chance that the plane was shot down. So, I am one third tinfoil hatter and two thirds normal person. I don't buy into any of that no planes stuff. Also, LIHOP seems possible (1/3 tfh) but not proven (2/3 normal person).

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 2:57pm | #

" The possibility that occurred to one of the above posters is that the missile could focus on damaging the cockpit. "

It'd probably be like that golfer's plane, and it would just fly at the right altitude until it ran out of fuel. That's not what happened.

Don | June 14, 2005, 2:59pm | #

Seeing WTC 7 collapse on 9/11 - for no good reason - in what looked exactly like a controlled demoliton has always made me keep an open mind towards the kook theories on the topic.

Why would the .gov bother blowing up WTC 7? I understand the motive for 1 & 2, but why do more? Specially w/o adding to the casualty roll?

WTC 7 caught fire, and contained a considerable quantity of diesel fuel. As far as falling within its footprint, it is my understanding that large structures tend to fall in that manner.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:00pm | #

Jon H,
Why do you think that you have to blow up an entire plane to take out its electricity or auto pilot?

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 3:01pm | #

"I know missiles are in vogue right now, but what if a fighter used a quick burst with his guns to knock out the engines? "

A "quick burst of his guns" would actually require two, and each burst would probably spray the wings or fuselage with some hits also, depending on the angle of attack.

It would have taken time for the plane to crash afterwards, and it would have been kinda obvious to the passengers, who would have been able to report it via their cellphones.

Which didn't happen.

The only way the passengers would have been unable to report being shot down would be if the plane disintegrated immediately. Which didn't happen.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:01pm | #

Anyway, I still find it suspicious that the tapes of communications with the plane haven't been made public and that they gave the victim's families such a hard time about hearing the tapes.

Mac | June 14, 2005, 3:02pm | #

I will make no further comments off topic, but David, get a grip. Exactly what kind of missile could defy physics and make a shoot-down look like a crash? Never mind the physical impossibility of such a missile, how many airliners do you think the government shoots down so that such a weapon is needed?

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:03pm | #

Neutron bomb.

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 3:04pm | #

"Why do you think that you have to blow up an entire plane to take out its electricity or auto pilot?"

If the missile does too much damage, the plane would probably tumble and disintegrate. If it only kills the crew, then it'll take a while to crash. Or the autopilot might still be on.

In any case, the passengers did not report a grenade-like blast in the cockpit, did they?

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 3:05pm | #

"Neutron bomb."

Or maybe it was an attack by the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.

Native NYer | June 14, 2005, 3:06pm | #

Those pesky Orbital Mind Control Lasers again!!!

Stretch | June 14, 2005, 3:06pm | #

"No it doesn't. An airplane that is shot down would leave a trail of debris for miles. Wreckage would be shed first from the massive damage caused by the missile strike, but then as the airplane starts to tumble out of control it would likely continue to break up from aerodynamic loads. The result of all this would have been pieces of 757 spread across the Pennsylvania countryside instead of, as actually happened, all the wreckage being confined to a very small area."

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I meant it makes sense that the gov't would shoot down the plane over the PA countryside rather than let it hit the White House or some other important/populated area. I didn't mean that it makes sense from the wreckage debris, of which I have no knowledge.

Richard | June 14, 2005, 3:07pm | #

Anyone here have any expertise in accident reconstruction or demolition?

If you do, SPEAK LOUDLY SO THAT THE ASSHAT TINFOILS CAN HEAR YOU. For Fuck's Sake people, Morgan Reynolds is an ECONOMIST. If he has any background in ENGINEERING, then I might consider him a quack rather than a jackass unless other ENGINEERS agreed with him after analyzing the buildings' blueprints, materials, soil samples, and explosives.

But then I am a bit of a jackass myself and enjoy wholeheartedly listening to crazy fiction. Of course, it livens my day to know that P.T. Barnum was not just talking about people alive during the 1800's when he observed that the public liked to be "humbugged."

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:09pm | #

In any case, the passengers did not report a grenade-like blast in the cockpit, did they?
Understand that the victim's families are under government instructions as to what they may and may not reveal to the public. This victim's families themselves have said that there are limits on what they are allowed to disclose to the public.

Don | June 14, 2005, 3:10pm | #

but what if a fighter used a quick burst with his guns to knock out the engines?

The vulcan cannon is 20 mm and fires 100 rounds a second. Even one hit would result in engine parts all over the place . . .

As far as missles, they tend to be heat seaking, radar guided, or wire guided. They also contain quite a bit of force: planes can be difficult to shoot down. If you "tailer" a missle to minimize their effect, you also increase the risk of not taking the aircraft down when you hit it.

In any case, it is well known that our military was willing to take out civilian airlines that day. Unarmed F-16s were prepared to ram hijacked planes. So why hide it if one was shot down?

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:10pm | #

Now neutron bombs are a paranoid fantasy. Gosh, I didn't know.

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 3:11pm | #

"Understand that the victim's families are under government instructions as to what they may and may not reveal to the public. This victim's families themselves have said that there are limits on what they are allowed to disclose to the public."

I see. So what you're saying is that the plane was destroyed by The Hulk?

smacky | June 14, 2005, 3:11pm | #

You can't keep a conspiracy that big..... (elipses mine)


...unless you're part of a secret brotherhood or other such secret society.

free form | June 14, 2005, 3:11pm | #

Wow, I am so out of the loop. This is the first I've heard of this conspiracy theory. Let me tell you, I am one cynical individual. But even I would not believe GW would have/could have either masterminded this--hell, I don't even think the Cheney/Rumsfeld team is THAT evil. And I cannot believe for a moment that even they would allow that to happen to thousands of Americans just to support a mideast war.

Wow. I feel really mentally healthy.

Don | June 14, 2005, 3:12pm | #

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I meant it makes sense that the gov't would shoot down the plane over the PA countryside rather than let it hit the White House or some other important/populated area.

Something they in fact admitted they were willing to do. See my previous post . . .

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:15pm | #

Don,
If the plane was shot down, and I am not saying it definitely was, the reason for the coverup is thae same as the reason that the President was allowed to keep reading My Pet Goat as the towers fell. Simple bad judgement by people who should know better.

Don | June 14, 2005, 3:15pm | #

Now neutron bombs are a paranoid fantasy. Gosh, I didn't know.

Neutron bombs also produce a large explosion, but they are designed to maximize radiation and have a relatively small explosion compared to conventional nuclear weapons.

It is a myth that neutron bombs kill people while leaving everything intact.

smacky | June 14, 2005, 3:16pm | #

free form,

Maybe the war in the Middle East was not the only motive. It's easy to be cynical when you assume things about people's motives.

Don | June 14, 2005, 3:17pm | #

Actually, I think the pres reading My Pet Goat showed calm and composure. Perhaps he should have ran out yelling for his old F-102 to be pulled out of mothballs so he, too, could shoot at airliners.

R C Dean | June 14, 2005, 3:18pm | #

Wow. I feel really mentally healthy.

I often have that feeling after catching up on a Reason comments thread. Oddly, though, I feel kind of . . . dirty, at the same time.

The fact that we have a former DOL economist spouting this stuff makes you feel real good about what's going on in the DOL, though, doesn't it?

Vanya | June 14, 2005, 3:19pm | #

OK, just to raise the conspiracy stakes a notch. Why is this article in the Mooney Times? Aren't they loyal lapdogs of the administration? Maybe they're changing the story on purpose. The American public seems to be losing faith in our war in Iraq, and we still don't have Bin Laden. Maybe the Administration has decided that Muslim Fundamentalists are just a pain in the ass and that we need new enemies to fight. We'll probably be hearing soon that Hilary Clinton, Paul Krugman and a liberal/gay cabal actually blew up the WTC. That story will allow Bush to start arresting his real enemies and let the Saudis and Iraqis get back to pumping oil.

GILMORE | June 14, 2005, 3:20pm | #

Hi,

Maybe I'm lost = I was looking for a magazine called "REASON"? .... anyone know where it went? I seem to remember it being around here somewhere...

For god's sake. What does it take for people to swallow the fact that the reason most conspiracies dont work is because the majority of people are just as dumb and selfish as you are?

I would have thought Reason readers the least likely people to waste their time on wank-offs like this.

I think the trade center was probably destroyed by a conspiracy of danish architects, frankly.

JG

p.s. FWIW, I saw the first plane hit. I wasnt looking when the second one came in. Maybe that was when they snookered me.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:20pm | #

Correction to Don:
the neutron boms you know about operate in the manner that you say. the neutron bombs you don't know about may operate very differently.

free form | June 14, 2005, 3:23pm | #

Yeah, there's that thing about the entire nation watching the second plane hit. Is CNN in on the conspiracy?

gys44 | June 14, 2005, 3:23pm | #

The fact that we have a former DOL economist spouting this stuff makes you feel real good about what's going on in the DOL, though, doesn't it?

Understatement of the year.

joe | June 14, 2005, 3:26pm | #

Is this the Republican Ramsey Clark?

Jon H | June 14, 2005, 3:26pm | #

Maybe the AF hit the plane with a Nude Bomb, and the pilots were too busy chasing the nekkid stewardesses to pay attention and the plane crashed.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | June 14, 2005, 3:27pm | #

WTC 7 was another steel frame building. No jets hit it. No raging fires burned for hours. At worst, it was near the debris of the WTC collapses, but that would not take the entire building down in one fell swoop.





http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

Brian Courts | June 14, 2005, 3:28pm | #

Understand that the victim's families are under government instructions as to what they may and may not reveal to the public. This victim's families themselves have said that there are limits on what they are allowed to disclose to the public.

Correction to Don:
the neutron boms you know about operate in the manner that you say. the neutron bombs you don't know about may operate very differently.

Roflmao, as they say... this has now gone from absurd to surreal. But it is entertaining!

rod | June 14, 2005, 3:29pm | #

I like how GWB is evil enough to perpetrate the WTC disaster, but he won't plant WMD's in Iraq to save his ass.

John M. Joy | June 14, 2005, 3:32pm | #

To those who suggest that a fuel fire couldn't possibly buckle structural steel beams, I offer this.

(Huh. Two posts here today, and both reference Bridgeport. Odd.)

JMJ

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:32pm | #

Saying that the military has mind-blowing weapons that are secret doesn't seem like tin foil hat territory to me. Just because the US no longer publixcizes its new technologies doesn't mean that they stopped coming up with crazy new stuff. Now that doesn't neccessarily mean that they shot the plane down. Still, I don't get these references to Nude Bomb and Evil Mutants. While the secret technology is sure to be mind blowing, I don't think the government would pursue anything as fanciful as the Nude Bomb and genetically engineered soldiers also seems like kind of a remote possibility. However, the goal of making a bomb that disables stuff without destrying it seems like a natural objective for the secret designers who make the secret designs.

independent worm | June 14, 2005, 3:38pm | #

Just because the story doens't necessarily fit the evidence in everyone's eyes, that doesn't mean anyone who questions the evidence is assuming this is GWB's doing.

I think it's a mistake to reflexively dismiss ANY criticism of the official story out of fear that it will make GWB look bad. Most people i know are perfectly capable of questioning evidence without making assumptions about who that evidence indicates.

Rally, there's no reason to think that for example, if it turns out more people were involved, that they had anything to do with GWB. Could be another foreign govt, could be another terrorist group for all anyone knows.

Why fear a further investigation that could lead to the unearthing of what could be other foreign terrorists operating in our country?

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:41pm | #

If they were from Israel or Saudi Arabia or another friendly government then an investigation would be bad because these nations are true friends to the US and it would be a shame to compromise any of these relationships with some kind of truth-finding mission.

mediageek | June 14, 2005, 3:42pm | #

Hurray for the conspiracy theorists, say I! I want to see everything questioned. Those of you who are too quick to put tin foil hats on others seem a little too suspiciously willing to support the official version.

That's because I'm in on it. ;)

Thomas Paine's Goiter | June 14, 2005, 3:45pm | #

the neutron boms you know about operate in the manner that you say. the neutron bombs you don't know about may operate very differently.

So now you have a neutron bomb that only the US government knows about on an air-to-air missle with cockpit-seeking technology, rather than heat seeking technology that just randomly happened to be strapped to the wing of one of the 12 attack fighters at ready on that day?

Guy in the back row | June 14, 2005, 3:46pm | #

This site explains how Flight 93 was shot down but still is in basically one piece:

Deployable High Power Microwave (HPM) Weapons

http://members.fortunecity.com/seismicevent/

Too bad this stuff isn't real!!!

Hobson | June 14, 2005, 3:46pm | #

Reynolds clearly is out of the loop. Any good tinfoiler knows that the au courant conspiracy theory is that Oklahoma City was a CIA/Mossad/Clinton/Bush warm-up for 9/11, and Reynolds doesn't mention it.

rod | June 14, 2005, 3:47pm | #

Independant worm,

In case you were reffering to my comment, I submit that it was a response to this: posted above,

"The thing is, I have no problem whatsoever believing that our government (not just this administration, tho' they'd be more likely) would stage an attack and kill citizens in order to have an excuse to invade various countries and clamp down on civil liberties."


I'm not sure that my comment constitutes "not wanting Bush to look bad" or "fear of an investigation" or whatever else your imagination tells you.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | June 14, 2005, 3:47pm | #

I think it's a mistake to reflexively dismiss ANY criticism of the official story out of fear that it will make GWB look bad. Most people i know are perfectly capable of questioning evidence without making assumptions about who that evidence indicates.

Except that visiting the conspiracy websites shows that 99.9999% of them blame/accuse Bush or the Bush administration.

a | June 14, 2005, 3:49pm | #

Brian Courts:

No it doesn't. An airplane that is shot down would leave a trail of debris for miles.

But that is exactly what happened, according to this CNN article:

Meanwhile, investigators say they've found debris from the crash at least eight miles away from the crash site.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:53pm | #

Clarification:
I said there was only a 33% chance that the plane was shot down at all. Of this 33%, 1% is allocated to the neutron bomb, 1% is allocated to some kind of ramming and 31% is allocated to some type of secret military technology.

Side note to Don: if secret military technology were involved, this would be some reason to cover up the shoot down. I mean the government may not want its enemies to know what it has, and moreover, the (hypothetical) idea that the military planned in advance to shoot down jumbo jets, to the point of developing dedicated weapons, would not have sat well with the government's assertion that it did not plan for 9/11 type events.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:54pm | #

correction: should read: "some type of secret military technology that we are too uncreative to imagine."

John M. Joy | June 14, 2005, 3:55pm | #

For those who may be interested, I've posted some more photos of the I-95 bridge fire in Bridgeport (third post of the day, third Park City reference) here.

Photos are courtesy a good friend, who works as a civil with a local construction company.

JMJ

Brian Courts | June 14, 2005, 3:56pm | #

If they were from Israel...

I guess norton was right - it was the Joos!

So David, what's the next conspiracy theory that you are going to suggest has a 33% chance of being right - that thousands of jewish people who worked in the WTC didn't show up for work on 9/11?

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:57pm | #

No, Brian. I think it was your mom, dude.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 3:59pm | #

and besides, I have already tried to be clear that my tinfoil hatting is limited to Flt 93, not the towers.

Eric the .5b | June 14, 2005, 4:03pm | #

Well, you have to admit that it's pretty good tinfoiling when you say 1% chance of magical neutron bombs that don't work like actual neutron bombs and 32% unknown magical technology.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | June 14, 2005, 4:07pm | #

But that is exactly what happened, according to this CNN article:



http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=8&c=y

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 4:07pm | #

Why is this board so hostile to the idea that the military has weapons we don't know about?

the neutron bomb you are discussing was on the cover of Time Magazine in something like 1977. that is what you are all discussing with such confidence. It is 2005 now. I think the military must have invented something that makes time stand still in y'alls brains -- or maybe you are just waiting for Time Magazine to do an update before you will acknowledge the concept that military technology does not stand still.

joe | June 14, 2005, 4:08pm | #

Look, there are neutron bombs we know about
The known neutron knowns.
Then there are the neutron bombs we know we don't know about
The known neutron unknowns.

Then there are the non-neutron bombs we know we don't know about.

We refer to those as the known non-neutron unknowns.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | June 14, 2005, 4:09pm | #

Well, you have to admit that it's pretty good tinfoiling when you say 1% chance of magical neutron bombs that don't work like actual neutron bombs and 32% unknown magical technology.

This is a reference to the cockpit-seeking guidance system?

Brian Courts | June 14, 2005, 4:10pm | #

David: If they were from Israel...
and,
and besides, I have already tried to be clear that my tinfoil hatting is limited to Flt 93, not the towers.

So if your tinfoil hatting is limited to the issue of the flight 93 crash, what could your reference to Israel possibly have meant? Did they shoot it down? Sure looks like you're tinfoil hatting about a bit more than flight 93.

Eric the .5b | June 14, 2005, 4:13pm | #

This is a reference to the cockpit-seeking guidance system?

No, with regards to his remark:

I said there was only a 33% chance that the plane was shot down at all. Of this 33%, 1% is allocated to the neutron bomb, 1% is allocated to some kind of ramming and 31% is allocated to some type of secret military technology.

Stevo Darkly | June 14, 2005, 4:15pm | #

Those of you who are too quick to put tin foil hats on others seem a little too suspiciously willing to support the official version.

Because that's what the Bush administration secretly pays us to do!

Stop rocking the boat, you guys! I gotta make the rent.

Brian Courts | June 14, 2005, 4:16pm | #

a:But [a trail of debris] is exactly what happened, according to this CNN article

A little context to make that statement less misleading would be nice. Here is what the article says about the debris:

"Investigators later said the debris was all very light material, such as paper and thin nylon the wind would easily blow."

Eric the .5b | June 14, 2005, 4:19pm | #

Why is this board so hostile to the idea that the military has weapons we don't know about?

I'm not hostile to the idea. However, you're demanding that everyone else argue a negative - that we must demonstrate that the US military doesn't have some unknown superweapon that can replicate perfectly explicable circumstances in order to argue that the most likely situation, by far, is the one actually supported by the evidence.

That's classic conspiratorial logic.

David Woycechowsky | June 14, 2005, 4:22pm | #

I can see where you got confused by that reference. Let me break it down for you, real simple:

1. I don't think Israel took down the towers or even helped.

2. Still, an investigation into foreign involvement of the towers collapse could lead to unpleasant revelations that the Israeli government would not want us to dwell on.

3. Therefore, the Israeli government would be expected to oppose an investigation (as would Saudi Arabia and any other nation that would be investigated -- somehow my reference to Saudi Arabia got lost in your ellipsis).

4. Jumping to this thread, a poster said that the US would have no reason to fear an investigation.

5. i then po